.
I. .7

5:33
. m1 5...;
.3 e...

Jtt

r K
01'
II...

:13
n! U‘

z
Amara
.wn

.fihai.
83.3.. as“.
3 .Wu H!

‘ Hg
“may“?

2. no“ .‘Il’n'd
«numifi» ,m .3
ivsflfigr ,1... 54.3
‘ . , a.
Slui.

.F

l
Hafiz?

:
I

i

. .175 \Iicl.
“gig?
‘ \ a... “Sn-$uiuufihpih
aarP‘m..w‘3: . x... .
km £315,953;
viii? 51.9:
hr... x sugha...
3.33.. . 2
«9.3.. . .5».
.31.!
dyad}. .1
.vd..3¥...n\ia€.n. a.

. a. 5- 1.1”! V}?
in... .R.‘ a?! {I}...
A .‘I a. . In ‘3

 

oxiv‘f
.21.... ...

I1.

.1ch
Eli... ;.!..|\4‘|.Ju. =9 1.
I. .3???”

1‘31""!
1.....‘1. . .
.‘vofibliv I!x;.¢ . .
..l-vlll¢.¢ix i.
‘3.

v ‘3‘: l

5.3!}!
Ill-sf )3
2.".

 

.PSOII. .1
n i.“ 1...:

 

3. F... ab

ii: ..

 

. we. LIBRARY
2 Michigan State

2% g University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

UNDERPREPARED COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS:
THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT AND SENSE
OF BELONGING IN DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

__ _. -, ._ _.-.-.-a-.-.-.-

presented by

KATHRYN CLAIRE KING

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D degree in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong
Education

 

 

MQOa/micp 9‘“

" Major Professor’s Signature

 

I‘\Q\/ 02391008

 

Date

MSU is an affinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K:IProjIAcc&PresiClRC/DateDue indd

 

UNDERPREPARED COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS: THE ROLE OF
ACADEMIC SELF-CONCEPT AND SENSE OF BELONGING IN
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION
By

Kathryn Claire King

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fiilfillment of the requirements
For the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education

2008

ABSTRACT
UNDERPREPARED COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS: THE ROLE OF
ACADEMIC SELF -CONCEPT AND SENSE OF BELONGING IN
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION
By
Kathryn Claire King

The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between
academic self-concept and sense of belonging in the final course grade of students in a
developmental English course. In order to investigate this potential relationship the
following research question was explored: what is the relative importance of
psychosocial achievement characteristics (i.e., sense of belonging and academic self-
concept) and demographic variables in the final course grade of a developmental
education English course at the community college? Participants included 284
community college students enrolled in Developmental English courses at a rural
community college in the Midwest. The study used an academic self-concept instrument
and sense of belonging instrument. The survey also included demographic variables that
were included as control variables in the study.

In order to investigate the central research question, a hierarchal multiple
regression procedure was utilized to determine the amount of variance explained by the
psychosocial characteristics. Results suggested that the overall model was statistically
significant, but only explained a small amount of the total variance in the final course
grade. In addition, the multiple regression procedure was used to investigate the

contribution that psychosocial achievement characteristics and selected demographics

contributed to the model of developmental education final course grade. Academic and

general self-concept were positive and significant predictors of students’ final course
grade. Unexpectedly, verbal and problem solving self-concept were negative and
significant predictors of final course grade. Lastly, sense of belonging and the
demographic variables included did not make a significant contribution to the final course

grade.

Copyright by
KATHRYN CLAIRE KING

2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to thank and acknowledge my committee members, Reitu
Mabokela, Marilyn Amey, Kris Renn, Jim F airweather, and Kelly Mix. To Reitu, thank
you for your support and guidance throughout my graduate career. To Marilyn, thank you
for seeing potential in me when I was a Master’s student and encouraging me to take on a
doctorial program. To Kris, thank you for opening your home on numerous occasions and
giving me advice throughout my time at MSU. To Jim, I cannot begin to express how
much help you have been throughout this entire process. Thank you for reading countless
drafts and making me push harder and find new ways of thinking. To Kelly, your courses
helped shape my thinking and my research.

This research could not have been possible without the support of the faculty and
staff at Jackson Community College. I would especially like to thank Charlotte Finnegan
who always made sure I had the information and access needed, and even an office on
campus during my data collection. To the instructors who allowed me to use their class
time to complete my data collection, and the students who took their time filing out the
lengthy surveys. I appreciate all the thoughtful responses. Special thanks must be given to
the National Academic Advising Association (N ACADA) for providing funding support.

I am grateful to my friends who supported me throughout this process. To Jane,
who not only served the role as a great friend, but as a sounding board and avenue of
support. Your encouragement along the way has allowed me to believe in myself and my
ability to complete such a task. My friends who spent many hours in coffee shops as we
worked to complete various papers, projects, and course work. To my colleagues and

students who encouraged me and asked thoughtful questions about my school work.

Lastly. I must say a special thank you to Sarah Bauer. Larisa Kruze. and Sarah Rose Ozar
who think I‘m crazy. but support and believe in me anyway.

I could not have taken on and completed such a task without the love and support
of my entire family. I must thank my sisters, Jill Baldwin. lleather Hockman. and Kara
Hardesty. Being the youngest. I know my role as the brunt of most jokes, but I can‘t even
put into words what your beliefin me means. And yes. “that big paper” is now done.
Thanks to my father. my nieces. my nephews. and my extended family. To the Kings —
Karen. Tom. Helen. and Peter — you were always ready to give me space and fancy office
supplies to complete my work in style (Vera would be proud). I am especially grateful to
my mother. Jane Baldwin. who read drafts and encouraged me along the way. I couldn’t
be “goo" without you!

Finally. I must thank Andrew. I know that at times I have been difficult to live
with and thought the world revolved around my research and writing. but your unending

love. support. and understanding has been incredible.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ............................................................ 1
Problem Statement ........................................................................... 1
Research Question ........................................................................... 5
Conceptual Framework ...................................................................... 5
Significance of Study ...................................................................... 17
Research Design ............................................................................ 19
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 20
Community College Student Persistence ................................................ 20
Sense of Belonging ........................................................................ 26
Developmental Education and the Underprepared Student ........................... 30
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN ....................................................... 39
Research Design ............................................................................ 39
Procedure .................................................................................... 44
Measures .................................................................................... 46
Data Analysis ............................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS ............................................................................................ 62
Demographic Factors ...................................................................... 63
Sampling Bias: Summary ................................................................. 73
Description of Respondent Group ....................................................... 74
Relationship of Psychosocial Achievement Characteristics and Demographic
Variables ........................................................................... 77
Model Of Final Course Grade ............................................................ 85
Conclusion .................................................................................. 90
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 91
Relationship to Academic Achievement ................................................ 92
Social Comparison ......................................................................... 99
Limitations and Future Research ....................................................... 101
Implications for Practice ................................................................. 104
Conclusions ................................................................................ 1 IO

vii

APPENDICES

Appendix A — Demographic Questionnaire ........................................... l 12
Appendix B — Self-Description Questionnaire (SDQlll) ............................ 1 16
Appendix C — Sense of Belonging Instrument ....................................... 122
Appendix D *- Consent Form ............................................................ 123
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 124

viii

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table I 1

Table 12

Table 13

Table 14

Table 15

Table 16

Table 17

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of the four self-concept scales from the SDQIII .................. 48
SDQIII Subscale Factors ......................................................... 49
SB Instrument Subscale Factors ................................................ 53

Summary of the five subscales for the Sense of Belonging Instrument. . .54

Chi-Square Analysis: Gender of Student ....................................... 64
C hi-Square Analysis: Race/Ethnicity of Student using collapsed

Variable ........................................................................ 65
One-Sample T—Test: Age of Student ............................................ 66
Chi-Square Analysis: Enrollment Status of Student .......................... 68
Chi-Square Analysis: Transfer ................................................... 69
Chi-Square Analysis: Course Completion ..................................... 71
Final Course Grades ............................................................... 72
One-Sample T-Test: Final Course Grade ...................................... 72
High School Grade Point Average .............................................. 77
Means and Standard Deviations: Multiple Regression ....................... 8]
Correlation between Variables: Multiple Regression ........................ 83
Collinearity Statistics: Tolerance ................................................ 84
Predicting Final Course Grade: Multiple Regression ........................ 86

ix

Figure 1
Figure 2

Figure 3

LIST OF FIGURES

Model Development ............................................................... 16
A Model of Developmental Education F inal Course Grade ................. 61

Model of Developmental Education Course Grade with Significant
Predictors .................................................................. 89

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Despite the volume of research on college student retention (Hoffman, Richmond,
Morrow, & Salomone, 2002) and the national calls for greater efficiency in graduating
students (Spelling Commission, 2006), we know relatively little about the role of the
community college in 4-year retention and bachelor degree completion. For the most part,
the extensive literature on retention focuses on full-time residential students in 4-year
institutions. Yet, the majority of college students today start their college careers in
community colleges, not 4-year institutions (Adelman, 2004). This enrollment reality
requires a shift in the focus of research toward the 2-year institution. In particular, many
of the students who start postsecondary education at a two-year college drop out before
achieving their academic and vocational goals (Fontana, Green, Wright, DiStefano Diaz,
Johnson, Macia et al., 2006). Half of the students who enter two-year schools depart at
the end Of their first year (Braxton, 2000). Moreover, community colleges enroll a
disproportionately high percentage of underprepared students who need some form of
remediation or developmental education. The proportion of students starting in
community colleges who require at least one developmental education course is above
60% (Adelman, 2004).
Problem Statement
According to Grant-Vallone, Reid, Umali, and Pohlert (2004), studying
persistence of underprepared students is more complicated than studying students more
likely to succeed in college. Underprepared students possess academic, social, and/or

economic problems that challenge their success in college (Perez. 1998; Thompson,

1998). Relevant indicators of lack of college-level preparation include age, race, or home
language of the student, whether the student dropped out of high school or completed a
GED, and whether the student needs additional work in reading, writing, or mathematics
(lgnash, 1997; Merisotis & Phipps, 2000; Perez, 1998; Thompson. 1998). Students
lacking these skills are directed toward developmental education courses. The purpose of
these courses is to enable students to gain the necessary skill set to complete college-level
courses and academic programs successfully (McCabe & Day, 1998: Weissman, Silk. &
Bulakowski, 1997).

Research suggests that students who complete developmental coursework are
successful in college-level course work. Passing the gatekeeper courses in developmental
education typically provide academically underprepared students with the same chances
in their subsequent college-level courses. In fact, several studies demonstrate that
developmental education students do as well, if not better than, non-developmental
students in college-level courses at community colleges (Brien, Duffy, Fulwiler, Neill, &
Siegrist, 1998; Klicka. 1998; Moriaty, Naigus, Wyckoff-Byers, Greenfield, & Mulligan,
1998). Studies that have examined the outcomes of developmental education seem to
indicate that these programs are effective at improving the chances of collegiate success
for underprepared students (Kozeracki, 2002; Merisotis & Phipps, 2000). In these studies.
the most frequently used method to determine the effectiveness of the transition to
college-level courses was a measure based on the GPA of students after enrollment in
developmental courses and the student’s GPA in subsequent courses.

Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) suggest that positive academic experiences may

be disproportionately important to the academic success and persistence of underprepared

students. One way to investigate student persistence is through the understanding Of
student academic self-concept and the student’s sense of belonging in college. Social and
academic adjustment may include a positive perception of a student’s own ability,
motivation, and academic performance as well as perception of how well he or she fits in
on the college campus and feels a sense of belonging in college (Grant-Vallone et al.,
2004; Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Self-beliefs, particularly academic self-concept, are
related to several achievement outcomes in postsecondary institutions and college
persistence (House, 1992; 2002). House (1992; 1999; 2000a) describes some of the
cognitive-motivational characteristics such as academic self-concept and achievement
expectancies that are significantly correlated with course performance and school
withdrawal. In addition, student success is tied to a number Of experiences that students
have on both the academic and social side of the college campus (F ontana et al., 2006).
Studies of changes in students’ academic self-concept suggest that socializing
with peers enhances their self-concept (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). These studies
included tutoring experiences; however, the studies conducted focus on tutoring another
student, but not the academic self-concept of the student who received the tutoring,
involvement in student activities, and part-time work on campus (Astin, 1993). Many of
the studies related to college students and academic self-concept occur at the 4-year
institution with a traditional age population of students. Since community college
students tend to have a higher mean age and do not live on campus, among other
differences from the traditional 4-year college students, these studies may not be

representative of the community college population. In addition, the few studies

including academic self-concept and the community college student are qualitative in
nature.

The degree of change during the transition to college depends on a number of
factors, among them the degree of difference between the norms and patterns of behavior
associated with membership in past communities and those required for integration into
the life of the college (Tinto, 1993). Most of the theories of persistence focus on some
combination of academic and social encounters, experiences, and forces that shape
persistence and attainment (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Because students are in a
social structure characterized by constant social interaction, the production of their
identities in college is, at least to some extent, dependent on a student’s role with peers
(Kaufman & F eldman, 2004). Individuals who come from families, communities, and
schools whose norms and behaviors are different from those of the communities of the
college into which entry is made face especially difficult problems in seeking to achieve
membership in the new communities (Tinto, 1993). As a result, academically
underprepared students Often experience isolation and alienation once they enter college
(Commander & Valeri-Gold, 2003). College students who do not do as well as their peers
may then measure themselves against their peers and subsequently perceive themselves
differently than do their college peers (Kaufman & F eldman, 2004).

Academic self-concept refers to a student’s perception of his or her academic
abilities. Those perceptions are influenced by school experiences and the student’s
interpretations of those experiences in the context of the school environment (Shavelson
& Bolus, 1982). Academic self-concept is a multi-faceted attribute that is continuously

modified on the basis of school performance (House, 1992; Marsh. 1990). However, only

a limited number of studies have assessed the effects of college experiences and other
variables on the development of academic self-concept (House. 2000a). There is
considerable evidence that students‘ self-beliefs. such as academic self-concept and
achievement expectancies. are Significantly related to their undergraduate academic
achievement (House. 2000b). For developmental students in community college,
academic self-concept is tied to high school achievement (Cox. F riesner, & Khayum,
2003: House & Prion, 1998). The focus of this study was on developing a model that
explores the relationship between academic self-concept and developmental education
final course grade. taking into account other possible influences.
Research Question
What is the relative importance of psychosocial achievement characteristics (i.e., sense Of
belonging and academic self-concept) and demographic variables (age, gender,
race/ethnicity. social class. education goal. number Ofdependents, and employment
status) in the final course grade Ofa developmental education English course at the
community college?
Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework is broken down into three main sections. The first
section concentrates on the many definitions of academic self-concept and the definition
selected to guide this study. The second section discusses the importance of social
comparison in the development Of academic self-concept. The last section explains the

relationship of academic self—concept to eventual academic achievement.

Academic SelflC once/)1

Definirions. Self-concept is considered to be one’s self-perceptions, formed
through experience with the environment, particularly with significant others (Pascarella
& Terenzini, 2005). Self-concept, self-esteem, and self-efficacy are used almost
interchangeably in the literature (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Self-concept is
considered to be one’s self-perceptions formed through experience with the environment
in relation to others (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976). The literature reviewed by
Pascarella and Terenzini treats self-concept as a relational term with an emphasis on
students’ perception of their competence compared to that of others. In contrast, self-
esteem is based. more on individual and internal standards rather than external factors.
Self-esteem is not specific to a particular dimension of the self and is based on the
individual‘s comparison of a real and ideal self (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Lastly,
self-efficacy refers to how people feel about themselves. Self-efficacy is a person’s belief
in their ability to develop and act in order to pursue their goals (Bandura, 1997). Self-
efficacy beliefs determine how people feel. think, motivate themselves and behave
(Bandura, 1994). Unless a person believes that they can create the desired effects through
their own actions they will lack the incentive to pursue their goals and eventually attain
them. This study focused specifically on self-concept; however. the term is often vaguely
defined and many terms are used in the literature to describe self—concept. The distinction
used in this study is the perception of self in comparison to others, which is a person’s
self-concept.

A person’s self-concept may or may not be altogether consistent from one

situation to another. even within a particular identity domain (Kaufman & Feldman,

2004). Rutter (1987) and others (see Marsh, 1999) state that self-concept continues
throughout life to be modified by life experiences and is not set in childhood. Measures
of self-concept appear to be especially sensitive to different forms Of involvement in
college (Astin, 1993). Hurtado. Chang, Séenz, Espinosa, Cabrera, and Cerna (2006)
suggest that internal assessments. or a person’s self-concept. are central to academic
adjustment and that it is also associated with external assessments of academic
competence. Individuals whose need for competence is met believe they can determine
their success as well as understand what it takes to do well in an academic setting and to
succeed (Fredricks. Blumenfeld. & Paris. 2004).

Academic self-concept differs slightly from a person’s general self-concept.
General self-concept refers to overall attitudes about physical appearances, social
acceptance, and general skills and abilities (Shavelson et al., 1976). Academic self-
concept is more closely related to achievement than a global structure of self-concept
(Shavelson et al., 1976). Self-concept is multifaceted, which means that an individual’s
general self-concept can be theoretically and empirically differentiated from one’s
academic self-concept or social self-concept (Marsh. 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). Academic self-concept is a multidimensional construct and involves internal and
external comparisons (McCoach & Siegle, 2003). It is formed on the basis of past
judgments, perceptions. and feedback and is a person‘s conception of his or her own
ability to learn the accepted types of academic behavior in terms of performance of
academic achievement (Shavelson & Bolus, 1982). For the purposes Ofthis study.
academic self-concept was the domain of focus. Academic self-concept includes the

feelings and attitudes students have about their academic or intellectual abilities,

especially when comparing themselves to the other students (Cokley, 2002; Cokley &
Patel, 2007).

Social Comparison. One source of self-knowledge comes from social comparison
or comparing our abilities to the abilities of others and forming a judgment about self
based on that comparison (Gigliotti & Gigliotti, 1998). Academic self-concept is
developed through students’ perceptions of their competence compared to that of other
students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Interactions that seem to lead to enhanced
academic self-concept all involve students’ encounters with people different from
themselves or those with different knowledge, ideas, or beliefs (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). Interactions of importance include student-faculty and student-student
relationships. These encounters have the potential to stimulate reflection on students’
knowledge, beliefs, and values and could lead to new ways of thinking and understanding
the world and others (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

Social comparison is a primary function of self-concept, and student contact with
peers plays a central role in how students think about themselves (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). The social comparison process and sense of belonging to the peer group is
especially important for understanding students during their first year of college. Hurtado
et a1. (2006) discovered that academic adjustment, which includes measures of academic
self-concept, and sense of belonging are strongly linked for all students in the first year of
college. Social comparison theory suggests that when people compare favorably to those
around them, they are more likely to maintain high self-concepts (McCoach & Siegle,
2003). Wood (1989) states that the self-concept is responsive to changes in social

context, which suggests that the social environment imposes comparisons that have an

impact on the individual. Students compare their own performance with that of their
classmates as well as with their own performance in other academic areas (Bryne, 1996).

Information seeking and comparison with others is particularly salient for
individuals involved in assessment of their own competence (Ruble & Flett, 1988, as
cited in Hurtado et al., 2006). Socializing with peers, specifically through classroom
interactions, positively impacts students’ academic self-concepts (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). It may be that students with confidence in their own ability rely less on social
comparisons and are more likely to achieve independent judgments about their
competence (Ruble, 1994). The emphasis on social comparison increases students’
certainty in the accuracy of their academic self-concepts (Trautwein, Ludtke, Koller, &
Baumert, 2006).

If students use the immediate social context as their frame of reference, relatively
low-achieving students Should have higher perceptions Of their competencies in a low
group or track (Stipek, 1998). The synthesis of Marsh’s “big fish, little pond effect”

(BF LPE) provided by Stipek, predicts that ability grouping should, on average, have a
positive effect on relatively low-performing students’ perceptions of competencies.

BF LPE occurs when students have “lower academic self-concepts when they compare
themselves to more able students, and higher academic self-concepts when they compare
themselves with less able students” (Marsh, 1990, p. 124). On the other hand, research
based on group membership suggests the opposite (Stipek, 1998). To the degree that
students base their perceptions of their abilities on their group membership, students
placed in low groups should rate their academic abilities lower than students placed in the

relatively high groups. regardless of their actual performance within the group (Stipek,

I998). Ifthe students compare themselves to other academically underprepared students.
such as the other students in developmental education courses. they may have a false
sense of academic self-concept. Overestimating one‘s ability may result in unfounded
academic confidence. encouraging students to take on academic challenges for which
they may feel capable but actually lack the academic talents to be successful (F ielstein &
Bush, 1998).

Community colleges are well-known for their student friendly environments and
continue this reputation through higher quality Of informal student-faculty interaction and
teaching approaches that encompass different learning styles and preferences (Thompson,
2001). Even though the primary function of faculty is to teach and encourage learning,
the student experience on a community college campus is so transitory that the faculty
role becomes even more crucial (McArthur, 2005). Interactions with faculty outside and
inside of the classroom help to promote a positive self-concept (Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005). Positive classroom experiences reinforce students’ self-concept and perception as
learners (Hawley & Harris. 2005-2006). Woodside, Wong, and Wiest (1999) found that
student-faculty interactions are significantly associated with students’ academically
related self-concept. This research focused on the 4-year college student with a mean age
of27 years old. Interestingly the research only focused on student-faculty interactions
within the classroom and not on the out of classroom interactions. Thompson suggests
that as students increase the amount Of informal interaction they have with faculty, they
begin to place more value on their courses. As a result, they display positive attitudes
towards learning and development. In addition. students who have developed

interpersonal relationships with faculty members tend to reveal higher degrees of

10

academic skills development and are more satisfied with their institutional experiences
(Thompson, 2001 ).

Relations/zip to Academic Achievement. A positive academic self-concept is
valued as a desirable outcome in many educational settings. It is a mediating variable that
facilitates the attainment of other desired outcomes such as academic achievement:
"Academic self-concept has motivational properties such that changes in academic self-
conccpt will lead to changes in subsequent academic achievement” (Marsh, 1990, p.
646). A relationship exists between academic self-concept and academic achievement
although the casual ordering is not clear (Marsh, 1993). Academic self-concept is an
important psychological construct because it has been found to be both a cause and effect
of academic achievement (Cokley & Patel. 2007). Self-perceptions of ability figure into
virtually every cognitive theory of achievement motivation; they are assumed to affect
behavior and learning (Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989). Perceptions of ability influence
information seeking. intended effort, persistence, thoughts and feelings while working on
tasks. attribution about one's performance. and ultimately achievement (Marsh, 1990;
Stipek, 1998). In addition. academic adjustment has much to do with a student’s intrinsic
assessment of his or her relative success in navigating a new academic environment
(Hurtado et al., 2006).

Research indicates that students“ evaluations of their academic abilities become
more positive during their college years (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), which could
impact retention and persistence of students. Pritchard and Wilson (2003) discovered that
students who indicated their intent to drop out reported lower self-esteem than their peers

who persisted. Napoli and Wortman (1998) found that academic self-esteem had a

ll

significant positive impact on goal commitment for community college students. They
concluded that the initial goal of earning a college degree is not only related to
demographic factors but also to the student’s overall willingness to commit to goals and
have a positive self-image. Community college students appear to lack confidence in
their abilities to succeed academically, and when successful, attribute part of that success
to having selected the right college (Bers & Smith, 1991). Thompson (1998) discovered
that developmental education students are often academically deficient, uncertain of their
goals, and have a low self-concept. Grimes (1997) conducted a study that looked at
underprepared community college students’ persistence and academic success. She
surveyed 91 underprepared students and 49 college-ready students. Included in this study
was a measure of self-efficacy. Grimes did not find that self-esteem differed between
underprepared and college ready students. Instead, she discovered that students from both
groups who did not persist had higher general self-esteem. Grimes suggests that the
complexity of self-esteem and self-concept make the need to investigate the specific
academic areas further.

Loeb and Magee (1992) suggest the pattern of changes in personal characteristics
indicates the extent of the adjustment necessary when the student is beginning college.
This research was conducted at the 4-year institution where students typically have more
recovery time for academics and the adjustments to college. However, it is important to
note that these students were all at a commuter college with similar stressors as students
in the community college. They found that students’ academic self-esteem changed for
the worse during the first year and then recovered late in the second year of college.

College students are often moving from a high school where they achieved a good degree

12

of success and received encouragement to a university where their performance is marked
less by academic success (Loeb & Magee, 1992). Loeb and Magee did find that students
with low self-esteem who found it difficult to adjust to college academics benefit from
the support of faculty, which leads to increased satisfaction in college and enhanced self-
concept.

In his book, “What Matters Most in College: Four Critical Years Revisited,” Astin
(1993) investigated several variables in relation to academic self-concept. It is important
to note that in the text Astin states that neither taking reading and study skills classes nor
taking developmental courses is associated with any outcomes studied, including
academic self-concept. The connection between academic self-concept and
developmental education, while mentioned, does not seem fully developed in the text.
The current review of the literature does not find any evidence to support this
perspective.

Many students from traditionally marginalized populations lack role models and
examples of academic success in their lives. “The faculty members represent the
authority figure, the mentor, and the role model that may not appear anywhere else in the
student’s Iife” (McArthur, 2005, p. 2). Faculty at the community college typically assume
greater responsibilities for developmental education students in terms of advising and
counseling than do those faculty at 4-year institutions where research expectations are
greater (Jacoby, 2006). Furthermore, students often lack the experience of academic
success in their own lives that contributes to the development of further educational
achievement (Brophy, 1996). In terms of community college students, interaction with

faculty plays an essential role for a student’s sense of belonging and the development of

13

his or her academic self-concept. One area ofconcern during the transition to
postsecondary education is that courses are more difficult and require new strategies to
approach learning (Hoover. 2003). This is especially true for developmental education
students since they have to make up for the academic skills and experiences possessed by
their college-ready peers (Moore. 2004-2005).

Academic success requires students to be willingly engaged in their education
and motivated to learn (Moore. 2004-2005). Faculty and staff who work with
underprepared students believe that success in developmental education courses improves
student motivation and enhances self-confidence so that students are likely to enroll in
college-level courses (Weissman. Bulakowski, & Jumisko, 1997). Moore states that
developmental education students who drop out ofthe university cite a lack of motivation
as the most frequent reason for quitting school. Student motivation as measured by
attendance at lectures. help sessions, and summer orientation programs influences the
academic success of developmental education students (Moore, 2004-2005).

Studies of students and their locus of control find that feelings of incompetence
are associated with an individual's attribution of the source of his or her failure (McGrath
& Van Buskirk, 1999). Often these students believe their failure is due to sources outside
of their control. Low achieving students tend to believe that failure is due to stable,
internal causes. such as low ability. and that success is a result of unstable. external
causes such as luck (Robertson. 2000). Many students enter the classroom with
expectancy-related motivational problems developed through prior experiences with

failure and its consequences (Brophy. 2004). Academically underprepared students are no

exception to the problems associated with motivation and failure in the classroom. They

14

may have compounded problems because as students experience more and more failure.
low achievement due to limited academic ability becomes compounded by
underachievement due to motivational problems (Brophy. 1996; 2004).

Harter (I986. as cited in Marsh. Byrne. & Yeung. 1999) suggests that higher
academic self-concept is associated with more positive motivation, which in turn leads to
better achievement outcomes. Research conducted at the 4-year institution indicates that
students’ affective characteristics. such as academic self-concept and achievement
motivation, are significant predictors of subsequent academic achievement (see House,
1992; I993; 2002). For traditional 4-year college students. academic self-concept is
significantly related to college persistence, and programs designed to identify students
with low academic self-concept or expectancies and provide experiences and counseling
to improve those attitudes may benefit college persistence (House, 1992). Ability
perceptions are assumed to affect behavior and learning and thus to have practical
educational importance (Stipek & Mac Iver. I989). Academically underprepared students
may enter the college environment with lower levels of interest and ability in the
academic areas central to their success than do students who are academically prepared

for the college academic environment (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

15

Figure 1. Model Development

 

Developmental Education Enrollment
- Number of DE courses
- Math vs. English
- Classroom as social community
(Reference Group)

 

 

 

 

Sense of Belonging in CC I

 

 

-Ability Perceptions

-Academic Self-Concept

~School Experiences

-Motivation & Achievement (Educational
Goals & Aspirations)

 

 

 

 

Demographic Information:
- Age
- Gender
- Race
- Measures of ability
- SES
- Number of children (and other
dependents)
- Employment status
- High School GPA

 

 

 

\.

Final Course
Grade in English
4 Developmental
Education Course

 

 

 

 

This study sought to understand the relationship of academic self-concept and

sense Of belonging in community college to academically underprepared student success

in a developmental education course. Figure 1 represents the model of final course grade

in which the current study tested. The participants were all students at the community

16

college enrolled in developmental education. which may impact their ability perceptions

and sense of belonging. The outcome of the study was the final course grade of an

English developmental education course, which serves as a precursor of persistence.
Significance ofthe Study

Students are seeking out the community college in greater numbers to get an
education. earn a certificate or associate’s degree, enhance their job skills, and prepare for
transfer (Laden, 2004). First-year students in the college setting must learn to adjust to
the new demands of academic work and cope with an environment that is very different
from the one they may have previously experienced academically (Pancer, Hunsberger,
Pratt, & Alisat. 2000’). These academic difficulties are compounded for students who
come in with specific academic deficiencies, which could mean that academically
underprepared students face additional challenges when making the transition to college-
level courses.

Gaining an understanding Of academically underprepared students is necessary to
design effective developmental programs (Thombs. I995). The important domains Of
social competence and academic self-concept are often ignored both in the assessment of
a student’s progress and in evaluating the effectiveness of educational practices
(Stanovich. Jordan. & Perot. 1998). One way to assist academically underprepared
students in their transition to higher education is to investigate their academic self-
concept. Knowing students” academic self-concept and how they relate to their initial
expectations regarding their success in college could help student affairs professionals

conceptualize developmental Obstacles and design proactive interventions to support

17

students in their transition from high school to college and help them attain their
academic goals (Boyd. Hunt, Kandell, & Lucas, 2003).

Academically underprepared students requiring remediation often have not
developed the skills that influence their ability to succeed academically in college
(Grunder & Hellmich. 1997). Students who are motivated with high aspirations and
academic self-concept. goal-oriented, and future-minded have the best chance for
persistence beyond the first year at the community college (Hawley & Harris, 2005—
2006). Unfortunately. students who enter the institution underprepared tend to have lower
levels of interest and motivation (Pascarella & Terenzini. 2005). Developing life skills
along with strengthening basic academic skills and improving a student’s sense of
belonging can positively influence student persistence and retention toward a degree
(Grunder & Hellmich. 1997). Educational settings that engage students and transform
them into active participants by inducing emotions such as hope for the future, respect for
others. and confidence in their ability to succeed are essential to the underprepared
learner’s success (McGrath & Van Buskirk, I999). Perceptions of ability have
educational importance since the student’s belief in his or her academic abilities affects
behavior and learning (Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989). Designing programs to identify
students with low academic self-concept and provide experiences and counseling to
improve academic self-concept benefits college persistence (House, 1992). Students in
this study were underprepared for college academically. based on prior performance. The
consequences of this lack of preparation go beyond success in the classroom; it affects

confidence. perception of future success. and a student’s sense Of belonging in college.

18

Research Design

All ofthe survey data was collected at one point in time. This study used an
academic self—concept instrument and sense of belonging instrument to investigate
students’ perception oftheir academic self-concept and sense of belonging in college. In
addition to the two instruments used. a demographic survey was included in the study.

The following two chapters address the literature and methodology used in the
study. Chapter two is a review of the literature relating to academically underprepared
students” sense of belonging in college. as well as persistence and community college
student literature. Chapter three covers the methodology and research design. The
methodology includes an explanation of the research design. data collection procedures,
and scales utilized. Chapter four provides a description of the respondent group and the
results of the data analysis. Lastly. Chapter five explains the findings of the data analysis,

the implications for practice. and the recommendations for future research.

19

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review includes three sections. The first section provides an
overview of the literature regarding community college student persistence. The second
section discusses students‘ sense of belonging in college. The last section defines and
explores the underprepared student and developmental education and the research
available on student success when beginning in developmental education and making the
transition to college-level courses.

Community College Student Persistence

Historically. the community college has embraced the role as an open door higher
education institution. This means that all individuals regardless oftheir academic
preparation or other demographic characteristics have the opportunity to participate in
higher education (Crews & Aragon. 2007). Community colleges with their open
admission policies have opened their doors to a broad range of students, resulting in a
student population that is more heavily working-class. minority. and female than that of
4~year institutions (Shaw. Rhoads. & Valadez. 1999). The community college mission to
assist all students tends to result in lower retention rates on campus (Hoyt, 1999).
Community colleges educate a diverse mix of students with multiple educational goals,
significant demands on their time. and a range of personal. academic, and financial
challenges (CC SSE. 2005). Although community colleges and universities have
commonalities in student attendance. curriculum. and achievement. the goals of the
students often differ (Wild & Ebbers. 2002). A challenge that community colleges face is

high attrition rates. something that is complicated by the multiplicity of reasons that

students attend community colleges (Levinson, 2005). In fact, students often enroll at the
community college without the intent of obtaining a degree (Burley, Butner, & Cejda,
2001). Policies designed to retain 18-year-old students living in residence halls are not
likely to be as effective for part-time enrollees or working students and especially adults
with families and full-time jobs (Bailey & Alfonso, 2005).

Bailey and Alfonso (2005) identify the demographic risk factors that impact
community college student persistence. These factors include delayed entry, part-time
enrollment coupled with full-time work, financial independence, and community college
attendance without a high school diploma. “In contrast to more traditional college
students, community college students are more likely to be employed either part or full
time; to have spouses, children, or both; and to encounter financial or logistical
difficulties that make attending college a difficult endeavor” (Shaw, 1999, p. 153). The
community college learning environment is less homogenous due to the different
demands of work and family for the students who typically attend (Wild & Ebbers,
2002). Rendon (1999) describes community colleges students in the following passage:

The profile of nontraditional students is in sharp contrast to that of traditional
students whose parents and siblings have attended college, who come from
middle-class backgrounds, who grow up feeling empowered to reach their
goals. and who view college as a continuation of their life trajectory. For
traditional students the transition to college is much easier. The passage

represents a continuation of family expectations and traditions. (p. 197)

21

In attempting to cope with multiple demands. community college students are more likely
to experience greater strain. leading to a reduced ability to participate and persist in
college (Napoli & Wortman. 1998‘).

Students who integrate socially and academically into the community college
have stronger goal and institutional commitments. and these commitments in turn
influence persistence (Bryant. 2001). Students most likely to persist at the community
college are active in campus activities. highly academic and high achievers; they are
students who plan to attend the community college for several years (Hawley & Harris.
2005-2006). Bryant suggests the lack of social integration by community college students
may be related to the extensiveness of many students’ work schedules. Community
college students are less involved on their campus compared to students at 4-year
institutions. participating less frequently in campus organizations and rarely attending
campus events (Maxwell. 2000). Students most at-risk are least likely to get involved in
the social and academic infrastructures of institutions. as a result just offering
opportunities is not sufficient to ensuring involvement (McGrath & Van Buskirk, 1999).

Students‘ commitments to work and family mean that they spend limited time on
campus. which makes the need to engage students more difficult (CCSSE. 2005).
Thompson (2001) discovered that the amount of time students spend working is inversely
related to their time spent informally interacting with faculty. In other words, the actual
amount of time spent at the job negatively affects the available amount of time students
may interact with faculty outside the classroom. and this negatively affects the quality of
effort they exert while in class (Thompson, 2001). Students most likely to dropout or

stopout at the community college do not have focused educational goals. intend to

transfer to a 4-year institution. are highly active outside of the campus community. and
expect to have trouble financing college and finding employment (Hawley & Harris,
2005-2006).

Community colleges cannot overlook the significance of the research indicating
the importance of faculty in student retention (McArthur. 2005). In a review ofthe
literature on community college student persistence. Bers and Smith (1991) found that
social integration was negatively associated and academic integration was positively
associated with persistence. Unlike 4-year institutions. where stopout behavior is less
common and social ties and networks remain relatively stable over several academic
semesters or years. social networks within community colleges are less likely to persist
over time (Napoli & Wortman. 1998). The finding by Bers and Smith reflects the
importance of faculty interaction and student persistence at the community college. These
studies also indicate that students‘ perceptions of faculty members’ concern for student
development and teaching. as well as their availability to students. has a positive and
statistically significant effect on persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

The literature on community college persistence clearly demonstrates that greater
faculty-student interaction promotes higher levels of student satisfaction with the college
experience (McArthur. 2005). Student contact with faculty members outside the
classroom appears consistently to promote student persistence. educational aspirations.
and degree completion (Pascarella & Terenzini. 2005). However. as is typical of most
community college students. those who have to weigh their educational endeavors against
family and workplace responsibilities may also find it difficult to develop and maintain

informal relationships with faculty members (Thompson. 2001). Having a less than

positive experience with faculty negatively impacts the student’s transition to the
institution (Maestas. Vaquer. & Zehr. 2007). The bond between the student and the
institution appears to be facilitated and promoted by positive interactions with faculty
members and to a lesser extent with peers (Pascarella & Terenzini. 2005). Thompson
found that informal student-faculty interaction has a significant influence on the attitudes.
interests. and values of community college students especially in the beginning of their
educational careers. Studies suggest that a student‘s perception of faculty members’
availability and interest in them may be enough to promote persistence (Pascarella &
Terenzini. 2005).
Separation/mm (‘rm-zmzmily

Individuals who come from families, communities. and schools whose norms and
behaviors are different from those of the communities of the college into which entry is
made face especially difficult problems in seeking to achieve membership in the new
communities (Tinto, 1993). Tinto believed that students“ past had not adequately
prepared them to deal with the future. and the students who have the most difficulty
separating from the past are generally disadvantaged students. minority students. and
nontraditional students. Almost all students experience some difficulty in making the
transition to college though most students are able to cope with the problems of transition
(T into. 1993). Students who experience entering college for the first time as stressful will
have more difficulty adapting to the demands of the transition (Kerr, Johnson. Gans, &
Krumrine. 2004). In addition. individuals whose prior academic training has not
adequately prepared them for college-level work may have difficulty in adjusting to the

more rigorous academic demands of college (Tinto. 1993). Tinto believed that the

24

students who are not able to cope with the transition to college and the separation of the
past withdraw from college very early in their first academic year due to the inability to
withstand the stresses that such transitions commonly induce. While Tinto’s work is
widely accepted. it does not speak directly to the essence of the underprepared student’s
most basic concern: that he or she is not ready for college-level work (Young. 2002).
Tinto (1993) stated that students must completely separate from past associations
in order to adjust to the academic and social life in college. Many scholars have looked at
the transition piece of Tinto’s model (e. g. Bean & Bogdan Eaton, 2000; Hurtado &
Carter, 1997; Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000). They proposed instead that individuals
totally separating from their past associations might not be necessary, but instead students
should be supported to transit between the two cultures (Rendén et al., 2000). “As
individuals who juggle a myriad of roles in addition to that of student, community college
students’ sense of identity is complex and multifaceted” (Shaw, 1999, p. 163). Bean and
Bogdan Eaton state that their model of retention works least well for students who lack
the abilities or skill required for college academic work. The transition to community
college is an eventful point in all students’ lives; when this transition occurs powerful
social and personal dramas are played out. for cultural membership helps define who we
are in the eyes of others as well as ourselves (London, 1992, as cited in Laden, 1999).
Community college students are not only faced with the problems of adjusting to
the demands of college but also adjusting to the demands of external communities such as
family and work (N apoli & Wortman, 1998). The complete separation for students who
are considered underprepared may not be possible. Rather, the meaning-making system,

which is comprised of values, assumptions. and beliefs about what to expect from

25

college. the role of being a college student. and the value ofthe college degree, is
informed by one’s cultures oforigin—family. school. community. and so forth (Kuh &
Love. 2000). Students with ill-defined meaning-making systems about college and
college-going will likely have vague or inaccurate ideas about college (Kuh & Love.
2000).

Sense of Belonging

A sense of belonging includes cognitive and affective elements in that the
individual’s cognitive evaluation of his or her role in relation to the group results in an
affective response (Hurtado & Carter. 1997). In addition, Baumeister and Leary (1995)
define belonging as an individual’s sense of being accepted. valued, included, and
encouraged by others. "The outcomes of students’ sense of belonging may have more
immediate effects on students’ behaviors. such as the quality of students’ social
interactions. students' selection of academic programs. and their use of support services”
(Hurtado & Carter. 1997. p. 341). Studying a sense of belonging allows researchers to
assess the forms of social interaction. both social and academic, that further enhance
students’ identification with their college (Hurtado & Carter. 1997). Multiple student
variables influence student satisfaction. sense of belonging. and willingness to attend the
institution again (Strauss & Volkwein. 2004).

Hurtado et al. (2006) point to the importance of understanding the barriers and
factors associated with student success at managing the academic community. as well as
their sense of belonging within their overall college environment in their transition to
college as a way to provide insight into a student’s integration in the campus community.

Bean and Bogdan Eaton (2000) suggest that as an individual recognizes his or her

competence that individual will demonstrate higher aspirations for persistence. The
example the authors present uses an academically “at-risk” student who watches others
succeed and begins to believe that he or she can succeed as well. The student is more
likely to invest the emotional energy necessary to achieve academic goals when that
student is surrounded by others who are successful. As a result, students who adopt the
attitude that they fit in certain academic environments are likely to become more
academically integrated at the institution (Bean & Bogdan Eaton. 2000).

Reducing the rate of withdrawal from college could be accomplished through
mechanisms intended to promote more effective integration into both college systems.
academic and social ( I loffman et al.. 2002). Hoffman et al. state that the greater a
student’s sense of belonging to the university. the greater his or her commitment to the
institution and satisfaction with the university. and the more likely it is that he or she will
remain in college. Sense of belonging is theorized to reflect students’ integration into the
college system and their fit within the new setting (Hoffman et al.. 2002). A key
dimension for community college student success is the student’s integration into the life
of the college (Levinson. 2005). Hurtado and Carter (1997) suggest that students make
sense of their environments through memberships in multiple peer groups that help them
acquire the skills they need in college. The student’s peer group is the single most potent
source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years for the
traditional aged student (Astin. 1993). Many students in the study conducted by Dennis.
Phinney. & Chuateco (2005) reported that peer support was the most helpful strategy for
dealing with academic problems. A nurturing academic environment is essential to

feeling a part of campus life in the first year for all students (Hurtado et al.. 2006).

27

Students develop confidence in their skills and academics in many ways, and those who
are confident about their skills are more likely to engage in activities (McCoach & Siegle,
2003). Students who perceive that they share common interests and academic abilities
with other students feel a sense of integration in the college environment (Stovall, 2000).

In academic settings. members of socially stigmatized groups are more uncertain
of the quality of their social bonds and more sensitive to issues of social belonging.
Walton and Cohen (2007) defined this state as belonging uncertainty. Belonging
uncertainty may take the form of a belief from the student perspective that “people like
me do not belong here“ (Walton & Cohen, 2007). The authors conducted two
experiments testing how' belonging uncertainty undermines the motivation and
achievement of people whose group is negatively characterized in academic settings.
Undergraduate students were grouped based on race in both studies. The evidence
supported the original hypothesis that stigmatization can create uncertainty about the
quality of one’s social bonds in academic settings and ultimately have large effects on the
academic motivation and achievement of those contending with a threatened social
identity (Walton & Cohen. 2007). Although this study was based on the belonging of
minority students. there may be a similar stigmatization for students who are grouped as
unprepared for college. The label could have a similar impact on a student’s sense of
belonging and, in turn, academic self-concept.

Students who are experiencing academic and adjustment problems feel the need
for someone to provide help. guidance. or emotional support, whereas those who are
doing well are less likely to feel a lack of support (Dennis et al.. 2005). The perception

about their skills and their belonging influences the type of activities selected and the

28

possibility of seeking help and guidance (McCoach & Siegle, 2003). Stage and Hossler
(2000) state that student behaviors that provide positive academic and social results lead
to increasingly positive expectations. goals, and beliefs about college and the ability to
perform well in academic settings. College students who do not do as well as their peers
may then measure themselves against their peers and subsequently they perceive
themselves differently than do their college peers (Kaufman & Feldman, 2004). The
community college student tends to differ from the student who enters the 4-year college.
The goals and aspirations of this student group are often unclear and ambiguous (Fontana
et al., 2006). A history of academic struggles is a common reason why students choose to
attend community colleges as opposed to 4-year colleges; these students tend to need
some sort of academic support before they can put forth quality effort (Silver, Smith, &
Greene, 2001). Additionally, traditional-age students entering the community college
typically arrive with less academic momentum than those starting at 4-year colleges
(Adelman, 2005).

Student success is dependent on student involvement in the social and academic
communities of the college, along with the personal characteristics that make the student
a good fit with the institution (Burley et al., 2001). Strauss and Volkwein (2004)
discovered that the classroom experience and faculty interaction is more influential at 2-
year colleges than at 4-year colleges. Perceptions of faculty academic support and
comfort and perceptions of faculty as being empathetic and understanding contribute
directly to students’ affiliation or attachment with the institution (Maestas et al., 2007).
Students whose teachers reported them as being highly engaged and connected to the

classroom community demonstrated advanced levels of achievement (Booker, 2006).

29

Maestas et al. found that faculty interest in a student’s development increased a student’s
sense of belonging. When students perceive that their faculty take an interest in them,
they have a greater sense of belonging (Maestas et al.. 2007).

Students derive statistically significant benefits from talking with faculty
members outside of class and interacting with faculty they perceive as supportive and
intellectually challenging (Pascarella & Terenzini. 2005). Hawley and Harris (2005-
2006) state that more informal contact outside of the classroom between students and
faculty positively impacts community college persistence. Students who interacted more
frequently with faculty performed better academically than what was predicted from their
pre-enrollment characteristics (Woodside et al.. 1999). Students feel comfortable sharing
their thoughts and information with faculty and other college staff. As a result. these
interactions appear to fuel students’ desire to achieve and encourage feelings of
belonging and connection with the academic community.

Developmental Education and the Underprepared Student
Definitions

The literature presents multiple definitions of developmental education as well as
identifying the students who need developmental education. “Remedial education.”
“developmental education.” “college prep.” or “basic skills” are all terms that refer to
offering coursework below college-level in the areas of reading, writing, and
mathematics in higher education institutions (Merisotis & Phipps. 2000). The term
"remedial” historically has been used to describe courses that strengthen or rectify basic
skills deficiencies. while "developmental” is focused on the full personal development of

students (Kozeracki. 2002; McCabe & Day. 1998; Perez. 1998). Remedial education and

30

developmental education are often used interchangeably by the general public and
scholars. but those in the field prefer the use of developmental education since it reflects
a broader approach to teaching and a different attitude about the student who enrolls in
these courses (Kozeracki. 2002). For the purposes of this study. the term developmental
is preferred and will be used to discuss courses taken and programs designed to prepare
students to enter into college-level courses.

The underprepared student is generally identified as one who possesses academic.
social. and economic problems that challenge his or her success in college (Perez, 1998;
Thompson. 1998). Several student variables are related to the need for extra support: age.
race. or home language ofthe student. whether the student dropped out of high school or
completed a GED. and whether the student needs additional work in reading, writing. or
math (lgnash. 1997; Merisotis & Phipps. 2000; Perez. 1998; Thompson, 1998). The
underprepared students in this study were identified by their enrollment in developmental
education.
Student Success in College-Level Courses

As access to higher education has increased the number of underprepared students
has risen as well. so that over half of all students who enter the community college need
some form of developmental education and supportive services (Adelman. 2004; McCabe
& Day. 1998). Almost all public community colleges offer some form of developmental
education. and increasingly. community colleges have become the primary site for
developmental education in higher education (Levinson. 2005). “lfbasic writing could
act as a conduit. taking in underprepared students and allowing them to be successful in

regular academic work. the institution would live up to the promise of open access

without having to change standards of academic excellence” (Goto, 1999. p. 41).
Students’ success should be measured by their ability to move from developmental
courses to college-level courses and then to achieve success in the transfer process or
completion of vocational programs of study (Kozeracki & Brooks. 2006). There is a
growing need to accommodate the expanding developmental student population; greater
attention to students’ unique needs and more adequate accommodations are expected in
the future which may further facilitate academically underprepared student achievement
(Thompson. 1998). Developmental education programs seek to help students succeed in
higher education by providing them with the academic fundamentals that the institution
believes are necessary for success in college. yet the student is currently lacking in this
background area (Kreysa. 2006-2007). These students’ often less-than-adequate academic
preparation may require underprepared students not only to make the typical adjustments
to college learning. but also to make up for knowledge they lack and to cope with
professors and peers who expect particular levels of prior knowledge and academic skills
that the students may not have mastered before coming to college (Pizzolato, 2004).
According to Kozeracki and Brooks (2006) the primary purpose of developmental
programs is to facilitate students’ transition from remedial to college-level courses and to
improve students’ chances of success in transfer and vocational programs.

Exacerbating the problems associated with retention for many community college
students are learning deficiencies that require developmental education (Burley et al..
2001). Community college students have a history of academic struggles. which is a
common reason why students choose to attend the community college as opposed to 4-

year colleges (Silver et al.. 2001). “Many ofthese students. often labeled

“nontraditional,” do not consider themselves to be college material, have never made an
“A” in their lives, and have been retained in high school” (Rendon, 1999, p. 196).
Developmental education is a necessary part of the enrollment path for many community
college students (Calcagno, Crosta. Bailey, & Jenkins. 2006). These students typically
will need some type of study strategy intervention before they can put forth quality effort
(Silver et al., 2001). Passing these gatekeeper classes can substantially increase the
probability of earning a secondary credential (Adelman, 2006; Calcagno et al., 2006).
Hoyt (1999) indicates that first-term academic performance had the strongest
relationship to retention when looking at a student’s need for remediation and their
eventual retention. Crews and Argon (2007) found that the developmental writing course
appeared to launch developmental students with short-term momentum. These students
may make higher grades in the subsequent English courses; however, the momentum
seems to be short lived in that initial participants do not persist for more semesters to
complete degrees or transfer at higher rates. Enrollment in remedial courses is an
educational pathway that may have a different impact on the probability of attaining a
positive outcome for older and younger students (Calcagno et al., 2006). Older students
seem to be less impacted by taking remedial coursework than younger students. Calcagno
et al. found that older students have a higher probability of graduating than younger
students at the community college. One reason offered for these results is that older
students were less negatively affected by enrolling in remedial courses because they have
been out of school longer and may just need basic skills refreshed rather than having a

serious deficiency (Calcagno et al.. 2006).

33

Many first semester students do not seem to have a clear understanding of what is
expected of them. and professors often see this characteristic demonstrated by students
experiencing academic difficulties (Commander & Valeri-Gold. 2003). Students with
more idealized expectations of what college life is supposed to be like tend to perform
more poorly in their academics (Pancer et al.. 2000). Many of the students in these basic
writing courses came to college without a clear idea of what they wanted to achieve in
higher education (Goto. 1999). This gap between their optimism and the commitment
needed to be successful academically often translates into students failing to meet the
academic challenges of adjusting to college life (Grunder & Hellmich. 1997). This
adjustment appears to be particularly difficult for the underprepared community college
student (Grunder & Hellmich. 1997). While internal and external factors influence all
students who matriculate into the community college. these factors may have a more
severe impact on students in developmental education (Burley et al.. 2001). Unexpectedly
low grades tend to trigger powerfully negative appraisals. strengthening feelings of
uncertainty. thus making students wonder whether they had made a mistake in entering
the college environment (McGrath & Van Buskirk, 1999). Hawley and Harris (2005-
2006) discovered that students who understand their potential barriers to completion of
their academic goals seem to plan for the solutions well before they go to college. For
these students their motivation to stay in school may be driven by the barriers they expect
to become problems and their planning ahead allows them to move forward in spite of
them.

Burley et al. (2001) studied the dropout and stopout patterns of community

college students in Texas. Almost two thirds of the students were enrolled in

34

developmental education classes. They found the best predictor of continuous course
enrollment was the student’s age. The younger students in the study were more likely to
continue in courses at the community college. Younger in the study was defined at under
the age of 21 years old. Students needing developmental education were older than
students with no remedial needs. In this study, enrollment in a mathematics
developmental education course was not highly associated with academic success.
However, enrollment in either reading or writing developmental education courses was
negatively associated with academic success. In addition, students with all three
deficiencies (math. reading, and writing) consistently performed worst than any other
group.

Simmons and Musoba (2004) used data on over 11,000 first-generation college
students enrolled in public and private institutions of higher education in a Midwestern
state to investigate variables that affect student persistence. This study is one of the few
instances in the developmental education literature that investigates beyond a single
institution and the community college. but the main focus of the study was not on
developmental education, rather on first generation students. In this study, persistence
was defined as continuous enrollment, full or part time, from initial enrollment through
the second semester of the second year. One finding they report is that taking
developmental mathematics and language arts college coursework had a statistically
significant impact on college persistence among first-generation students. Over one-
fourth of the college students in this study took some form of developmental coursework,
either in mathematics, language arts, or both. Taking these courses had a positive

influence on persistence in this population of students. Also, attending a research

35

university was positively associated with persistence when compared to attending a two-
year college. Simmons and Musoba suggest that the positive relationship between
developmental coursework and academic success helps these students perform well in
college and gives first-generation students who performed poorly in high school the
opportunity to recover academically.

In a study conducted by Hopper, Taylor. and Wolford (1997). students who took
developmental English and then took college-level English were investigated. Hopper et
al. found that students in the developmental education courses had equal or greater rates
of success as non-developmental students at one community college. The final grades of
the students enrolled in this course were collected and reviewed as passing (60 or above
on a 100 point scale) or failing (below 60 points). In addition a no pass category was
comprised of student failures. withdrawals. and incompletes. Of the 357 developmental
students. about 70% passed: almost 13% failed; and approximately 17% withdrew or
received incompletes. Of the 460 non-developmental students. about 80% passed; almost
1 1% failed; and about 10% withdrew or received an incomplete. While this information
is helpful in assessing the effectiveness of this particular developmental course, there is
still a significant population of students who failed. withdrew, or received an incomplete
in the subsequent college-level course.

Weissman, Silk. and Bulakowski (1997) studied students at one community
college who indicated on entrance that they intended to complete the requirements for a
community college degree and/or they intended to transfer to a four-year college. The
total number of students included 1.226 students who were considered college-level, 239

students who were determined skill deficient and enrolled in basic skill courses. and 179

36

students were determined skill-deficient. but did not enroll in basic skill courses. There
was a significant difference in the GPA of the college-level students (2.44). the GPA of
the students who took developmental courses (2.17). and the GPAs of the students who
were considered underprepared but did not take developmental courses (1.52). Students
who were considered underprepared and took developmental courses were averaging
above a “C” average but still were not as successful as their college-level counterparts.
Although underprepared students who took developmental courses earned passing grades
in their college-level courses. their GPAs and completion rates were lower than those in
the general college student body.

The strands of literature reviewed (1) college student persistence (2) sense of
belonging. and (3) developmental education and underprepared students in higher
education indicate a void in the research surrounding academically underprepared
students’ academic self-concept and sense of belonging. Overall the research on non-
cognitive characteristics of community college developmental students was quite limited
(Saxon & Boylan. 1999). The purpose of this study was to fill the gap in the literature by
investigating academic self-concept and sense of belonging for students enrolled in
developmental education who are still working toward completion of their degree.

Studies examining the outcomes of developmental education seem to indicate that
these programs are effective at improving the chances of collegiate success for
underprepared students (Kozeracki. 2002; Merisotis & Phipps. 2000). In these studies.
the most frequently used method to determine the effectiveness of the transition to

college-level courses is a measure based on the GPA of students as a result of their

37

enrollment in developmental courses and the students’ GPA in subsequent courses in
college-level courses.

Chapter three provides detailed methodology used in the study. The methodology
includes an explanation of the research design. data collection procedures. and

instruments and the data analysis.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGN

This chapter describes the methodological approach to the question being studied.
The methodology includes an explanation of the research design, data collection
procedures. scales utilized, and data analysis. The purpose of the study was to examine
the potential relationship between academic self-concept, sense of belonging, and
developmental education final course grade. The specific question being answered is as
follows: What is the relative importance of psychosocial achievement characteristics (i.e.,
sense of belonging and academic self-concept) and demographic variables in the final
course grade of a developmental education English course at the community college? In
order to answer this question. this study used an academic self-concept instrument and
sense of belonging instrument to investigate students’ perception of their academic self-
concept and sense of belonging in college. In addition, the survey included demographic
variables that were included as control variables in the study.

Research Design

Location

Data were collected from Mid-Western Community College (MWCC), during the
fall 2007 semester. Focusing on the community college was important since a large
portion of developmental education courses are housed in the community college and not
at the 4-year institution. In addition. most studies of the relationship between
achievement expectancies and academic performance have focused on elementary and
secondary school students (House. 1992). The little research (Astin, 1993; House, 1992;

1993; 2002: Pascarella & Terenzini. 1991; 2005) in postsecondary education has mainly

39

focused on the 4-year student. Research at the community college level is scant. Studies
of academic self-concept at the community college are needed to understand student
perceptions of academic ability and how these perceptions relate to the student’s sense of
belonging in college. In addition to a lack of research at the community college, many
students enrolled in community colleges are identified as academically underprepared.
Public 2-year colleges are more likely than other types of institutions to provide
developmental education (Parsad & Lewis, 2004).

MWCC serves an area in Michigan, which has one of the highest unemployment
rates in the nation (ATD, 2007). As is the case for most of the state of Michigan, they are
suffering high unemployment rates mainly as a result of the lack of manufacturing jobs
tied to the automotive industry (ATD, 2007). MWCC has noticed an increase in the
number of underprepared students enrolling in the community college. In response to this
enrollment shift, the institution is attempting to make changes in policy and programming
change to assist these students in successful completion of their educational goals. The
Department of Foundation Studies was created in 2003, with a focus on providing
academic support services to underprepared students and students with special needs
(Systems Portfolio, 2006). Foundation Studies monitors the progress of policies and
programs that serve underprepared students, primarily those students placing into
developmental education programs (Foundation, 2005-2006). A main goal of this
department is improving success in second semester classes and improving the ability of
developmental education students to complete degrees. The strategic plan of the
community college includes identifying ways to strengthen students’ academic

performance, particularly in developmental education courses (Systems Portfolio. 2006).

40

As a result, the college is putting forth efforts to identify reasons and ways to address the
needs of this student population. Placing the investigation of student academic self-
concept and sense of belonging at MWCC provides a further profile of the developmental
education student. In addition to the internal changes the institution is putting forth,
MWCC is an Achieving the Dream institution. Achieving the Dream is an initiative
focused on student success and works to identify ways to assist students who are at-risk
at the institution (ATD, 2007). Based on the intensive research conducted at the
institution. MWCC has designed and implemented intervention strategies that are
intended to increase the success of these at-risk groups (ATD, 2007).

A comparison of MWCC to the national data on enrollment in developmental
education shows that MWCC has a larger number of students enrolling in developmental
education coursework. Nationally, approximately 40% of entering freshmen at
community colleges enroll in one of more developmental education courses (Kozeracki
& Brooks, 2006). MWCC has a mandatory assessment policy for incoming students to
complete in order to determine their placement into developmental or college-ready
courses. For the 2005-2006 academic year at MWCC, there were 1,930 new students. Of
these students. 63% had at least one developmental requirement (Foundation, 2005-
2006). Students are required to complete pre-requisite courses or demonstrate equivalent
skills based on assessment. Any exceptions made based on employer, parent or student
insistence must be documented and approved by an academic advisor (F oundation, 2005-
2006). Fifty percent of the new students placed into developmental reading, while only
36% placed into developmental writing (Foundation, 2005-2006). During the fall 2005

semester, 87% of students who were required to take an English writing course and 66%

41

of students with a reading requirement enrolled (Foundation. 2005-2006). The low
percentage of students who enrolled in the reading course may be attributed to the fact
that many MWC C courses do not have a reading prerequisite. However, there were over
400 students enrolled in reading. but only 120 students enrolled in the writing course.
MW C C is unusual in that developmental reading has a higher percentage of students than
the developmental writing course. Nationally. the proportion of students enrolled in
developmental courses at public 2—year institutions was larger for writing (23%) than
reading (20%) (Parsad & Lewis. 2004).
Participc‘mls

Participants were selected from one of two classes: English 080 Reading
Essentials (ENG 080) or English 085 College Reading (ENG 085). As expected, there
was significant overlap in the students enrolled in the developmental reading and writing
courses. As a result. students from English 090 Introduction to Writing were not surveyed
in their classes. Instead. the survey was only administered to the ENG 080 and ENG 085.
The course description for English 080 states that the “course provides the most
fundamental support for students who need to develop college-level reading skills.
Students must show an ability to read some pre-college writing independently” (MWCC
Course Catalog. 2007-2008). The placement into this course is based on a reading level
that falls between fourth through eighth grade. English 085 is described as “a course
intended for students who have developed their reading skills nearly to college level”
(MWCC Course Catalog. 2007-2008). Students place into this course if their reading
level is above eighth grade. but below a college reading level. A more detailed analysis of

the participants is provided in Chapter 4.

Sampling Framework

The participants in this study were selected from developmental education courses
focused in both English reading. English courses were selected for several reasons. The
decision to focus on English and not include math developmental education was based on
previous research citing developmental English as a key impediment to student success.
When students are enrolled in an English developmental education course, they are twice
as likely to be enrolled in more than one developmental education course (Adelman.
2006). Low reading skills are seen as a significant barrier to completion of coursework
and potential fulfillment of the student goal for being in the community college
(Calcagno et al.. 2006). Students who arejudged to have low reading skills are more
likely to need extensive remediation and less likely to earn a degree (Bailey, Alfonso.

C alcagno. Jenkins. Kienzl. & Leinbach. 2004). The need for developmental reading
appears to be the most serious barrier to degree completion and is associated with a
higher total need for developmental coursework and lower rates of degree attainment than
other developmental course-taking patterns (NC ES. 2004). Adelman (1999) has shown
that the more developmental courses a student is required to take. the less likely the
student is to earn a degree.

Basic English classes are often prerequisites to English prerequisites, not only for
transfer. but also for a variety of non-transfer programs (Goto, 1999). The literature
seems to indicate that a deficiency in English is more difficult to overcome than a
deficiency in math alone. In fact. students with a reading deficiency are more likely to
have multiple academic deficiencies than other underprepared students (Cox et al.. 2003).

Developmental English courses tend to enroll a broad cross-section of individuals from

43

the general student body (Goto, 1999). As a result in order to capture the most
underprepared students. English courses tend to have the highest amount of overlap with
other developmental education requirements.

Research (see House. 1999; Marsh 1990; 1999) suggests that math self-concept
differs from verbal self-concept. There is a separation of the verbal and mathematical
self-concepts that are distinct and cannot be incorporated into a general academic self-
concept (Marsh & Shavelson. 1985). In addition, verbal and math self-concepts, rather
than a single academic self-concept factor. are considered to be part of the multiple
subject-matter academic self-concepts in their respective domain (Bong & Clark, 1999).
When students have one deficiency only in math. they have a higher success rate than
those students placing into remedial reading or two or three remedial courses (Adelman,
1996). Also. research (see Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989) cites a decline in academic
competence in math. but the decline was not seen in the students’ perception of English
competence. Students who enter college unable to read at the college level have clearly
had problems with reading achievement in the past. and these previous difficulties impact
how students view their ability to complete college level coursework (Cox et al., 2003).
Lastly. more students enroll in developmental courses during the fall semester than any
other semester at MWCC. For these reasons. students were selected from community
college developmental English courses during the fall 2007 semester.

Procedure

Participants were asked to complete a demographic survey and two additional

measures: Self-Description Questionnaire III (Marsh. 1992) and the Sense of Belonging

Instrument (Hoffman et al., 2002). Each of these measures is discussed in further detail in

44

the subsequent sections and the complete measures are provided in the Appendices. In
order to determine if the measures were appropriate for the students in the developmental
reading course. the head of the developmental English program read over the surveys.
Once the director gave the approval for the appropriate reading level, the surveys were
distributed during the tenth week of classes at Mid-Western Community College
(MWCC). The participants completed the surveys during the first half hour of the
developmental reading courses. The researcher was present during the administration of
the survey in order to answer student questions related to the survey. In addition. the
course instructor was in the classroom and provided definitions for students when they
had a question about the survey statements. Administering the surveys toward the end of
the first semester gave students the ability to judge their connection with college as well
as the time to have developed their self-concept as a college student. Also, students at this
point in the semester have had the chance to utilize the services available to them.

The students were asked to complete the surveys at the beginning of their
developmental education class. The head of the developmental education department
granted permission to have students fill out the surveys during class time, but
participation was completely voluntary. Students’ final grades in the course were
provided by MWCC. MWCC determines successful completion of developmental
coursework with a 2.0 grade point or higher (Administrative Policy Manual, 2006-2007).

The total number of students enrolled in the two courses during the fall semester
was 494. There were 25 sections of ENG 085 and 8 sections of ENG 080 during the fall
2007 semester. The response rate was approximately 61% (301/494). but only 284 of the

surveys were usable. The response rate is only a rough estimate because the total number

45

of students enrolled includes all students under 18 years old. The exact number of
students enrolled who are over 18 years old is unknown. Participant responses were
screened for identical responses throughout the survey (circling all “5” or all “1”
throughout the survey) and for students who were under the age of 18 years old. A total
of 17 surveys were excluded from analyses for these reasons. After excluding these
surveys. there were a total of 284 surveys used in the data analysis.

The researcher assigned a code to each individual survey and the survey cover
sheet that included the participant’s name. The measures were also labeled with the
participant’s code. The participant’s name was immediately removed from the survey
packet and used later only to match with the student’s final grade information. The
achievement data. obtained from the school in a spreadsheet, included students’ names.
The researcher recoded the data so that the final course grade was labeled with the
identification code rather than names. All students who completed and returned the
consent letter and surveys were eligible to receive one of four gift certificates at a local
store through random selection.

Measures
Academic Self; Concept

Academic self-concept was measured using the Self-Description Questionnaire III
(SDQIII). The SDQIII comprises a multidimensional structure that is firmly rooted in the
Shavelson et al. (1976) theoretical model of self-concept. This instrument was
specifically developed using Shavelson et al.’s multidimensional model of self-concept
(Leach, Henson. Odom. & C agle, 2006). This model proposed a general self-concept

construct that was divided into academic and nonacademic components. which then were

46

divided into a number of subscales (Leach et al., 2006). The SDQIII is the third
instrument in a series designed to measure the self-concept in three major domains of
academic, non-academic. and general self-concept (Leach et al., 2006). The
questionnaires are separated by the age range of the participants. The SDQI measures the
self-concepts of elementary-aged children in grades 4-6. The SDQII was developed for
junior high and high school students in grades 7-10. Lastly, the SDQIII was produced
specifically for the college student population. The SDQIII is an Australian instrument
with local norms and is widely regarded internationally as the best available self-concept
instrument (Marsh & O’Neill, 1984).

The SDQIII 136-item scale is designed to measure multiple dimensions of self-
concept for college students. The scale has a total of 13 subscales, however only 4 of the
subscales were used in this study resulting in a 42-item survey (see Appendix B for item
layout). The scale was reduced for three reasons. F irst, eight of the subscales are focused
on nonacademic factors that were not of interest in the current study. Second, the
subscale related to math self-concept was omitted since the surveys were only
administered in English courses. Lastly. reduction of the instrument most likely assisted
with response rate for the survey.

The four dimensions selected for use in this study, verbal, problem solving,
academic, and general, were based on their relevance to community college student
academic self-concept (see Table 1 for a brief description of each scale). Each of the
dimensions is measured by 10-12 items. Participants responded on an 8-point likert-type
scale, from “l-Definitely False” to “8-Definitely True.” The entire breakdown is as

follows: definitely false, false, mostly false, more false than true. more true than false,

47

mostly true. true. and definitely true. Halfof the items for each subscale are negatively
worded and are included to reduce positive response bias (Leach et al.. 2006). Reverse
scores were calculated for 19 of the variables on the scale. Once the 19 negatively
worded items were reverse scored. a score of l was allocated to positive items (definitely
false) and a score of 8 for definitely true.

Table 1

Summary oft/rejour self-concept scales from the SDQII]

 

 

Subscale Number of Items Description

Verbal 10 Ratings of skills and ability in English and
reading

Problem Solving 10 Ratings of own capability to engage in problem
solving

Academic 10 Ratings of general academic skills and ability

General Self-Concept 12 Ratings of effectiveness. capability with

individuals. who are proud and satisfied
with the way they are

 

The 4 subscales (42 items) that were administered were: verbal (10 items),
problem solving (10 items). general academic self-concept (10 items), and a global
perception of self (12 items) (see Table 2 for the breakdown of each scale). Example
items include “I enjoy working out new ways of solving problems” and “I am not
particularly interested in most academic subjects.” This scale is designed to investigate
self-concept with the belief that self-concept is multidimensional and there are
differences between academic and general self-concept such that general self-concept is
the higher—order function. The statements included in the subscales are designed to
measure the student’s perception of their ability in each academic area. Each scale

measures the ways in which the student views their own ability in the domain studied.

48

For example. the verbal scale measures the student’s perception of their ability in English
reading. It is necessary for the subscales to measure each construct related to the students
the in developmental education English course.

The SDQIII instrument serves to determine the multi-dimensional factors of self-
concept relevant to this study. Boulter (2002) discovered that self-perception of
intellectual ability was a positive influence on adjustment in college for both men and
women. These findings are consistent with the research by Tinto (1993) that students who
have confidence in their intellectual ability, set high educational goals for themselves,
and believe that they have the ability to meet these goals were predicted to successfully
adjust to the academic demands of college. This study focused on the motivational
construct associated with students’ self-concepts of ability, expectancies for success,
academic beliefs, and perceived control stem from the question, “Can I succeed on this
task?” (Eccles, Wigfield, Midgley, Reuman, Mac Iver, & Feldlaufer, 1993). The SDQIII
takes into account these perceptions of ability.

Table 2

SDQIII Subscale Factors

 

Verbal: Ratings of skills and ability in English and reading.
' I have trouble expressing myself when trying to write something.
I can write effectively.
I have a poor vocabulary.
I am an avid reader.
I do not do well on tests that require a lot of verbal reasoning ability.
Relative to most people, my verbal skills are quite good.
I often have to read things several times before I understand them.
I am good at expressing myself.
In school, I had more trouble learning to read than most other students.
° I have good reading comprehension

 

Academic: Ratings of general academic skills and ability
0 I enjoy doing work for most academic subjects.
0 I hate studying for many academic subjects.
Table 2 (cont’d).

 

49

° I like most academic subjects.

° I have trouble with most academic subjects.

° I am good at most academic subjects.

° I am not particularly interested in most academic subjects.

° I learn quickly in most academic subjects.

' I hate most academic subjects.

° I get good grades in most academic subjects.

' I could never achieve academic honors. even if I worked harder.

 

Problem Solving: Ratings of own capability to engage in problem-solving.
° I am never able to think up answers to problems that haven’t already been figured
out.
° I am good at combining ideas in ways that others have not tried.
° I wish I had more imagination and originality.
' I enjoy working out new ways of solving problems.
' I am not much good at problem solving.
° I have a lot ofintellectual curiosity.
° I am not very original in my ideas thoughts and actions.
' I am an imaginative person.
° I would have no interest in being an inventor.
' I can often see better ways of doing routine tasks

 

General Esteem: Ratings of effectiveness. capability with individuals, who are proud and
satisfied with the way they are.

° Overall. I have a lot of respect for myself.

' Overall. I lack self-confidence.

' Overall, I am pretty accepting of myself.

0 Overall. I don’t have much respect for myself.

' Overall. I have a lot of self-confidence.

' Overall, I have a very good self-concept.

° Overall. nothing that I do is very important.

° Overall. I have pretty positive feeling about myself.

' Overall. I have a very poor self-concept.

° Overall. I have pretty negative feelings about myself.

° Overall. I do lots of things that are important.

' Overall, I am not very accepting of myself.

 

Marsh (1988) states that the correlation between factors is relatively low. The
correlation between verbal self-concept and verbal achievement is cited as evidence of
the validity of SDQIII scores. Marsh and O’Neill (1984) determined that “language
achievement is most highly correlated with Verbal self-concept. less correlated with other
academic self-concepts. and uncorrelated with self-concepts in nonacademic areas” (p.

162). In fact. the size of these academic self-concept and achievement correlations is

50

larger than those found in previous studies of self-concept (Marsh & O’Neill, 1984). As a
result of these connections, Marsh and O’Neill claim that the relationships provide strong
support for the construct validity of self-concept and for interpretation of responses to the
SDQIII.

Measures of internal consistency were derived from a sample of 2,436 Australian
individuals between the ages of 13 and 48, with 92% of the individuals ranging between
the ages of 16 and 26 (Leach et al., 2006). Reliability has been reported at 0.89.
Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was used to measure the scale’s internal consistency, or the
extent to which items that comprise the scale measure the same underlying construct of
self-concept. In the current study, the internal consistency of the subscales is as follows:
Verbal Self-Concept (a = 0.827). Problem Solving Self-Concept (a = 0.56). Academic
Self-Concept (a = 0.88), and General Self-Concept (a = 0.92).

Sense of Belonging

Participants’ sense of belonging at the community college were measured using
the Sense of Belonging Instrument (SB Instrument) created by Hoffman et al. (2002).
The SB instrument was constructed to assess sense of belonging to the postsecondary
institution and to develop an instrument that could be used to understand why students
persist in, or withdraw from, college (Hoffman et al., 2002). The initial measure
contained 50 items concerned with student/peer relationships and 35 items investigating
student/faculty relationships. The 85 items were generated from review of the literature,
focus groups with first-year students at a 4-year institution, and evaluation of the items
for relevancy, clarity, and conciseness (Hoffman et al., 2002). Because student

satisfaction with the university and intention to persist to graduation are factors known to

51

correlate most highly with sense of belonging. the focus groups were designed to
investigate student perception of the environment and how these perceptions were
developed (Hoffman et al., 2002). The students involved in both the focus groups and the
pilot testing of the instrument were enrolled in the university’s freshman seminar course.
The freshman seminar course at the institution was offered in two different forms: (I) the
first option was a class based on major or interest group and (2) the second option was a
learning community structure with the course founded in a content area.

The participants for the pilot testing of the instrument were 205 students (144
women and 61 men) from a 4-year institution on the East Coast, all between 18-20 years
old. Approximately 85% of the sample was white and the remaining 15 % were students
of color. All students who participated were first year students, 83% of whom lived on
campus. After pilot testing, the instrument was reduced to 26 items: 16 items that
comprised the three factors related to student/peer interactions and 10 items that
comprised the two factors related to student/faculty interactions (see Table 3 for the
breakdown of statements). Example items include “I feel comfortable asking a teacher for
help if I do not understand course-related material” and “It is difficult to meet other
students in class.” The items were scored on a 5-point scale, from 1 (completely untrue)
to 5 (completely true). The entire breakdown is as follows: completely untrue, mostly
untrue, equally true and untrue. mostly true, and completely true. Reverse scores were
calculated for 4 ofthe variables on the scale. Once the 4 negatively worded items were
reverse scored, a score of l was allocated to positive items (completely untrue) and a
score of 5 for completely true.

Table 3

SB Instrument Subscale Factors

 

Perceived Peer Support
' I could call another student from class if I had a question about an assignment.
' l have met with classmates outside of class to study for an exam.
° Other students are helpful in reminding me when assignments are due or when
tests are approaching.
° I have discussed personal matters with students who I met in class.
° I have developed personal relationships with other students in class.
° I discuss events which happen outside of class with my classmates.
' If I miss class. I know students who I could get the notes from.
' I invite peogle I know from class to do things socially.

 

Perceived Faculty Support/Comfort

0 I feel comfortable asking a teacher for help if I do not understand course-related
material.

° If I had a reason. I would feel comfortable seeking help from a faculty member
outside of class time (i.e. during office hours. etc.).

0 I feel comfortable seeking help from a teacher before or after class.

' I feel comfortable socializing with a faculty member outside of class.

° I feel comfortable asking a teacher for help with a personal problem.

° I feel comfortable talking about a problem with faculty.

 

Perceived Classroom Comfort
' I feel comfortable asking a question in class.
° I feel comfortable volunteering ideas or opinions in class.
' Speaking in class is easy because I feel comfortable.
' I feel comfortable contributing to class discussions.

 

Perceived Isolation
° I rarely talk to other students in my classes.
° I know very few people from my classes.
0 No one in my classes knows anything personal about me.
' It is difficult to meet other students in class.

 

Empathetic Faculty Understanding
° I feel that a faculty member would take the time to talk to me if I needed help.
° I feel that a faculty member really tried to understand my problem when I talked
about it.
' I feel that a faculty member would be sensitive to my difficulties if I shared them.
' I feel that a faculty member would be sympathetic if I was upset.

 

This 26 item scale assesses sense of belonging in college specifically for first-year
students. Together the 5 subscales cover perceived peer support. perceived classroom
comfort. perceived isolation. and perceived faculty support. and empathetic faculty

understanding (see Table 4 for an explanation of the subscales). These five factors

53

 

explain a total of 63.3% of the variance among the 26 items, or 38.8%, 9.0%, 6.4%,
4.9%, and 4.2% of the total variance respectively.
Table 4

Summary of thefive subscales for the Sense of Belonging Instrument

 

 

Subscale Number Description

of Items
Perceived Peer Support 8 Perception of academic and social support by peers
Perceived Faculty 6 Perception of academic and social support by
Support/Comfort faculty
Perceived Classroom 4 Perception of personal comfort within the classroom
Comfort setting itself both with faculty and students
Perceived Isolation 4 Perception of the student’s ability to establish

relationships with peers

Empathetic Faculty 4 Perception of the student’s ability to approach
instructors for guidance regarding personal matters

 

Morrow (2004) reported internal consistency of the subscales is as follows:
Perceived Peer Support (a = 0.89), Perceived Classroom Comfort (a = 0.92), Perceived
Isolation (ct = 0.85), and Perceived Faculty Support (a = 0.89); however, Morrow did not
utilize the last subscale. empathetic faculty understanding, in her study. In the current
study, the Cronbach alpha coefficient for the subscales is as follows: Perceived Peer
Support (a = 0.85), Perceived Classroom Comfort ((1 = 0.90), Perceived Isolation (a =
0.76), Perceived Faculty Support (a = 0.81), and Empathetic Faculty Understanding (a =
0.67).

The SB instrument indicates that sense of belonging to the institution stems from
perceptions of valued involvement in the college environment (Hoffman et al., 2002).

This perception of valued involvement was predicated on: 1) establishing functionally

54

supportive peer relationships and 2) the belief that faculty are compassionate and that the
student is more than just another face in the crowd (Hoffman et al., 2002). Even though
this instrument was designed and tested at a 4-year residential institution, there are
several reasons the survey can be applied to the community college student. The
inclusion of student-faculty interactions both inside and outside of the classroom is
necessary for investigating community college students. In fact, Bailey et al. (2004) state
the importance of understanding students’ sense of belonging or fit at the community
college starts with the classroom. They suggest that one way to shift the research focus is
to put less emphasis on extracurricular activities a student is involved in and devote more
attention to the classroom experiences of the student since this is the place where
commuter students have the most contact with other students and faculty (Bailey et al.,
2004)

Feeling connected to the institution inside the classroom at the community college
is especially important since the students are generally commuter students and do not
spend much time on campus other than in the classroom. Hoffman et al. (2002) found
that students’ perception of faculty as supportive and empathetic contributes directly to
students’ attachment to the institution. Faculty are some of the most visible
representatives of an institution; having less than positive interactions with an instructor
could impact a student’s transition into a university setting (Maestas et al., 2007). In
addition, when research on sense of belonging in the school setting involves a measure of
student perception of teacher support, encouragement, and warmth, academic

achievement is directly and significantly related (Booker, 2006).

55

The student-peer relationship is examined mainly through classroom-related
activities. For example, “I could call another student from class if I had a question about
an assignment” is one statement used to understand the perceived peer support of the
students. Including student-peer interactions is important for the community college
student even thought the faculty support tends to be a more important factor in
determining student persistence at the community college. One reason the peer
relationships can impact the community college student is through the small class size of
developmental education courses. Fielstein and Bush (1998) state that these courses tend
to have a small class size and more individualized instruction and increased social
interaction. Additionally, community college students are less involved on their campus
compared to students at 4-year institutions, participating less frequently in campus
organizations and rarely attending campus events (Maxwell, 2000).

Demographic Questionnaire

Participants were asked to complete a brief survey requesting demographic
information (see Appendix A). The purpose of this survey was to allow the researcher to
ensure that the sample was representative of the total population of the community
college and to have a complete profile of the students studied. Participants were asked to
indicate their gender, race/ethnicity, age, social class, achievement information from high
school, employment status, frequency of visits to faculty, advisers, and/or the center for
student success, their educational goals, their parents’ highest education attainment, and
the number of dependents and number of people living in their household. Some of these
factors were used in creating the model of final course grade.

Data Analysis

56

The findings from the analysis of the survey data are presented in detail in
Chapter 4. This section provides an overview of the data analysis conducted.

Chi-square Analyses. Chi-square tests for independence were used to determine
the respondents’ representation of the population and a test of sampling bias. Chi-square
was used to determine whether the respondents were representative of the developmental
education population at MWCC or the individual school population (i.e., all the students
at MWCC) for categorical variables.

One-sample t—tests. One sample t-tests were used to test the mean difference for
continuous variables. The test of mean difference was used to determine if the mean of
the sample was representative of the MWCC population.

Bivariate correlations. Bivariate correlations were used to access the relations
between the self-concept and sense of belonging subscales and demographic
characteristics, as well as their relation to the key outcome variable.

Multiple Regression

As outlined in the literature review, there are many factors (psychosocial
achievement characteristics, pre-entry academic characteristics, and demographic
variables) that influence a student’s ability to complete developmental education courses
at the community college. To what extent do these factors explain the student’s final
course grade in the developmental education course? In order to examine the degree to
which a student’s final course grade in a developmental education English course could
be predicted from the student’s psychosocial achievement characteristics and

demographics, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted. Furthermore,

57

the researcher will investigate which of the variables entered in the second step is the best
predictor of final course grade.

Final course grade in the English developmental education course was used as the
dependent or outcome variable. The control variables in the model were self-reported
high school grade point average and the number of developmental education courses in
which the student was required to enroll. The independent variables in the study included
the four subscales from the SDQIII (Verbal, Academic, Problem Solving, and General
Self-Concept). the five subscales from the SB Instrument (Perception of Peer Support,
Perceived Classroom Support. Perceived Isolation, Perceived Faculty Support, and
Empathic Faculty Understanding). and demographic variables (Age, Gender,
Race/Ethnicity, Social Class. Education Goal. Number of Dependents. and Employment
Status).

Dependent or outcome tx'at-‘iable. The dependent variable used in the model was
the student’s final grade in the developmental English course. The institution provided
the final grade of consenting participants on a 4.0 scale. Studies (see Marsh, Byme, &
Shavelson, 1988) show that the responses on the SDQIII academic scales are related to
school grades. Maximizing individual’s academic potential is also an important outcome
that can be impacted by self-concept change. The connection between positive self-
concept and academic performance has long been perceived as an important linkage by
educators in assessing academic performance (Gerardi, 2005). Research (Ethington.
1991; Meece. Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990) suggests that there was a relationship between
self-concept and grades. In these studies, a student’s self-concept and grade were related

to wanting to pursue a subject further even if taking more courses was not required.

58

In a study by Gerardi (2005) academic self-concept proved to be more influential
in predicting community college GPA than the traditional academic performance
measurements such as prior academic performance in the form of SAT or ACT scores.
This study was conducted using a low-income. minority population at an urban, technical
community college. These students had been classified as academic high-risk students, or
academically underprepared. because of their poor academic performance. However. the
results of the study indicate that a positive student academic self-concept worked to
counter veiling force in combating the compounding socio-economic disabilities
associated with the previous academic environment (Gerardi. 2005).

Pre-entrt' academic characteristics. High school grade point average and the
number of developmental education courses required by the student were entered as
control variables because prior academic experiences directly impact final course grade.
House (1992) stated the importance of controlling for a student’s past academic
achievement when studying self-concept. It is important to determine the effect of prior
academic self-concept on subsequent academic achievement even if prior academic
achievement also affects subsequent academic self-concept (Marsh, 1990). Hawley and
Harris (2005-2006) found that among the highest predictors of dropout was the amount of
developmental coursework that students are required to complete.

Academic selflconcept. Students’ self—perception of their academic abilities may
be an important factor in academic success for students who enter the institution labeled
as high-risk (Fielstein & Bush. 1998). Community college students appear to lack
confidence in their abilities to succeed academically (Bers & Smith, 1991). Majors and

Sedlacck (2001) state that students with a low academic self-concept and low academic

59

preparedness are at high-risk for dropping out. Woodside et al. (1999) found that student-
faculty interactions are significantly associated with students’ academically related self-
concept

Sense ofbelonging. Social and academic integration are central to a student’s
connection to campus life. the classroom experience. and the social experience (Maestas
et al.. 2007). Students whose teachers reported them as being highly engaged and
connected to the classroom community demonstrated advanced levels of achievement
(Booker. 2006). In addition. Strauss and Volkwein (2004) discovered that the classroom
experience and faculty interaction is more influential at 2—year colleges than at 4-year

colleges.

60

Figure 2. A Model of Developmental Education Final Course Grade

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Developmental
Education Enrollment
/ - Math vs. English \
- Classroom as
Pre-Entry social community
Characteristics (Reference Group)
- High
5011001 7 . . Final Course
GPA —-—> I Sense of Belonging in Grade in
- Number CC English
0f DE Developmental
COUTSCS \ Ability Perceptions Education
- Academic Course
Self-Concept
- School /
Experiences
Motivation and
Achievement
(Educational Goals
and Aspirations)

 

 

 

 

Demographic
Information:
- Age
- Gender
- Race
- Social Class
- Number of
children (and
other dependents)
- Employment
status

 

 

 

61

CHAPTERFOUR
RESULTS

This study attempted to investigate the relationship of academic self-concept and
sense of belonging in community college to academically underprepared student success
in developmental education English courses. In this chapter I describe the sample and
compare it to the population under study. looking for potential sampling bias. Next I
examine the multidimensional ways of measuring sense of belonging and self-concept to
gain a better understanding of the constructs. I elaborate these results by discussing the
usefulness of the smaller subscales. which allowed for more substantial understanding of
sense of belonging and self-concept instead of just having a general measure.

Following the discussion of sample and measurement issues, I explore the
principal research question: what is the relative importance of psychosocial achievement
characteristics (i.e.. sense of belonging and academic self-concept) and demographic
variables in the final course grade of a developmental education English course at the
community college? I carried out a hierarchical multiple regression procedure to
determine the total variance in the final course grade in the developmental education
English course explained by psychosocial achievement characteristics (academic self-
concept and sense of belonging) and demographic variables (employment, race/ethnicity,
gender, educational goal. gender. number of dependents. social class, and age) after
controlling for high school grade point average and the number of developmental
education courses for which the student was required to enroll. The multiple regression
procedure was also used to determine the relative importance of predictors of final course

grade.

62

Demographic Factors

This section provides the description of the respondent group in addition to results
from analyses utilized to determine the represetativeness of the sample. The respondent
group is described and presented and compared not only to the developmental education
population at MWC C . but also to the larger community college population. Chi square
analyses and one-sample t-tests were conducted to determine whether respondents were
representative of the developmental education population (i.e., all developmental
education English students enrolled at MWCC). When the raw data specific to the
developmental education population were unavailable. chi square analyses were
conducted to determine whether the respondents were representative of the MWCC
population as a whole. Demographic information was obtained from the National Center
of Educational Statistics (NC ES) and the Achieving the Dream Institutional Report for
Mid-Western Community College (ATD).
Gender

The survey respondents included 165 (58%) female and 1 19 (42%) male students.
The gender breakdown is similar to MWCC’s developmental education population with a
breakdown of 60% female and 40% male (see Table 5). Chi-square analyses were
conducted to determine whether participants were representative of the developmental
English population at MWCC. Demographic information was obtained from the
Achieving the Dream (2007). Chi-square analyses indicated that there was not a
significant difference in the number of male and female student representation when

compared to the population ()6 = 0.428. p = 0.513).

63

 

Table 5

Chi-Square Analysis: Gender of Student

 

 

Gender Students Population Chi-Square p
Total

Male 119 (42%) 345 (40%) 0.428 .513

Female 165 (58%) 514 (60%)

 

When looking at the national developmental education population, studies (see
Boylan. Bonham, & Bliss, 1994; Knopp, 1996) found that women are the majority.
Slightly more than half of the population is female. The female population ranges from
53% to 57% of the developmental education population (Boylan et al., 1994; Knopp,
1996). MWCC consistently has a higher percentage of females in developmental
education than male students (Foundation, 2005-2006). These findings are consistent
with the community college population as a whole since the female population is
typically larger than the male population (Cohen & Brawer, 2003).

Race/Ethnicity

For the purposes of the analyses in the current study, individuals who self-
identified as Black/African American, American Indian, Hispanic/Latino, Multiracial,
and other were collapsed into a student of color variable. The number of students in each
race/ethnicity category was too small to conduct an individual statistical analysis. The
racial/ethnic breakdown of the sample was as follows: 230 White (81%), 28
Black/African American (10%), 7 American Indian (2.5%), 10 Hispanic/Latino (3.5%), 6
Multiracial (2.1%), 1 other (.4%), and 2 provided no answer to this question.

The collapsed student of color variable represented 18.5% of the sample. The

small number of participants in each racial or ethnic group made it necessary to collapse

64

them for analysis even though students of color have different experiences (Wawrzynski
& Pizzolato. 2006). Chi-square analyses indicated that there was not a significant
difference between respondents and the developmental English population at MWCC in
terms of race/ethnicity when the participants are grouped based on white and the
collapsed student of color variable (x2 = 0.881. p = 0.348) (see Table 6).

Table 6

Chi-Square A nalvsis: Race/Ethnicity of Student using collapsed variable

 

 

Race/Ethnicity Students Population Chi-Square p
Total

White non-Hispanic 230 (81%) 682 (79%) 0.881 0.348

Students of Color 53 (19%) 177 (21%)

 

The student body at MWCC is predominately white (84%). which is similar to the
other community colleges in the state of Michigan (NCES. 2007). In addition. the
majority of students enrolled in developmental education at MWCC are white (79%).
Results from the National Study of Developmental Education (Boylan et al.. 1994)
indicated that the vast majority of developmental education students are white. Less than
one-third ofthe population were minorities (Boylan et al.. 1994). The largest minority
group represented was African American followed by the Hispanic population (Boylan et
al.1994)

A ge

Comparison with Mil-”((7 population. The age of the participants ranged from 18
years old to 54 years old. In the current study, the mean age of the sample was 20.49
years old with a standard deviation of 6.4. The number of students categorized by

traditional-age student (24 years old and younger) and adult student (25 years old and

65

older) was reported by the Achieving the Dream Institutional Report (2007).
Approximately 27% of the developmental English population were traditional-age
students (N=629), and 27% were over 25 years old (N=230). However, the mean age was
not reported by the Achieving the Dream report. Since age is a continuous variable, the
mean age of the MWC C population was used for analysis.

A one-sample t-test of mean difference was conducted to compare the age of the
sample to the entire MWCC population (see Table 7). In 2003, the average age of
students at MWCC was 25 years old. down from 28 years old in 1998 (MWCC website,
2007). Based on the average age provided by the community college, the test value was
set at 25. The results of the one-sample t-test revealed a difference in the mean age of the
respondents (M=20.49. _S_D=6.4) and the MWCC population (M=25; t(277) = -I 1.764, p
< 0.001). The sample is significantly younger on average than the MWCC population.
Table 7

One-Sample T- Test: Age ofStudent

 

M SD Test Value t(277) p

 

Age 20.49 6.4 25 -I 1.764 <0.001

 

Comparison with M WC 'C developmental education population. When comparing
the composition of the student body in developmental education courses to that of the
entire MWC C student population. there was a higher percentage of students under the age
of 25 in all developmental courses (ATD, 2007). With regard to the age of students, an
overwhelming majority of respondents in this study were under the age of 24 years old. 'A

majority ofthe students were either 18 years old (53%) or 19 years old (26%). The

66

student population taking developmental education courses at MWCC is significantly
younger than the MWCC population as a whole. According to the Achieving the Dream
Institutional Report the population of the two courses studied (ENG 080 and ENG 085)
saw the highest percentage of students under the age of 25 (76.5% and 72.4%
respectively). Younger students in the developmental courses at MWCC seem to be a
function of an enrollment shift at the community college.

Developmental students not only include older students; they also include
underprepared traditional high school students who had no intention of attending college
(Maddox, 2002). Although there is a shift to a larger percentage of traditional-age
community college students. nationally the majority of students enrolled at the
community college are older than 24 years old. A study conducted by Burley et al. (2001)
found that students in developmental education tend to begin their studies at older ages
than expected. This finding is contrary to the findings in the sample discussed here and
the trends at MWCC. A majority of the students in developmental education at MWCC
are 24 years old or younger. Approximately 5 7% of all new students at MWCC who
placed into all three developmental areas were in the age group of 18 and 19 years old
(ATD, 2007). Additionally, nearly 60% of all new students enrolling at MWCC who
were 18 and 19 years old placed into at least one developmental education course (ATD,
2007).

F all-Time versus Part- Time Status

Of the 284 participants. 219 (77%) attend the community college full-time. The

enrollment patterns of the population at MWCC were obtained from the National Center

of Educational Statistics (NC ES, 2008). Chi-square analysis indicated that there was a

67

significant difference between the study respondents and the total population (x2 =
162.423. 2 < 0.001). The number of students in the sample attending full-time is
significantly different from the overall population at MWC C . A larger percentage of the
respondent group attends MWCC full-time than the MWC C population. Based on the
NC ES website. the number of students attending the community college part-time was
reported to be nearly 60% of the population. A large majority of respondents in this study
were enrolled full-time (see Table 8). According to the Achieving the Dream Institutional
Report (2007) 58% of the students in developmental education at MWCC were enrolled
full-time. It may be that students did not understand what it means to be a full-time
student at MWCC. This question may have been confusing and resulted in erroneous
responses that appeared to be an "overrepresentation” of this group.

Table 8

Chi-Square Anal insist Enrollment Status ofStudent

 

 

Enrollment Status Students Population Chi-Square p
Total

Full-Time 219 (77%) 2358 (40.6%) 162.423 <0.001

Part-Time 62 (23%) 3449 (59.4%)

 

The influx of traditional-age students will continue to contribute to an increase in
the number of full-time enrollees in community college (Bryant, 2001). As stated
previously. the number of students in this study who are considered traditional-age
students is significantly higher than the non-traditional student representation. The large
percentage of traditional-age students may contribute to the large percentage of full-time
students represented. A national study of developmental education students found that

68% ofthe students enrolled full time at the community college (Boylan et al.. 1994).

68

Transfer

Approximately 28% of the students enrolled at MWCC transfer to four-year
universities (NCES, 2007). For the purposes of the chi square analysis, the educational
goal variable from the survey was collapsed into two groups (Group One: No intent to
transfer; Group Two: Intent to transfer). Students with no degree aspirations, plans to
complete a certificate, or a 2-year degree were placed into Group One. Those students
indicating a desire to complete a 4-year degree or beyond were coded as Group Two. Chi
square analysis indicated that there was a significant difference between the study
participants and the MWCC population as a whole (x2 = 59.732, p < 0.001) when looking
at the intent to transfer (see Table 9). The respondents were on average more likely to
indicate intent to transfer than the typical MWCC student.
Table 9

C Iii-Square Analysis: Transfer

 

 

Educational Goal Students Population Chi-Square p
Total
No intent to transfer 146 (51%) 4181 (72%) 59.732 <0.001

Intent to transfer 138 (49%) 1626 (28%)

 

Traditional-age students tend to be similar to older community college students in
both race and gender: however. they are more likely to intend to complete a four-year
degree than older students (Bettinger & Long. 2005). Since the sample has a high number
oftraditional-age students. the degree aspirations of the respondents may reflect this bias
and cause the transfer goals to be significantly different from the MWC C population. The

raw data related to the developmental education students who intend to transfer was not

69

available for this analysis. Overall, 59% of traditional-age community college students
stated a bachelor’s degree as their educational goal or expectation (Adelman. 2005).

Students’ reasons for attending community college can range from curiosity to
career enhancement or vocational preparation (Burley et al., 2001). Most of the students
enrolled in developmental education do so with the intention of completing either an
associate’s degree or transferring to a 4-year institution (Knopp, 1996). “A high
percentage of students who begin their collegiate careers at community colleges do so
with the intent of transferring to four-year colleges in order to complete their studies”
(Trujillo & Diaz, 1999, p. 125). The students in the sample may have the intent to
transfer, but may not actually be aware of what it takes to complete the transfer process.
A study of community college students in California discovered that during the first
semester students have higher degree aspirations than they do in the subsequent semesters
(Driscoll, 2007). A majority of the traditional-age students entered the community
college with the goal of transferring to a 4-year institution, but after the first semester
lower their expectations (Driscoll, 2007). The students that successfully transfer are more
likely to have high levels of initial commitment to the institution and their educational
goals; high levels of academic and social integration; parents with higher levels of
educational attainment; positive attitudes towards transferring to a senior institution; and
engagement in some form of transfer behavior at the two-year institution (Nora &
Rendon, 1990).
Course Completion

Mid-Western Community College determines successful completion of

developmental coursework with a 2.0 grade point or higher (Administrative Policy

70

Manual. 2006-2007). At MWCC. approximately 70% of the students who take the
English developmental education courses pass on their first attempt with a 2.0 grade or
better (Foundation, 2005-2006). It is unknown how many times the participants in the
current study have enrolled in the course. The overall pass rate for the course is typically
75% of the students passing with a 2.0 or better, regardless of the number of times the
student has enrolled in the course (F oundation, 2005-2006). Chi square analysis indicated
that there was a significant difference between the study respondents and the total
developmental education population ()6 = 24.147. p < 0.001). A higher percentage of the
students in the sample (84%) passed the course than the overall MWCC developmental
English population (70%) (see Table 10).

Table 10

Chi-Square Analysis: Course Con-zpletion

 

 

Course Completion Students Population Chi-Square p
Total

Pass (Grade 2.0 or higher) 216 (84%) 531 (70%) 24.147 <0.0001

Fail (Grade below 2.0) 41 (16%) 228 (30%)

 

In the current study. a slightly higher percentage of students passed the
developmental English course with 76% passing, 14% failing. and 9.5% of the final
grades missing from the data set. The final breakdown of grades in the course on a 4.0

scale is presented in Table l 1.

71

 

Table l 1

Final Course Grades

 

 

Final Course Grade Sample MWCC Developmental English
Population

0.0 l 7 (6%) 123 (16.4%)
0.5 7 (2.5%) 3 (0.5%)
1.0 9 (3.2%) 16 (2.1%)
1.5 8 (2.8%) 35 (4.7%)
2.0 30 (10.6%) 90 (12%)
2.5 34 (12%) 73 (9.8%)
3.0 56 (19.7%) 137 (18.3%)
3.5 50 (17.6%) 122 (16.3%)
4.0 46 (16.2%) 149 (19.9%)
Missing Data 27 (9.5%)

 

The mean grade in the course was 2.71 with a standard deviation of 1.13. The
total developmental English population at MWCC has a final grade mean of 2.5 on a 4.0
scale. A one-sample t-test to compare mean difference was conducted with a test value of
2.5 (see Table 12). The results of the analysis indicated that there was a difference in
mean scores between the sample participants and the MWCC developmental English
education population t(256) = 2.984, p = 0.003). Study participants on average passed the
course with a higher grade (2.71) when compared with the MWCC developmental
education population (2.5).
Table 12

One-Sample T- Test: F inal Course Grade

 

M SD Test Value t(256) p

 

Grade 2.71 1.13 2.5 2.984 0.003

72

Weissman. Bulakowski, and Jumisko (1997) found that 73% of students enrolled
in development English successfully completed their coursework. Grimes (1997) found a
slightly higher completion rate (88%) for those students who not only completed, but also
persisted to the second semester. The students who successfully completed. but did not
persist had a lower completion rate of only 58% successfully completing their
developmental English coursework (Grimes, 1997). MWCC students who complete
developmental English courses (ENG 080. ENG 085. and ENG 090) pass at a 75%
completion rate.

Sampling Bias: Summary

Chi-square tests for independence were used to determine the respondents’
representation of the population and a test of sampling bias for the categorical variables.
C hi-square analysis was used to determine whether the respondents were representative
of the developmental education population at MWCC. When the raw data for the
developmental education population were not available the sample was tested against the
individual school population (i.e.. all the students at MWC C). One-sample t-tests were
utilized to test the difference from the mean for the continuous variables (age and final
course grade). No significant differences were found for the gender or race/ethnicity of
the sample and the developmental education population.

Significant differences were found for the age of students, the enrollment status of
the students. and the intent of the students to transfer for the sample and the MWCC
population. All three of these analyses used the MWCC population as a whole and not the
developmental education population. These results are not a clear indication of sampling

bias. Instead it might be the same distribution as for developmental students overall at

MWCC. It is possible that the sample was representative of the developmental education
population. Lastly. there was a significant difference between the final course grade in
the sample and the developmental education population at MWCC. The developmental
education population grade point average includes student who were enrolled in ENG
080 and ENG 085 during the 2006-2007 school year (ATD, 2007). A larger number of
students fail these courses during the winter term at MWC C (Foundation, 2005-2006).
The ‘A point higher GPA for the sample made the group a bit higher in performance but
the bias is less than would have been the case if the population average was under a 2.0
GPA. Both the sample and the MWCC developmental population were above a 2.5 GPA
on a 4.0 scale.
Description of Respondent Group

This section provides an overview of the demographic variables included in the
model for which there is no raw data available to compare to the population. Many
community college students have to make difficult decisions regarding attending college
and working full or part-time to financially assist their families (Hawley & Harris, 2005-
2006). Potential impediments to degree completion for community college students may
include being a first generation college student, having poor academic skills. being
burdened by family and work pressures. and lacking a consistent connection to college
(McArthur. 2005). Students are entering an environment where they are no longer among
peers of their same age group and are making a significant transition in their lives. Saxon
and Boylan (I999) summarize the developmental student as a student similar to most

community college students:

74

In essence, students participating in community college remedial courses are
very much like most other community college students. There are no
demographic. economic, or personal characteristics in which they differ
significantly from the typical community college student. The only factor that
appears to separate them from non-remedial students is that they have lower
scores on institutional assessment tests. (p. 7)

Community college students represent a diverse mix of students with varying
goals, significant demands on their time, and a range of personal, academic, and financial
challenges (CC SSE, 2005). These students often bring many complicating life issues to
the educational setting including employment and family responsibilities (Crews &
Aragon. 2007). Community colleges serve a disproportionate number of poor, working-
class, ethnic or racial minority, and female students (Crews & Aragon. 2007; McCabe &
Day, 1998; Shaw, 1999). In addition, students are more likely to be older, are more likely
to be working. and are more likely to interrupt their enrollments (Bailey & Alfonso,
2005)

Dependents

A large percentage (76%) of the respondents did not have any dependents; 13% of
the participants had 1 dependent, 5% had 2 dependents, 4% had 3 dependents, and the
last 2% had 4 or more dependents. According to Laden (2004) over a third of the
population of community college students are responsible for dependents; of these. over

16% are also single parents.

75

Employment Status

The number of participants who work off campus was 187 (66%); 92 (32%) do
not work at all. and 4 (2%) had work study positions. A little more than half (5 1%) of the
participants who were employed indicated they worked more than 20 hours a week.
Regardless of age. over 80% of the community college student population is employed
and, of these, almost 54% work full time and over 30% work part time (Bryant, 2001;
Laden, 2004).
Social Class

Most of the students in the sample indicated that their social class growing up was
either Middle class (45%) or Working class (22%). The remaining students in the sample
claimed they were Upper-Middle class (19%) or in Poverty (10%). Students taking
developmental courses tend to come from low-income families (Maddox, 2002).
Research (see McCabe & Day, 1998) cites low socioeconomic status as a common
characteristic of developmental education students.
High School GPA

The self-reported high school grade point average mode of the respondents in the
sample was a 2.5-2.99 on a 4.0 scale. Table 13 provides the breakdown of high school
grades. Saxon and Boylan (1999) reported a mean cumulative high school grade point
average of entering community college developmental education students as 2.40 on a 4.0

scale.

76

Table 13

High School Grade Point Average

 

 

High School Grade Sample Sample
Frequency Percentage

1.0-1.49 1 0.4%
1.5-1.99 11 3.9%
2.0-2.49 44 15.5%
2.5-2.99 88 31.0%
3.0-3.49 80 28.2%
3.5-3.99 46 16.2%

4.0 4 1.4%
Missing Data 1 l 3.8%

 

Number of Developmental Courses Required

All students in the sample were enrolled in at least one developmental course
(either ENG 080 or ENG 085). The respondents self-reported the number of
developmental courses for which they were enrolled. Approximately 15% (N=42) of the
sample was enrolled in only one developmental course, 30% (N=87) were enrolled in two
developmental education courses, and 33% (N=93) were enrolled in all three
developmental education courses. Overall, 21% of the respondents did not know how
many developmental education courses they were required to take.

Relationship of Psychosocial Achievement Characteristics and Demographic Variables

Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the degree to
which a student’s final course grade in a developmental education English course could
be predicted from the student’s psychosocial achievement characteristics and
demographics characteristics. In addition, the best predictor from the set of independent
variables was determined based on the beta values in the model. The [3 values describe to
what degree each predictor impacts the dependent variable if the effects of all other

predictors are held constant (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

77

The student’s final grade in the developmental education English course was used
as the dependent variable. The student’s self-reported high school grade point average
and the self-reported number of developmental education courses the student placed into
were entered at the first step of the analysis. Controlling for students’ entering
characteristics was important given the considerable research suggesting that these
measures predict college success (see House, 1992). At step 2, the subscales for the
SDQIII (Verbal. Academic, Problem Solving. and General Self-Concept) and the SB
Instrument (Perception of Peer Support. Perceived Classroom Support, Perceived
Isolation. Perceived Faculty Support. and Empathic Faculty Understanding) were entered
along with several demographic variables thought to influence the final grade in the
developmental course. These demographic variables were the student’s educational
degree goal. number of dependents. self-reported social class growing up. the collapsed
race or ethnicity variable. age. gender. and employment status. The independent variables
were entered together since this model is exploratory in nature. House states that in
studies of the relationship between attitudes and academic outcomes. it is important to
utilize a design that allows for an analysis ofthe contribution of multiple variables.

Dependent or outcome variable. The outcome variable of the model was
determined as the final course grade in the developmental English course. For the
purposes of the analysis. the graded scale was used to evaluate the outcome. In terms of
community colleges. semester-to-semester persistence is more meaningful than year to
year (Napoli & Wortman, 1998). Cox et al. (2003) found that underprepared readers’
success in college is directly and significantly related to taking and passing a reading

skills course. The grades were provided by the institution following the end of the fall

78

2007 semester. MWCC considers successful completion ofthe course to be a 2.0 grade or
higher in the developmental English course (Administrative Policy Manual. 2006-2007).
Hoyt (1999) indicates that first-term academic performance had the strongest relationship
to retention when looking at a student’s need for remediation and their eventual retention.
Pre-entry academic characteristics. Self-reported high school grade point average
and the self-reported number of developmental education courses the student enrolled in
during the fall 2007 semester were entered into the model as control variables. House
(1992) states that academic self-concept is continuously modified based on the result of
school performance. Being placed into developmental courses is based on a student’s
ability to do college coursework and is determined by a placement exam or the ACT
score of the student. Students enrolled in developmental education courses start with
weaker academic skills. As a result. it is hard to identify the causal relationship between
developmental education and subsequent course work (Bailey & Alfonso, 2005).
Academic selficoncept. Previous research suggests that developmental education
students have a lower self—concept than those students entering the community college as
college-ready (Thompson. 1998). Based on Marsh. Byrne. and Shavelson’s (1992) work
on multidimensional. hierarchical self-concept there is strong support to approach this
construct as having multiple dimensions and being multifaceted versus a global measure
of the self: indicating that there are multiple dimensions of a persons self-concept that
relate to their academic performance. The model tested in this study includes student
responses to four of the subscales from the SDQIII created by Marsh (1990). All four

subscales are comprised of 10-12 separate statements without any overlap in the

79

formation of the subscales (Verbal. Academic, Problem Solving. and General Self-
Concept).

Sense o/‘belonging. Institutional commitment is a precursor or predictor of student
persistence behavior and can be defined as a student’s sense of belonging with the
institution (Strauss & Volkwein. 2004). Feeling connected to the institution outside of
classes and developing social connections are the keys to creating a sense of belonging
(Maestas et al.. 2007). In addition. making connections with faculty and engaging
academically are crucial to both succeeding and feeling like a member ofthe college
community (Maestas et al.. 2007). Sense of belonging was measured using the SB
Instrument which includes five subscales: Perception of Peer Support. Perceived
Classroom Support. Perceived Isolation. Perceived Faculty Support. and Empathic
Faculty Understanding (Hoffman et al.. 2002).

Demographic variables. Factors such as expectancies (educational goal).
socioeconomic status (social class). age. employment. number of children, and previous
academic experiences play an important role for the success of developmental education
students (Burley et al.. 2001). Based on the characteristics of developmental education
students described by Saxon and Boylan (1999). all of the demographic variables
included in the model were considered to contribute to the risk status of the students. The
race/ethnicity of students was included because previous research has shown that this
background characteristic impacts sense of belonging and persistence (Hurtado & Carter.
1997). In addition. differences based on gender. race/ethnicity. and age were found to be
significant when studying academic self-concept (House. 1992; 1993). The social class

variable was included because Ostrove and Long (2007) found a relationship between

80

social class (indicated by students’ self-identifying with a social class group) and sense of
belonging in college. Table 14 provides the means and standard deviations for the
variables included in the model.

Table 14

Means and Stamlard Deviations.“ illulttple Regression

 

 

Mean Standard Deviation
Final Grade in Course 2.71 1.13
Self-reported High School GPA 3.42 1.13
Self-reported Number of DE courses 2.22 0.75
Number of Dependents 0.44 0.95
Social Class Growing Up 1.84 0.95
Age 20.49 6.40
Employment Status 0.33 0.47
Race/Ethnicity Collapsed Variable 0.19 0.39
Gender 0.58 0.49
Educational Degree Goal 1.77 0.83
Verbal Self-Concept 5.09 1.15
Academic Self-Concept 5.34 1.12
Problem Solving Self—Concept 5.20 0.78
Overall Self-Concept 6.62 1.04
Perceived Peer Support 3.43 0.89
Perceived Faculty Support/Comfort 3.64 0.80
Perceived Classroom Comfort 3.63 1.04

81

Table 14 (cont’d).

 

 

Perceived Isolation 3.67 0.94
Empathetic Faculty Understanding 3.78 0.72
C ollinearity

Bivariate correlations. The correlations between the variables in the model are
presented in Table 15. Tabachnick and F idell (2007) suggest that variables that correlate
at .7 or above should not be included in the multiple regression. None of the variables
reach this height; however, two of the variables are approaching this high correlation.
The highest correlation is 0.68 (see Table 15) between Perceived Peer Support and
Perceived Isolation from the SB Instrument. All of the variables were retained in the
model since there is no indication of multicollinearity.

Although there is no correlative overlap suggesting multicollinearity. it is possible
there is a definitional overlap. This overlap means that students who indicate a high self-
concept might include in the definition some of the factors used to assess the other forms
of self-concept measured. It is possible that general self-concept is so broad in practice
that it covers the other dimensions of self-concept studied. It may be that components of
the measures that comprise both scales are so similar that they measure the same thing. In
this analysis. the correlation is not that high, but the built-in definition-based correlation

is high.

82

$338-3 38‘ $6 2: E ESKEME MN :38me391
\hmmE-Q 3.3 a 6 8: E ESREMB & :ctEmtc-v...

 

 

- - - - I I I - - I I I - - - - I - I mew-5 RE“— .0—
m_. - I - I I - I - I I I I I I - - - I .Ezomm
ocofmaEm .w_
00. new—N. - I I I I - I I I I I I - I I I I coca—Om. .m—
vo. 1.3... **Nv. I I I I - I I I - I I I I I I I tow E0 U
EDP—www—U .0—
2. **mm. VIEN- **©m- I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I toaazm
gzzuma.m_
no. from... **w©. **mm. 83%. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I toga—am Loom Ju—
**©_. from. **mm. **Nv.. Ermm. **wm. I I I I I I I I I I I I I Um __m-_M>O .m—
N_.I *m_. *2. **mm. **wN. :- **NN- I I I I I I I I I I I I Um mm .m—
**_N. 1.0m. **_NI **ON- ask-M. 3.2. 3.94. xxx-cm. I I I I I I I I I I I Um
252834 .:
Moe 3.2. 5.5. “anam- **mm. 1mm. 1.24. 3.5- 3%. I I I I I I I I I I Um _wn._o> .o_
8.- 8. I:- 8- 8.- :.- 8.- 8. 8. 5.- - - - - - - - - - 555855 .5
1.2. *2. **w_. co.- co. 3.2. 8.. 3.7 **mm. mo. 8.- I I I I I I I I .5950 .w
8. :. woe o_. oo- ilr wor .8.- mo. .8.- 9. we. I I I I I I I ow< .h
8.- 5.- 8. .2. 8. 5. 1.2. IE. *2. In. 8. 5. 8. - - - - - - goesmbué 5
we. 3. 3.0—.- 5. E.- **w_.- *m_.- mor _o.- 0Q- NO. NO. **w_- m .- I I I I I mmflU Emoom .m
*2. o.- o_. **m_ :3. mo. we. 00. *2. 5. 3.2. *m_. 3.8. 3. no. I I I I 3565500 .v
58. 2.- a. 5. 8.- It. 8. 2. 3.2. .3. 5.- 8.- :8.- 8. 8.- 3.- - - - 8.85 .m
8.- 5.- 8. 2. 8. 2. :. 8. 8. 8. 8. Q. 5.- 8. 8. 8.- 8.- - - 8:20 mo .5
.12.. $7 3.0—.- :.- 2.- .43.- :.I *m_.I 2.34m.- ...E.- 5. 1.2.- 8. 5. E. 5. 8.. NO. I (ED mI ._
m: w_ E E m_ 3 Q m_ 2 o_ o w h c m w m N _ ofimtm>

 

 

23.5-53me 385::

HZNNQSNKQIA Smm;€mm~ SQCBNNKKQLV

2 2an

83

Tolerance. Collinearity statistics were performed as part of the multiple
regression analysis. Tolerance was calculated for each variable. The formula for tolerance
is l-R2 for each variable. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) state that if the value for each
variable is very low (near 0), then this result indicates that there are multiple correlations
with other variables that are high, and this result would indicate multicollinearity. The
result of this analysis indicates that this assumption has not been violated and no sign of
multicollinearity is evident (see Table 16).

Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). The V1 F statistic was calculated. The guidelines
provided by Tabachnick and F idell (2007) suggest that a large VIF (greater than 10) is a
cause for concern and a variable with that outcome should be removed from the model.
For the current model the VIF values are well below 10 (see Table 16). These results
indicate that there is not a multicollinearity concern within the current model.

Table 16

C ollinearity Statistics: Tolerance

 

 

Variable Tolerance VIF

Final Grade in Course 0.910 1.099
Self-reported High School GPA 0.831 1.204
Verbal Self-Concept 0.983 1.656
Academic Self-Concept 0.843 2.072
Problem Solving Self-Concept 0.985 1.372
General Self-Concept 0.968 1.567
Perceived Peer Support 0.971 2.144
Perceived Faculty Support/Comfort 0.978 2.061

84

Table 16 (cont’d).

 

Classroom Comfort 0.980 1.906
Perceived Isolation 0.963 2.188
Empathetic Faculty Understanding 0.966 1.666
Employment Status 0.999 1.094
Collapsed Race/Ethnicity 0.999 1.102
Gender 0.939 1.276
Educational Degree Goal 0.992 1.251
Number of Dependents 0.994 1.497
Social Class 0.999 1.108
Age 0.989 1.554

 

Model of Final Course Grade

The survey data were transformed in the following ways. First. the race/ethnicity
variable was divided into two groups (Group One: Students who identified as White or
Caucasian; Group Two: Students who identified as a Student of Color). Second,
participants were divided into groups according to their educational degree aspirations
(Group One: No degree plans. or None; Group Two: Vocational, Certificate, Associate’s
Degree. or 2-year Degree: Group Three: Bachelor’s Degree. or 4-year Degree; Group
Four: Master’s Degree: Group Five: Doctorate. Medical. Law Degree. or Professional
Degree; Group Six: Missing Data). Missing values were excluded pairwise so that the
data were excluded only from calculations involving the variable for which there was no

score. The unstandardized regression coefficients (B) and intercept. the standard error of

85

the unstandardized regression coefficients (SE B), and the standardized regression
coefficients ([3) are provided in Table 17.

After the variables in step 1 (High School GPA, Number of Developmental
Education Courses) were entered, the overall model explains 4.7% of the variance in final
course grade. After the independent variables were entered in step 2, an additional 13.7%
of the variance in final course grade, even when the effects of high school GPA and
number of developmental education courses required were controlled for statistically.
With all independent variables in the equation, the model of final course grade was
statistically significant [R2 = .184, F(18. 161) = 2.023, p = 0.011]. It is important to note
that the value of 18.4% includes all the variables from both steps of the model, not just
those entered in the second step. The R2 change value of 0.137 indicates a majority of the
variance in a student’s final course grade in an English developmental education course is
predicted by the psychosocial achievement variables (i.e., self-concept and sense of
belonging) and the demographic variables thought to contribute to the model. This is a
statistically significant contribution to the model at the p = 0.05 level.

Table 17

Predicting Final Course Grade: Multiple Regression

 

 

Variable B SE B [3

High School GPA 0.102 0.08 .102
Number of DE courses -0.157 0.113 -0.104
Verbal Self-Concept -0.1 76 0.090 ~0.1 79*
Academic Self-Concept 0.211 0.105 0210*
Problem Solving Self-Concept -0.248 0.121 -0.l71*

86

Table 17 (cont’d).

 

 

General Self-Concept 0.214 0.096 0.198*
Perceived Peer Support 0.021 0.132 0.016
Perceived Faculty Support/Comfort 0.051 0.144 0.036
Classroom Comfort -0.018 0.107 -0.017
Perceived Isolation -0.008 0.127 -0.006
Empathetic Faculty Understanding 0.009 0.145 0.005
Employment Status -0.219 0.179 -0.091
Collapsed Race/Ethnicity -0.182 0.216 -0.063
Gender 0.225 0.184 0.099
Educational Degree Goal 0.064 0.108 0.047
Number of Dependents 0.084 0.104 0.070
Social Class -0.094 0.089 -0.079
Age 0.006 0.016 0.035
* p<0.05

The standardized regression coefficients ([3) value, or beta, explains the number of
standard deviations that the outcome will change as a result of one standard deviation
measured in standard deviation units so that all variables are directly comparable
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Each of the different variables has been converted to the
same scale so that comparison can be made. The unstandardized regression coefficients
(B) values provide information about the relationship between the final course grade and
each of the individual predictors in the model. Additionally, B values explain to what

degree each predictor impacts the outcome when controlling for all other predictors.

87

 

 

Four significant predictors were found in the model. Two of the predictors.
academic and general self-concept. were positive and significant at the 0.05 level. The
other two variables that were significant, verbal and problem solving self-concept were
negative and significant at the 0.05 level. The beta values reported in Table 17 represent
the unique contribution of each variable. when the overlapping effects of all other
variables are statistically removed (Tabachnick & F idell. 2007). As shown in Table17,
student’s self-concept measures emerged as significant predictors of student’s final
course grade in the developmental English course. When the variance explained by all
other variables in the model was controlled for. Academic Self-Concept (B = .21) made
the strongest unique contribution to the amount of variance in the final course grade. The
beta indicates that the relationship between academic self-concept and final course grade
was 0.21. General Self-Concept (B = .198) made the second strongest contribution. The
beta indicates that the relationship between general self-concept and final course grade
was 0.198.

The t-test associated with the B value measures whether the predictor is making a
significant contribution to the model. The amount of variance explained by Academic
Self-Concept [t(28l) = 2.015. p = 0.046] and General Self—Concept [_t_(281) = 2.227. p =
0.027] each made a statistically significant unique contribution to the model.

Total Verbal Self-Concept [t(279) = -1.946, p = 0.05] and Total Problem Solving Self-
Concept [t(279) = -2.052. p = 0.042] each made a statistically significant contribution to
the model. However. both verbal and problem solving self-concept had a negative
contribution to the final course grade, i.e., as verbal self-concept and problem solving

self-concept had an inverse relationship with final course grade. The two self-concept

88

variables that were negatively contributing to the model also have correlations (see Table
15) that are negatively associated with the dependent variable. There was a small
negative correlation between Verbal Self-Concept and Final Course Grade (E = -0.03. n =
280. p = 0.61). There was also a small negative correlation between Problem Solving

Self-Concept and Final Course Grade (E = -0.l2. g = 280. p = 0.06).

Figure 3. Model of Developmental Education Course Grade with Significant Predictors

 

 

 

 

Ability Perceptions
Pre-Entry - Academic Self-
Academic Concept
Characteristics - General Self-
' High —’ Concept Final Course
School - Verbal Self— ___p Grade in
GPA Concept English
- Number - Problem Developmental
of DE Solving Self— Education
courses Concept Course

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the magnitude of the t-statistics it should be noted that the academic and
general self—concept measures had a similar impact on the dependent variable. The
magnitude of the t-statistics for the verbal and problem solving self-concept also had a
similar negative impact on the dependent variable. The subscales for Sense of Belonging
did not predict the final course grade for the developmental education course. In addition.

the demographic variables entered into the model did not predict the final course grade.

89

Conclusion

This chapter presented the findings from the survey data collection. A hierarchal
multiple regression procedure was utilized to determine how much of the total variance in
final course grade was explained by psychosocial achievement characteristics (self-
concept and sense of belonging) and demographic characteristics (employment,
race/ethnicity, gender, educational goal, gender, number of dependents, social class, and
age). Results from the hierarchical multiple regression suggested that the overall model
was statistically significant, but only explained 18.4 % of the total variance in the final
course grade. Given that the model explained a small amount of variance, it is suggested
that there are other moderating factors affecting students’ final course grade in the
developmental education course.

The multiple regression procedure was also used to investigate the contribution
that psychosocial achievement characteristics and selected demographics contributed to
the model of developmental education final course grade. The four self-concept variables
were the only statistically significant predictors in the model. Thus, self-concept affects a
student’s final course grade in the developmental education course to a greater degree
than sense of belonging and demographic variables. The findings presented in this

chapter will be discussed further in Chapter 5.

90

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents a discussion of the findings of this study. The conceptual
framework presented in Chapter 1 is used to explore the relationship of academic self-
concept and final course grade for students in the developmental English course.
Limitations of this research and recommendations for future research are reviewed.
Finally implications for practice are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to determine the relative importance of
psychosocial achievement characteristics (i.e., academic self-concept and sense of
belonging) and demographic variables (student’s educational degree goal, number of
dependents. social class. race/ethnicity, age, gender, and employment status) in
explaining the final course grade in a developmental English course. The findings
indicate that (1) the model of final course grade was significant, but only explained a
small amount of variance; (2) academic self-concept and general self-concept were
significant and positive predictors of the final course grade; (3) verbal self-concept and
problem solving self-concept were significant and negative predictors of final course
grade; (4) sense of belonging did not have a significant contribution to the final course
grade; and (5) the demographic variables included in the model did not significantly
predict the final course grade or have strong unique contribution to the model.

The overall multiple regression model was significant, indicating that the joint set
of predictor variables explained a significant proportion of the total variance. However,
the results of this study also indicated that sense of belonging and demographic variables

were not significant predictors of students’ final course grades. According to the model,

91

only academic variables impacted the student’s final course grade. Consistent with
previous research on community college students (Napoli & Wortman, 1998), academic
integration significantly affects a student’s GPA. while social integration for community
college students does not impact GPA. Unexpectedly. there was no relationship between
faculty and student interaction in the model for final course grade. Strauss and Volkwein
(2004) and others (see Gigliotti & Gigliotti, 1998; lacoby, 2006) found that community
college students’ interaction with faculty inside the classroom significantly impacted
student success. In fact. Gigliotti and Gigliotti found that students’ perceived ability to
interact with professors was seen by students as critical for their success at passing
courses as well as for grades achieved. Unlike previous investigations (Kreysa, 2006-
2007) no relationship was found between common demographic predictors and final
course grade. The use of demographic variables and sense of belonging did not fully
explain the academic success of developmental students in this sample.
Relationship to Academic Achievement

Academic and General Self-Concept

Of the variables measuring academic integration. two were significant and
positive in the model of final course grade. In line with previous research (Gerardi, 1990;
Reynolds. 1998), students’ academic self—concept and general self—concept were related
to their academic achievement and GPA. While context and environment impact the
influence that self-concept has on the student. in general a positive relationship has been
demonstrated between academic self-concept and achievement (see Marsh. 1990.
T rautwein et al.. 2006). Consistent with these results, Gerardi found academic self-

concept was the best predictor of academic success when compared with other variables.

92

While context and environment impact the influence that self-concept has on the
student. in general there has been a positive relationship between academic self-concept
and achievement (C aya. 2002; C hapman. Tunmer. & Prochnow, 2000; Marsh, Trautwein.
Ludtke, Koller, & Baumert, 2005). Based on Marsh, Byrne. & Shavelson’s (1992) work
on multidimensional. hierarchical self-concept there is strong support to approach this
construct as having multiple dimensions and being multifaceted versus a global measure
of the self; indicating that there are multiple dimensions of a persons self-concept that
relate to their academic performance and global self-concept. Academic self-concept is
clearly differentiable from general self-concept and that academic self-concept is more
highly correlated with academic achievement and other academic behaviors than is
general self-concept (Marsh, 1990). However, the results of this study suggest that
academic and general self-concept are more closely related than initially determined.
Although academic self-concept had the strongest, unique contribution to the model.
general self-concept was also a positive and significant predictor in the model. These
results seem to indicate that the difference between academic and general self-concept is
not as separate as the discussions presented by Marsh would suggest. Instead. there is an
overlap in the connection between academic and general self-concept such that both
constructs of self-concept predict the final course grade in the current model. This
overlap means that students who indicate a high self-concept might include in the
definition some of the factors used to assess the other forms of self-concept measured.

Similar to the research conducted by Richardson and Sullivan (1994) for students
who were required to take remedial classes. academic confidence was the strongest

predictor of freshman grade point average. C learly, finding ways to positively influence

students’ academic self-concept in the developmental education course at the community
college brings about increases in students’ final grades. Previous research (House, 1992)
conducted at the 4-year institution found similar results and in follow-up investigation
demonstrated that academic self-concept was also significantly related to overall
persistence at the institution.

Academic self-concept is an important area in which to assist students and help
the students improve because, as the results in this study indicate, as academic self-
concept increases so does the student’s final course grade. A positive self-concept of
academic ability helps students feel more satisfied, which in turn leads to their taking
more courses and performing better (Gigliotti & Gigliotti, 1998). Weissman, Bulakowski,
and Jumisko (1997) comment about the importance of building self-confidence and self-
concept in developmental education students. They found that as faculty members
worked with students to improve their self-concept. faculty indicated that the students
had more drive to persist in the community college.

The building of confidence and self-concept allows students to improve on the
successes in the developmental course and take that confidence into the college-level
courses. Faculty who work with underprepared students believe that success in
developmental education classes enhances motivation and confidence so that students are
likely to enroll in college-level courses and continue at the community college
(Weissman, Bulakowski, & Jumisko, 1997). The community college experience has
fostered a sense of meaning and confidence in their abilities not evident in their
recollections of prior schooling (Dirkx, Smith, & Amey, 2001). In addition, the

developmental courses tend to have small class sizes and more individualized instruction

94

and increased social interaction (F ielstein & Bush. 1998). As a result, underprepared
students are initially protected against academic confidence issues and dissatisfaction
with the college environment. Developmental education courses help students build a
new academic resume with positive experiences instead of the previous experiences with
failure. Community college developmental education programs can make a difference for
these students and help them turn their lives around and get on track academically (Dirkx
etal.2001)

Previous research (Marsh et al., 1992) also found academic self-concept to be a
positive predictor of academic achievement. Consistent with the theoretical framework
described by Marsh (1990; 1993). these findings show that academic and general self-
concept are related to final course grade, further supporting the link between academic
self-concept and academic achievement. When students’ need for competence is met,
they believe that they can determine their success. understanding what it takes to do well
and to succeed academically (F redricks et al.. 2004). The results of this study are
important because of the clear demonstration of a positive relationship between academic
and general self-concept with academic performance of developmental education
students. The significant and positive relationship between academic self-concept and
GPA is important because GPA is one of the key criteria of success for college students
(Lounsbury. Huffstetler. Leong, & Gibson. 2005).

Verbal and Problem Solving Self-Concept

Contrary to the expected results of the study. problem solving self—concept and

verbal self-concept were negatively associated with academic achievement and final

course grade. A possible explanation for the present results is that the academically

95

underprepared students in this sample might have had unrealistic expectations for their
verbal and problem solving abilities. Research indicates that underprepared students tend
to leave high school with unrealistic self-appraisals of their abilities and the academic
demands of further schooling (Trippi & Stewart, 1989). Many of the students in this
sample just left high school in the last year, and these students may have an inflated
belief in their verbal and problem solving abilities. Trippi and Stewart suggest that only
realistic appraisals of preparation and performance outcomes are significantly and
positively related to student academic outcomes. Dismissing or misjudging weak
performance may represent a denial of objective reality, resulting in an unrealistic self-
appraisal of ability (Fielstein & Bush, 1998). Burley et al. (2001) also point to unrealistic
expectations demonstrated by developmental education students. These unrealistic
expectations are evidenced by the negative association with final course grade for the
verbal and problem solving self-concepts.

Beyond students making unrealistic judgments of their abilities in courses,
students might actually have difficulty understanding what it means to be a learner. The
students enrolled in these courses have a previous history with difficulty in this academic
subject area. The students might have trouble knowing themselves as learners and not
know how to evaluate their abilities in the classroom. These unrealistic expectations take
on the form of inaccurate evaluations of themselves as a learner in the classroom.
Kaufman and Feldman (2004) investigated the formation of a college student identity and
found that one particularly important piece of the identity is the belief that just being in
college appears to give students a sense of being intelligent and knowledgeable. This

knowledge could be indicated by the students in the current study having a positive

96

academic and general self-concept. The students have a higher sense of self-concept
because they have made it into the college environment. As such, attending college is a
symbolic marker that suggests both to oneself and to others that one has a certain degree
of intellectual competence and knowledge (Kaufman & Feldman, 2004).

Students may not have the ability to think of themselves as a learner in the context
of different academic areas because they do not know what it takes to be in the classroom
and be successful. McGuire (2006) suggests that underprepared students enter college
without knowing how to learn or how to study, and therefore have difficulty succeeding
in courses that require critical thinking. The reasons for this lack of knowledge about how
to learn can often be traced to their high school experiences (McGuire, 2006) and other
aspects of their developmental history. When a student encounters problems early on in
learning, the normal trajectory is that the student will face even more challenges later in
their learning (Clark, 1997). If early training goes wrong, then the network is often
unable to recover (Clark, 1997) or at the very least needs extra support to assist in the
development of certain abilities.

Overestimating one’s ability may result in unfounded academic confidence,
encouraging students to take on academic challenges for which they may feel capable,
but in actuality lack sufficient academic talents (Fielstein & Bush, 1998). Grimes (1997)
found an unexpected relationship between self-esteem and persistence in her study of
underprepared community college students when compared to college-ready students.
The non-persisting students in her study had higher self-esteem than the students who
persisted to the next semester. She found an inverse relationship between students’ self-

esteem and their GPAs. Students with higher self-esteem were the same students with

97

lower GPAs over one semester. One explanation provided for these results is that the
students may view inflated self-esteem as a defensive mechanism and unrealistically self-
appraise their ability based on group ratings. The ability grouping of students in the
developmental course may reflect the negative association between verbal and problem
solving self-concept and final course grade. According to the “Big Fish Little Pond
Effect” (BF LPE), academic self-concept will depend on a student’s own academic ability
and the ability levels of other students within the same class (Marsh, 1984). The impact
that this frame of reference has on academic self-concept can be seen in courses where
the ability levels of the students are averaged across ability groupings, so that in a
developmental course where students are roughly in the same ability group, BFLPE will
become a factor. Students in these courses based on low ability grouping will have better
self-concepts (Marsh, 1990).

BF LPE seems to be a factor in the current study, especially when looking at the
verbal and problem solving self-concepts. Marsh (1990) found that being in a low ability
group will produce a higher academic self-concept, but a somewhat lower level of subject
specific student ability. In fact, when developing the model of BF LPE, Marsh discovered
a negative association between student ability and academic self-concept. The students in
this study most likely used the immediate social context as their frame of reference. The
relatively low-achieving students had higher perceptions of their competencies in a low
group or track (Stipek, 1998). This ability grouping has a positive impact on relatively
low achieving students’ perception of their abilities and competencies. The students

compared themselves to other academically underprepared students, such as the other

98

students in developmental education courses, and seem to have a false sense of verbal
and problem solving self-concept.

Previous experiences with academics impact students’ self-concept as well as
social comparison. Stipek and Mac Iver (1989) point to a connection between self-
concept and specific academic disciplines. They found that the greater declines in
perceived competence suggest that the declines may be explained primarily by
experiences tied to certain academic subjects (Stipek & Mac Iver, 1989). Students in the
developmental English course have demonstrated previous academic problems in this
subject area. According to this connection, the association between verbal and problem
solving self-concept and final grade is due to the fact that the students experience
difficulty in the English domain. The participants in this study demonstrated an inverse
relationship between their verbal and problem solving self-concept, and their final course
grades.

Social Comparison
Sense of Belonging

Sense of belonging factors in this study did not predict the final course grade of
students in the developmental English course. It was expected that students’ sense of
belonging would impact final course grade, especially when looking at the subscales
related to faculty and student contact. The literature on student persistence in the
community college (Dirkx et al., 2001; Napoli & Wortman, 1998; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005) indicates a strong connection between faculty contact and student
persistence. Sense of belonging was significantly and positively correlated to the

academic self-concept measures in this study but was not correlated with final course

99

grade. It may be that the measure of sense of belonging is a factor in a student’s academic
self-concept but not a significant factor in a student’s final course grade. In this case,
sense of belonging acts as a mediator of academic self-concept, but not as a predictor of
final course grade. Since final course grade can be seen as an eventual measure of
persistence, it seems that sense of belonging is not predictive of student persistence in
this study. These data do not validate the assumptions found in the persistence literature
that sense of belonging of community college students is associated with student
persistence. Sense of belonging is still an important construct to consider since it is
related to a student’s self-concept and self-concept was found to be predictive of final
course grade.

Another factor that contributes to a lack of significance for the sense of belonging
factors is the large number of adjunct faculty teaching the developmental English courses
at MWCC. According to Achieving the Dream (2007) a large number of the courses that
were studied employed adjunct faculty. Research on part-time faculty at the community
college (see Jacoby, 2006) indicates that a reliance on part-time faculty reduces student
graduation rates. The study by Jacoby found that community college graduation rates
decrease as the proportion of part-time faculty increases. While the current study did not
investigate graduation rates, the relationship between part-time or adjunct faculty and
these is still relevant. The findings in this study that indicate sense of belonging and
faculty-student interaction are not related to final course grade could develop because of
a reliance on adjunct faculty. The students do not have a chance to associate with their
professors as often and the professors may not have a strong connection with the campus

themselves.

100

The sense of belonging results in the current study are not altogether different
from the literature regarding community college students and social integration,
specifically with student-student interaction. Previous research (see Nora, Attinasi, &
Matonak. 1990) found similar results that academic self-perception, and not social
integration, had a significant direct effect on student success at the community college. In
fact. Nora et al. found that social integration was actually negatively associated with
persistence for community college students. Similar to the findings in the current study,
Fox (1986, as cited in Bers and Smith, 1991) also found academic integration to be a
significant influence on persistence of underprepared students at a commuter institution,
and social integration was non-significant for that group. Unlike 4-year institutions where
social ties and networks remain relatively stable over several semesters, social networks
at the community colleges are less likely to persist over time (Napoli & Wortman, 1998).
It is important to note that the studies mentioned classify faculty—student interaction as an
academic integration measure and not part of social integration. The sense of belonging
instrument utilized in this study included the faculty-student interactions as part of the
social integration model.

Limitations and Future Research

Although the findings in this study expand on the relationship between academic
self-concept and final course grade for underprepared students, this study has several
limitations that should be noted. F irst, this study is limited in its generalizability since the
research was conducted at one institution in only one academic area. Future research
should attempt to involve a sample with multiple institutions and multiple academic

disciplines. Involving students across disciplines may help to further understand the

101

academically underprepared student and the different needs based on academic content.
Second, as stated in Chapter 3, the sense of belonging measure used in this study was
developed and tested on first-year students at a 4-year institution. It is possible that the
measure does not translate to the community college student. Future research should
work to investigate whether the instrument created by Hoffman et al. (2002) is the best
measure to use with the community college population. Third, the timing of the study
may have impacted the perceptions of the students involved.

As mentioned previously, this study only included participants from one
institution. Although the sample was representative of the developmental education
population at MWCC, caution should be used when generalizing the results. Future
research should include students from different community colleges, urban, suburban,
and rural in order to increase the generalizability of the results. Also, the inclusion of
students from both urban and rural community colleges could increase the understanding
of the experience of developmental education students at the community college. Future
research should also expand this study to include the writing developmental education
courses to capture the students who do not overlap with the reading courses studied. This
expansion may also include math developmental education as a separate study. The math
self-concept scale could be included in a study that compares the outcomes of English
and math developmental students in order to gain an understanding of the differences
these deficiencies make in persistence of community college students.

This study was completed toward the end of the fall semester at MWCC. It is
possible that some student attrition may have already occurred. Hurtado and Carter

(1997) indicate that when sense of belonging is studied during a student’s career may

102

affect the results of the study. The students who remained in the course until the tenth
week of the semester when data were collected could have higher commitment to the
institution and self-concepts from having made it through more than half of the semester.
Future research should attempt to capture students earlier in the academic year in order to
get a complete profile of the students who enroll in developmental courses. Additionally,
students enrolled during the winter semester should be surveyed in order to understand
the differences between the students who begin in the fall and those who start
developmental education in the winter. MWCC continually sees a decline in GPA for
developmental education students during the winter semester (F oundation, 2005).

The use of the student’s final course grade as a precursor to persistence is a
limitation in the study. House (1993) suggests that the use of course grades as the
dependent measure is a possible limitation to studies of competence and persistence. He
states that course grades may reflect a number of student characteristics in addition to
competence; attributes such as the effort and persistence required to complete homework
assignments and exhibit classroom learning are different from examinations. On the other
hand, Kreysa (2006-2007) points to the importance of studying GPA for developmental
students. He suggests that an increase in grade point is a positive influence on student
persistence, and improving developmental students’ GPAs helps the students improve
academically overall. Future research should implement a longitudinal study design of
developmental education student persistence rather than just following one semester of
study.

A longitudinal study of the students at MWCC could be helpful to understand

what changes in self-concept and sense of belonging occur once students move on from

103

the developmental education courses. Seeing how students perform in the college-level
English course and how their self-concept may change as a result of being in a non-
developmental classroom would provide further insight into the relationship of sense of
belonging and academic self—concept. It is possible that as students move from the
comfort of the developmental classroom to more diverse courses that the sense of
belonging and self-concept of previously underprepared students could be impacted.
Following up with these students to see who is still on track with their educational goals
could provide a broader scope to the study and allow for a more direct measure of
persistence at the community college. The opportunities to expand on this study are many
and could prove fruitful in providing useful information to academic advisors and student
affairs professionals who work with students in developmental education.
Implications for Practice
Despite these limitations. the findings in the study do indicate several implications

for practice. The results of this study are useful to program planners within the
community college and faculty who work with underprepared students. Programs
designed to identify students with low academic self-concept or expectancies provide
experiences and counseling to improve those attitudes to benefit college persistence
(House. 1992). A greater understanding regarding the impact that self-concept has on
final developmental course grade provides another avenue to assist students who enter the
community college academically underprepared. Many ofthe students enrolled in
developmental education could benefit from improvements to their academic self-
concept. Improvements to the self-concept of these students contribute to increases in

course grade and. eventually. to persistence in college-level courses.

104

 

The implications for practice presented are separated into three sections. The first
section focuses on improving academic self—concept within the developmental education
classroom. The second section suggests an avenue to connect students to the larger
campus community through the use of campus mentors. Lastly, it is suggested that the
community college bridge the connection with the local high schools in the area to
improve the transition for students just leaving the high school and attending the
community college through the summer bridge program already in place at the
institution.

Improving Sel/LConcept in the Classroom

Research suggests that the attainment of a positive academic self-concept impacts
multiple academic aspects of the student’s life. Marsh (1993) lists academic behaviors,
academic choices. educational aspirations. and subsequent academic achievement as the
main areas impacted by increases in academic self-concept. The developmental
curriculum provides protection against what would otherwise be difficult coursework for
underprepared students (Fielstein & Bush, 1998). These programs increase the likelihood
that these skills will be used by promoting a high degree of hope and self-confidence in
students about their ability to surmount whatever difficulties they may face (McGrath &
Van Buskirk. 1999). The linking of perceived competence and experiences is especially
important because the students in this study have an academic deficiency and are enrolled
in developmental education courses.

It is possible to improve students’ academic self-concept within the
developmental classroom and through the academic services on campus. Programs such

as developmental education should be designed to help students reduce their sense of

105

anxiety and uncertainty by enhancing their ability to manage difficult situations
(McGrath & Van Buskirk, 1999). Working with students to improve their academic self-
concept is especially important in breaking a self-perpetuating cycle of low performance
exhibited by many underprepared students (Grimes & David. 1999). When a student’s
academic self-concept increases. the student is more likely to approach achievement
situations with confidence and engage in the activity willingly and persistently (Brophy,
2004). However, if academic self-concept decreases, the students will doubt their
capabilities for succeeding, try to avoid the situation, or easily give up when they
encounter frustration or failure (Brophy, 2004).

Building academic self-concept begins with providing students with experiences
where they have the opportunity to be successful, exposing students to successful models,
and delivering positive feedback (Schunk & Ertmer, 2000). Students who are motivated
with high aspirations and academic self-concept, goal-oriented, and future—minded have
the best chance for persistence beyond the first year at the community college (Hawley &
Harris, 2005—2006). Successful interventions assist students in assessing progress toward
planned goals and objectives (Adelman & Taylor, 1983). Faculty need to work with
students to set and strive for reasonable proximate goals and to approach larger goals
through smaller steps in the process (Brophy, 2004). The work of improving self—concept
within the classroom should focus on the appropriate amount of challenge and support in
academic tasks and realistic self-appraisals through the development of goals and
providing positive feedback to students. These goals should be designed in ways which

not only highlight the student’s effectiveness, but also the role the student is now playing

106

 

in making decisions and which relate the outcomes back to the student’s intrinsic reasons
for pursuing outcomes (Adelman & Taylor, 1983).

The last suggestion for improving self-concept in the classroom is through the
type of feedback faculty provide to the students. The classroom should be a safe
environment where students are able to ask questions and approach instructors. Although
sense of belonging was not significantly related to the model of final grade, the student
responses on the survey indicate a supportive classroom environment, proving positive
feedback helps students achieve success. Brophy (2004) describes an effective method to
working with a student who is struggling. He suggests communicating using positive
expectations and providing a specific suggestion about how to proceed. without giving
the answer or doing the work for the student. In addition, making positive statements that
help students appreciate the development of their academic abilities by accepting
challenges and applying effort helps to improve academic self-concept (Brophy. 2004).
Campus ll'IL’I’l/OI’S

Improving academic self-concept does not occur only in the classroom; students
may receive academic counseling and advising from support staff on campus. Connecting
the students in the developmental classroom with mentors from the campus community is
one way to help students become more academically integrated. These mentors should
work with students in an academic realm to help students improve on their skills for the
classroom. The networks of support offer numerous settings where students can have
Close contact with mentors. can practice defining problems, and can try out new behavior
and new identities (McGrath & Van Buskirk, 1999). “The problem is not so much that

low-income students lack ambition. it is that these students have not received the

107

socialization, encouragement, or mentoring to take full advantage of higher education”
(Rendon, 1999, p. 197). The identification of specific psychosocial achievement
characteristics can assist in developing supportive micro-institutional environments for
this group of students within institutions (Grimes & David, 1999).

Programs established on campus to work specifically with developmental
populations, such as providing opportunities for frequent informal interaction and
providing a mix of support, information, and advocacy, create social capital (McGrath &
Van Buskirk, 1999). This social capital, in the form of dense networks of relationships,
maximizes the types of supportive interactions that promote self-management skills
among students and helps translate these supportive interactions into emotional capital
which generates feelings of self-concept (McGrath & Van Buskirk, 1999). Since a high
percentage of the developmental education courses at MWCC are taught by adjunct
faculty (ATD, 2007), connecting students with other contacts on campus creates another
way to develop student self-concept and campus connection. Strong networks of social
support provide a path for involvement, which enhances the likelihood of student
involvement and commitment (McGrath & Van Buskirk, 1999). Dense networks of
support offer students a mix of information, pragmatic advice, emotional support, and
advocacy (McGrath & Van Buskirk, 1999).

Connection with Local High Schools

Community colleges need to establish an open dialogue and a working
relationship with high schools in the area to set the foundation for helping students at the
community college and assist with their transition. A large number of students in this

study were 18 or 19 years old and entering the community college almost immediately

108

after graduating from high school. Community college developmental education faculty
and staff should collaborate with the secondary school leaders in the area to make sure
that students have the proper preparation when entering the community college. Spann
(2000) suggests that an increase in communication between the community college and
high schools should include a discussion of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes essential
for successfully entering a regular degree or certificate program. In addition, Spann
indicates that the state department of education needs the information of which high
school feeder systems are producing students that possess the basic academic skills and
attitudes essential for college success so that curriculum at other schools can be modified
to produce students with basic academic skills.

Knowing students’ academic self-concept and how they relate to their initial
expectations regarding their success in college could help student affairs professionals
conceptualize developmental obstacles and design proactive interventions to support
students in their transition from high school to college and help them attain their
academic goals (Boyd et al., 2003). MWCC began a summer bridge program for high
school students transitioning to the community college during the summer of 2005. A
very small number of participants from this study (10 participants) took the summer
course. This transition program targets students from the area who are expected to begin
at the community college during the fall semester. Attempting to target the students who
are academically underprepared and making the transition to the community college is
necessary. Summer bridge courses seek to alleviate the anxiety associated with entering
college and to provide high-risk students with an understanding of what is expected of

them in the community college setting. Since many community college students have

109

previously experienced limited academic success, one important goal of the student
success course is to help the students develop positive attitudes about learning and
confidence in their abilities (Stovall, 2000).

MWCC currently requires students to enroll in a First Year Success course, but
most students take the course concurrently with the developmental education courses. As
students go through this process of development, the way they think, their self-concept,
and the lens through which they view the world change (Crews & Aragon. 2004). I.
Encouraging students to enroll in the summer course, separate from other courses, may E.
give the students the ability to develop their academic self-concept and better prepare
them for the expectations in the developmental classroom.

Grimes and David (1999) state that successful programs to assist underprepared
students must include bridge programs to ease the transition from high school to college
or work to college. which may be the case for community college students. In addition,
these bridge programs can help students develop positive and realistic evaluations of their
abilities in academic courses. Developmental education literature indications that many
students enter developmental courses with negative attitudes about school, and faculty
have a difficult time motivating them to commit to their coursework (Kozeracki, 2005).
Low self-concept can decrease motivation and lead to more focus on the external
contributions to successes and failure. As stated in Chapter 1, underprepared students are
more likely to attribute their success and failure to sources outside of their control. If
underprepared students attribute poor performance to low ability, this attribution will
negatively influence their motivation to invest effort in a similar task in the future and

will perpetuate a cycle of failure (Grimes & David, 1999).

110

Conclusions

The purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship between
academic self-concept and sense of belonging in the final course grade of students in a
developmental English course so that community college faculty and staff can more
precisely implement developmental programs that heighten the probability of academic
success for underprepared learners. In order to investigate this potential relationship, the
following research question was explored: what is the relative importance of
psychosocial achievement characteristics (i.e., sense of belonging and academic self-
concept) and demographic variables in the final course grade in a developmental
education English course at the community college?

The results of the study support the connection between academic and general
self-concept and academic achievement presented by Marsh (1990; I993). The results
also indicate that the students had unrealistic self-appraisals of their verbal and problem
solving self-concept such that higher evaluations in these areas occurred in concert with
lower final course grades. An unexpected result of the study was the lack of connection
between student and faculty interaction in the final course grade as measured by the
subscales in the sense of belonging instrument. As a result, this study refutes the
connection between sense of belonging and academic achievement. Finally the results
illustrate the importance of academic integration at the community college for
developmental education students.

Students need to meet institutional minimum standards of academic performance.
The results of the current study indicate that achieving both social and academic

integration at the community college may not be as important to academic achievement.

111

Ultimately academic integration is more important so that students meet the minimum
standards to remain at the community college. Academic integration is a necessary
condition for persistence. For academically underprepared students, improving academic
performance is imperative to their ability to continue at the community college and

persist to the college-level courses.

112

APPENDIX A — DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
Demographic Information

1. Age on November 1. 2007:

 

2. Sex:
Female Male Trans
3. What is your racial or ethnic identification?

White/Caucasian Non-Hispanic

Black/African American Non-Hispanic

American Indian/Alaskan Native Asian/Pacific Islander (Asian American)
Hispanic/Latino

Multiracial

Other

International Student

I prefer not to respond

4. Did you graduate from high school or complete a GED?

High School GED

5. In what year did you graduate from high school or complete your GED?

 

6. What was your high school GPA?

4.0 or higher 2.5-2.99 ’ 1.0-1.49
3.5-3.99 2.0-2.49 0.0-.99
3.0-3.49 1.5-1.99

7. What is your current major at MWCC:

 

8. Is English your first language?
Yes No
9. When will (or did) you complete your first semester at MWCC:

Winter/Spring 2007 or earlier Summer 2007 Fall 2007

113

10. Is this your first time in college?
Yes No
l 1. Is this your first time in courses at Mid-Western Community College?
Yes No
12. How old were you when you decided to go to college?
Since I can remember
Since elementary/middle school
Since high school
After graduation from high school
I don’t know
I 3. Does your family support your decision to attend college?
Yes No
l 4. Enrollment

Full-time (at least 12 credits) Part-time (less than 12 credits)

I 5. Other courses currently enrolled in:

16. How are you financially supporting yourself while in college?

17. Do you have ajob outside of school?

Yes No

If yes. how many hours do you work a week

0-5 21-25 more than 40
6— l 0 26-30

1 1-15 31-35

16-20 36-40

18. Did you or are you take FYS 105?

Yes No

114

19. How frequently have you visited with your academic advisor over the past semester?

1
2
3
4 or more

20. How frequently have you visited with a faculty member outside of class over the past
semester?

1
2
3
4 or more

21. How many hours a week do you use the center for student success (CSS)?

1
2
3
4 or more

22. What is the highest academic degree you plan to earn?

None Master’s Degree
Certification Doctorate
Vocational (2-year) Degree Medical Degree
Associate’s (2-year) Degree Law Degree
Bachelor’s (4-year) Degree I do not know yet

23 . What is the highest level of education that your mother completed?

Did not finish high school Master’s Degree
High school graduate or GED Doctorate Degree
Some college Medical Degree
Vocational Certificate Law Degree
Associate’s Degree 1 do not know

Bachelor’s Degree

115

24. What is the highest level of education that your father completed?

Did not finish high school
High school graduate or GED
Some college

Vocational Certificate
Associate’s Degree
Bachelor’s Degree
Master’s Degree
Doctorate Degree
Medical Degree

Law Degree

I do not know

25. Which of the following best describes your social class growing up?
Upper Class
Upper-Middle Class
Middle Class
Working Class

Low income or poor

26. Number in household

1
2
3
4 or more

27. Number of dependents (children that you are responsible for)

1
2
3
4 or more

116

APPENDIX B — SELF-DESCRIPTION QUESTIONNAIRE (SDQIII)

SDQIII.

INSTRUMENT

 

I All information supplied will be kept strictly confidential I

 

NAME:

 

 

DATE:

 

 

PLEASE READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST
This is not a test - there are no right or wrong answers.

This is a chance for you to consider how you think and feel about yourself. This is not a
test — there are no right or wrong answers, and everyone will have different responses.
The purpose of this study is to determine how people describe themselves and what
characteristics are most important to how people feel about themselves.

On the following pages are a series of statements that are more or less true (or more or
less false) descriptions of you. Please use the following eight-point response scale to
indicate how true (or false) each item is as a description of you. Respond to the items as
you now feel even if you felt differently at some other time in your life. In a few
instances. an item may no longer be appropriate to you, though it was at an earlier period
of your life (e.g.. an item about your present relationship with your parents if they are no
longer alive). In such cases. respond to the item as you would have when it was

appropriate. Try to avoid leaving any items blank.

After completing all the items, you will be asked to select those that best describe
important aspects — either positive or negative — of how you feel about yourself. Consider

this as you are completing the survey.

117

 

 

Definitely False Mostly More More Mostly True Definitely
False False False True True True

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Than Than
True False

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H

. Overall, I have a lot of respect for myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I have trouble expressing myself when trying to write something.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I enjoy doing work for most academic subjects.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I am never able to think up answers to problems that haven’t already been
figured out.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

. Overall, I lack self-confidence.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I can write effectively.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I hate studying for many academic subjects.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I am good at combining ideas in ways that others have not tried.
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Overall, I am pretty accepting of myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10. I have a poor vocabulary.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

 

1
il2]3l4l5|6|7|s

Definitely False Mostly More More Mostly True Definitely

False False False True True True
Than True Than
False

 

l l. I like most academic subjects.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12. I wish I had more imagination and originality.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
13. Overall. I don’t have much respect for myself.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
14. I am an avid reader.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
15. I have trouble with most academic subjects.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
16. I enjoy working out new ways of solving problems.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
17. Overall. I have a lot of self-confidence.

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
18. I do not do well on tests that require a lot of verbal reasoning ability.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
19. I am good at most academic subjects.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

20. I am not much good at problem solving.

Definitely
False

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

More True True

Than False

More False
Than True

False Mostly

False

Mostly
True

Definitely
True

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

119

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Overall, I have a very good self-concept.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Relative to most people, my verbal skills are quite good.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I am not particularly interested in most academic subjects.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I have a lot of intellectual curiosity.

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Overall, nothing that I do is very important.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I often have to read things several times before I understand them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I learn quickly in most academic subjects.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I am not very original in my ideas, thoughts, and actions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Overall, I have pretty positive feelings about myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I am good at expressing myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Definitely False Mostly More More Mostly True Definitely

False False False True True True
Than Than
True 7 False

 

120

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

I hate most academic subjects.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I am an imaginative person.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Overall, I have a very poor self-concept.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
In school I had more trouble learning to read than most other students.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I get good marks in most academic subjects.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I would have no interest in being an inventor.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Overall, I have pretty negative feelings about myself.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I have good reading comprehension.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I could never achieve academic honors, even if I worked harder.
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
I can often see better ways of doing routine tasks.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

 

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Definitely False Mostly More More Mostly True Definitely
False False False True True True
Than Than
True False

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

121

41. Overall, I do lots of things that are important.
1 2 3 4 5 6
42. Overall, I am not very accepting of myself.

1 2 3 4 5 6

122

APPENDIX C — SENSE OF BELONGING INSTRUMENT

 

l 2 3 4 5
Completely Mostly Equally True and Mostly True
Untrue Untrue Untrue True

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. I feel comfortable asking a teacher for help if I do not understand course-related
material

2. I feel comfortable asking a question in class.

3. I feel comfortable volunteering ideas or opinions in class.

4. If I had a reason. I would feel comfortable seeking help from a faculty member
outside of class time (i.e. during office hours, etc.)

5. Speaking in class is easy because I feel comfortable.

6. I feel comfortable seeking help from a teacher before or after class.

7. I feel comfortable socializing with a faculty member outside of class.

8. I feel comfortable talking about a problem with faculty.

9. I rarely talk to other students in my classes.

10. I feel comfortable asking a teacher for help with a personal problem.

1 1. If I miss class. I know students who I could get the notes from.

12. I feel that a faculty member would take the time to talk to me if I needed help.
13. I could call another student from class if I had a question about an assignment.
14. I feel that a faculty member really tried to understand my problem when I talked
about it.

15. Other students are helpful in reminding me when assignments are due or when
tests are approaching.

16. I feel comfortable contributing to class discussions.

17. I feel that a faculty member would be sensitive to my difficulties if I shared them.
18. I know very few people from my classes.

19. I feel that a faculty member would be sympathetic if I was upset.

20. No one in my classes knows anything personal about me.

21. I have discussed personal matters with students who I met in class.

22. It is difficult to meet other students in class.

23. I have developed personal relationships with other students in class.

24. I invite people I know from class to do things socially.

25. I discuss events which happen outside of class with my classmates.

26. I have met with classmates outside of class to study for an exam.

 

APPENDIX D — CONSENT FORM

Community College Students’ Educational Goals Survey
Participant Consent Form

Because you are a student at Mid-Western Community College enrolled in either ENG
080. ENG 085. or ENG 090. you are being asked to compete three surveys about your
academic self-concept. sense of belonging, and your educational goals as well as to
provide some information about your self.

Your participation is completely voluntary and will in no way effect the grade you
receive in this course. You may discontinue participation at anytime and leave out any
questions to which you prefer not to respond. There are no known risks to you in
participating in this study.

The surveys should take thirty minutes to complete. Your name will not be attached to
your completed survey and therefore your identity will not be revealed. Your privacy will
be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

After completing all the surveys. you will be asked to voluntarily write down your email
address in order to be entered into a random drawing for one of four $50 Amazon.com
gift cards as appreciation for your participation. Your email address will not be linked to
your specific survey responses. Email addresses will be kept in a separate file and will be
shredded as soon as the drawing is complete.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Kathryn King, by phone:
(919) 681-3145. email: heinmill@msu.edu, or USPS mail: 3104 Broomsedge Way,
Durham. North Carolina. 27712. You may also contact Dr. Reitumetse Mabokela,
Dissertation Chair. by phone: (517) 353-6676. email: mabokela@msu.edu, or USPS mail:
425 Erickson Hall. East Lansing. MI 48824.

If you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant, please
feel free to contact Peter Vasilenko. Ph.D.. Director of the Human Subjects Protection
Programs at Michigan State University: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, email:
irb-gjmsuedu. or USPS mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

 

You must be 18 years or older to participate.
I voluntarily agree to participate in this survey

Signature: Date:

 

References

Achieving the Dream (ATD). (2007). Jackson community college oflice of
institutional support. Jackson, MI: Author.

Adelman. C. (1996). The truth about remedial work. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, A56.

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance
patterns, and bachelor's degree attainment. U.S. Department of Education.

Adelman, C. (2004). Principal indicators of student academic histories in
postsecondary education, 1972-2000. Washington D. C.: U.S. Department
of Education.

Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town-and moving on: The community college
in the lives of traditional-age students. Washington DC: U.S. Department
of Education.

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high
school through college. U.S. Department of Education.

Administrative Policy Manual, Jackson Community College. (2006—2007).
Helping students learn. Jackson, MI: Author.

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

Bailey, T. R., & Alfonso, M. (2005). Paths to persistence: An analysis of research
on program effectiveness at community colleges. New York, NY:
Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia
University.

Bailey, T., Alfonso, M., Calcagno, J. C., Jenkins, D., Kienzl, G., & Leinbach, T.
(2004). Improving student attainment in community colleges: Institutional
characteristics and policies. New York: Columbia University, Teachers
College, Community College Research Center.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 1 1 7(3), 497-529.

Bean, J. P., & Bogdan Eaton, S. (2000). A psychological model of college student

retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle
(pp. 48-61). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

125

Bers, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students:
The influence of student intent and academic and social integration.
Research in Higher Education, 32(5). 539-556.

Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B, T. (2005). Remediation at the community college:
Student participation and outcomes. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 129, 17-26.

Bong, M., & Clark, R. E. (1999). Comparison between self-concept and self-
efficacy in academic motivation research. Educational Psychologist, 3 4,
139-154.

Booker, K. C. (2006). School belonging and the African American adolescent:
What do we know and where should be go? The High School Journal,
89(4), 1-7.

Boulter, L. T. (2002). Self-concept as a predictor of college freshmen academic
adjustment. College Student Journal, 36(2), 234-246.

Boyd, V. S., Hunt, P. F., Kandell, J. J., & Lucas, M. S. (2003). Relationship
between identity processing style and academic success in undergraduate
students. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 155-167.

Boylan, H., R., Bonham, B., S., & Bliss, L. R. (1994). Who are the developmental
students? Research in Developmental Education, 11(2), 1-4.

Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press.

Brien, R., Duffy, C. A., Fulwiler, M., Neill, P. A., & Siegrist, C. (1998). Delgado
community college. In McCabe, R. H., & Day, P. R., Jr. (Eds). Developmental
education: A twenty-first century social and economic imperative (pp. 37-43).
League for Innovation in the Community College: The College Board.

Brophy, J. (1996). Teaching problem students. New York: Guilford Press.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivation students to learn. (2nd Ed.) Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bryant, A. N. (2001). Community college students recent findings and trends.
Community College Review, 29(3), 77-93.

Burley, H., Butner, B., & Cejda. B. (2001). Dropout and stopout patterns among
developmental education students in Texas community colleges.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(10), 767-782.

126

Byme, B. M. (1996). Measuring Self-Concept across the Life Span: Issues and
instrumentation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T., & Jenkins, D. (2006). Stepping stones to a
degree: The impact of enrollment pathways and milestones on community
college student outcomes. New York: Columbia University, Teachers
College, Community College Research Center.

C aya, MD. (2002). Attributions, self-concept, and achievement: An investigation of
causal predominance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(11B), 5401.

Chapman, J .W., Tunmer, W.E., & Prochnow, J.E. (2000). Early reading-related skills
and performance, reading self-concept, and the development of academic self-

concept: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 703-
708.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college. (4th
Ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cokley, K. (2002). The impact of college racial composition on African American
students’ academic self-concept: A replication and extension. Journal of
Negro Education, 71, 288-296.

Cokley, K., & Patel, N. (2007). A psychometric investigation of the academic
self-concept of Asian American college students. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 6 7(1), 88-99.

Commander, N. E., & Valeri-Gold, M. (2003). Ideas in practice: Letters of advice

from at-risk students to freshmen. Journal of Developmental Education,
2 7, 28-30.

Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). (2005). Engaging
students, challenging the odds. Austin, TX: Author.

Cox. S. R., Friesner, D. L., & Khayum, M. (2003). Do reading skills courses help
underprepared readers achieve academic success in college? Journal of
College Reading and Learning, 33(2), 170-196.

Crews, D. M., & Aragon. S. R. (2004). Influence of a community college
developmental education writing course on academic performance.
Community College Review, 32(2), 1-18.

Crews, D. M., & Aragon. S. R. (2007). Developmental education writing:

Persistence and goal attainment among community college students.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(8), 63 7-652.

127

Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation,
parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic

minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student
Development 46(3), 223-236.

Dirkx, J. M., Smith. R. O., & Amey, M. (2001). Being a “college student” The
community college experience of underprepared adult learners. In W. C.
Hine (Ed.). Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Midwest Research-t0-
Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education (pp.
49-54). Charleston, IL: Eastern Illinois University.

Driscoll, A. K. (2007). Beyond access: How the first semester matters for
community college students’ aspirations and persistence. Policy Analysis
for California Education University of California. Davis, 1-16.

Ethington, C. A. (1991). A test of a model of achievement behaviors. American
Educational Research Journal, 28, 155- 1 72.

Fielstein, L. L., & Bush, L. B. (1998). Remedial students’ perceptions: Pre-
college decision making, satisfaction with the freshman year, and self-

perceptions of academic abilities. Journal of the F irst- Year Experience
and Students in Transition, 10(2), 41-55.

F ontana, L., Green, P., Wright, T., DiStefano Diaz, M. F., Johnson, E., Macia, J.,
et al. (2006). A strategic model to address issues of student achievement.
Journal of College Student Retention, 7(3-4), 201-216.

Foundation Studies Board Ends Report, Jackson Community College (2005-
2006). Annual report. Jackson, MI: Author.

F redricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement:
Potential of the concept. state of the evidence. Review of Educational
Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Gerardi, S. (1990). Academic self-concept as a predictor of academic success
among minority and low-socioeconomic status students. Journal of
College Student Development, 31(5), 402-407.

Gigliotti, R. J., & Gigliotti, C. C. (1998). Self-concept of academic ability and the
adult college student. Sociological Inquiry, 68(3), 295-311.

Goto, S. T. (1999). The struggle for mobility in the contact zone of basic writing.
In K.M. Shaw, J. R. Valadez. & Rhoads, R. A. (Eds), Community colleges
as cultural texts: Qualitative explorations of organizational and student
culture (pp. 39-58). Albany, New York: State University of New York
Press.

128

Grant-Vallone, E., Reid, K., Umali, C., & Pohlert, E. (2004). An analysis of the
effects of self-esteem, social support, and participation in student support
services on students’ adjustment and commitment to college. Journal of
College Student Retention, 5(3), 255-274.

Grimes, S. K. (1997). Underprepared community college students:
Characteristics, persistence, and academic success. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 21(1), 47-56.

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

Grunder, P. G. & Hellmich. D. M. (1997). Academic persistence and achievement
of remedial students in a community college success program. Community
College Review, 24(2), 21-33.

Hawley, T. H., & Harris, T. A. (2005-2006). Student characteristics related to
persistence for first-year community college students. Journal of College
Student Retention, 7(1-2), 117-142.

Hoffman, M., Richmond, J., Morrow, J., & Salomone, K. (2002). Investigating
“sense of belonging” in first-year college students. Journal of College
Student Retention, 4(3), 227-256.

Hoover, K. G. (2003). The relationship of locus of control and self-efficacy to
academic achievement of first-year students. Journal of the F irst- Y ear
Experience & Students in Transition, 15(2), 103-124.

Hopper, P. F., Taylor, R., & Wolford, P. (1997). Success rate of developmental vs.
nondevelopmental students in freshman college level English. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee.

House, J. D. (1992). The relationship between academic self-concept,
achievement-related expectancies, and college attrition. Journal of College
Student Development, 33, 5-10.

House, J. D. (1993). Achievement-related expectancies, academic self-concept,
and mathematics performance of academically underprepared adolescent
students. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 154(1), 61-71.

House, J. D. (1999). The effects of entering characteristics and instructional
experiences on student satisfaction and degree completion: An application

of the input-environment-outcome assessment model. International
Journal of Instructional Media, 26(4), 423-434.

129

House, J. D. (2000a). Relationships between self-beliefs, academic background,
and achievement of undergraduate students in health sciences major.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 27(4), 427-438.

House, I. D. (2000b). The effect of student involvement on the development of
academic self-concept. Journal of Social Psychology, 140(2), 261-263.

House, J. D. (2002). The independent effects of student characteristics and
instructional activities on achievement: An application of the input-

environment-outcome assessment model. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 29(2), 225-239.

House, J. D., & Prion, SK. (1998) Student attitudes and academic background as

predictors of achievement in college English. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 25(1) 29-43.

Hurtado, S., & Carter, DP. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions

of the campus racial climate on Latino college students' sense of
belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324-345.

Hurtado, S., Chang, J. C., Séenz, V. B., Espinosa, L. L., Cabrera, N. L., & Cerna,
O. S. (2006). Predicting transition and adjustment to college: Minority
biomedical and behavioral science students’ first year of college Paper

presented at the Association for Institutional Research Forum, Chicago,
IL.

Ignash, J. M. (1997). Who should provide postsecondary remedial/developmental
education? New Directionsfor Community Colleges, 100, 5-20.

Jackson Community College (JCC) Course Catalog (2007-2008). Retrieved April
24, 2007, from http://www.jccmi.edu/studentservices/catalog/index.htm

Jackson Community College Website. Retrieved April 24, 2007, f’rom
http://www.jccmi.edu/Info/

Jacoby, D. (2006). Effects of part-time faculty employment on community college
graduation rates. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1081-1 103.

Kaufman, P., & F eldman, K. A., (2004). Forming identities in college: A
sociological approach. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 463-495.

Kerr, S., Johnson, V.K., Gans, S.E., & Krumrine, J. (2004). Predicting adjustment
during the transition to college: Alexithymia, perceived stress, and

psychological symptoms. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6),
593-611.

130

Klicka, M. A. (1998) Developmental education services at Bucks Community College. In
McCabe, R. H., & Day. P. R., Jr. (Eds). Developmental education: A twenty-first
century social and economic imperative (pp. 53-58). League for Innovation in the
Community College: The College Board.

Knopp. L. (1996). Remedial education: An undergraduate student profile.
American Council on Education Research Briefs. 6(8), 1-1 I.

Kozeracki, C. A. (2002). Issues in developmental education. Community College
Review; 29(4). 83-100.

Kozeracki, C. A. (2005). Preparing faculty to meet the needs of developmental
students. New Directionsfor Community Colleges, 129(1), 39-49.

Kozeracki. C. A., & Brooks. J. B. (2006). Emerging institutional support for
developmental education. New Directions for Community Colleges,
136(4). 63-73.

Kreysa. P. G. (2006-2007). The impact of remediation on persistence of under-
prepared college students. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 8(2), 251-270.

Kuh, G. D., & Love. PG. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In
J. M. Braxton (Ed.). Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 196-
212). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Laden. B. V. (2004). Serving emerging majority students. N1w Directionsfor
Community Colleges, I2 7, 5-19.

Leach. L. F .. Henson, R. K., Odom, L. R., & Cagle, L. S. (2006). A reliability
generalization study of the self-description questionnaire. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(2), 285-304.

Levinson. D.L. (2005). Community colleges: A reference handbook. Santa
Barbara. California: ABC-CLIO.

Loeb. R.. & Magee. P. (1992). Changes in attitudes and self-perceptions during
the first two years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 33-
348-355.

Lounsbury. J. W.. Huffstetler, B. C., Leong, F. T. L., & Gibson, L. W. (2005).
Sense of identity and collegiate academic achievement. Journal of College
Student Development, 46(5). 501-514.

Maddox. T. T. (2002). The underprepared student and the community college: A

good fit. Southern Association ofCommunity, Junior, and Technical
Colleges Occasional Paper, 19(1), 1-4.

131

Maestas, R., Vaquera, G. S., & Zehr. L. M. (2007). Factors impacting sense of
belonging at a Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 6(3), 237-256.

Majors, M. S., & Sedlacck, W. E. (2001). Using factor analysis to organize
student services. Journal of College Student Development, 42(3), 272-278.

Marsh. H. (1984). Self-concept: The application of a frame of reference model to
explain paradoxical results. A ustralian Journal of Education, 28, 165—1 81.

Marsh, H. W. (1988). A multifaceted academic self-concept: Its hierarchical

structure and its relation to academic achievement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80, 366-380.

Marsh. H. W. (1990). The structure of academic self-concept: The
Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 623-636.

Marsh, H. W. (1992). Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) III: A theoretical and
empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of late
adolescent self-concept. An interim test manual and research monograph.
Macarthur, New South Wales, Australia: University of Western Sydney,
Faculty of Education.

Marsh, 11. W. (1993). The multidimensional structure of academic self-concept:
Invariance over gender and age. American Educational Research Journal,
30, 841-860.

Marsh, H. W., & O’Neill, R (1984). Self Description Questionnaire III: The
construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late
adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21 , 153—174.

Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. (1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical
structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107—123.

Marsh, H. W., Byme, B. M., & Yeung, A. S. (1999). Causal ordering of academic
self-concept and achievement: Reanalysis of a pioneering study and
revised recommendations. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 155-167.

Marsh, H.W., Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Koller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic
self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects
models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397-416.

Maxwell, W. E. (2000). Student peer relations at a community college.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(3), 207-217.

132

McArthur, R. C. (2005). Faculty based advising: An important factor in
community college retention. Community College Review, 32(4), 1-19.

McCabe, R. H., & Day, P. R., Jr. (1998). What works in developmental education.
In R. H., McCabe & P. R. Day Jr. (Eds.), Developmental education: A
twenty-first century social and economic imperative (pp. 19-27). League
for Innovation in the Community College: The College Board.

McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003a). The school attitude assessment survey-
revised: A new instrument to identify academically able students who
underachieve. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63 , 414-429.

McGrath, D., & Van Buskirk, W. (1999). Cultures of support for at-risk students:
The role of social and emotional capital in the educational experiences of
women. In K.M. Shaw, J. R. Valadez. & Rhoads, R. A. (Eds.), Community
colleges as cultural texts: Qualitative explorations of organizational and
student culture (pp. 15-38). Albany, New York: State University of New
York Press.

Meece. J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math anxiety and its
influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment intentions and performance in
mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82. 60-70.

Merisotis, J. P., & Phipps, R. A. (2000). Remedial education in colleges and

universities: What's really going on? The Review of Higher Education,
24(1), 67-85.

Moore, R. (2004-2005). Pre-enrollment and post-enrollment predictors of the
academic success of developmental education students. Journal of College
Student Retention, Research Theory and Practice, 6, 325-335.

Moriaty, D. F ., Naigus, N., Wyckoff-Byers, J., & Greenfield, & Mulligan, D. (1998)
Education that works: Portland Community College. In McCabe, R. H., & Day, P.
R.. Jr. (Eds). Developmental education: A twenty-first century social and

economic imperative (pp. 73-78). League for Innovation in the Community
College: The College Board.

Morrow, J. A. (2004). College adjustment and sense of belonging of first-year
students: A comparison of learning community and traditional students.
Poster Presented at the annual conference of the First-Year Experience,
Maui, HI.

Napoli, A. R., & Wortman, P. M. (1998). Psychosocial factors related to retention

and early departure of two-year community college students. Research in
Higher Education, 39, 419-455.

133

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2004). Jackson community
college. Retrieved January 15, 2008, from
http:// nces.ed. gov/collegenavi gator/ ?id=1 70444

Nora, A., & Rendon, L. I. (1990). Determinants of predisposition to transfer
among community college students: A structural model. Research in
Higher Education, 31, 235-255.

Nora, A., Attinasi, L., & Matonak. A. (1990). Testing qualitative indicators of
precollege factors in Tinto’s Attrition Model: A community college
student population. The Review of Higher Education, 13 (3), 337-3 56.

Ostrove, J. M., & Long, S. M. (2007). Social class and belonging: Implications
for college adjustment. The Review of Higher Education, 3 0(4), 363-3 89.

Pancer, S. M., Hunsberger, B. Pratt, M. W., & Alisat. S. (2000). Cognitive
complexity of expectations and adjustment to university in the first year.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 15(1), 38-5 7.

Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2003). Remedial education at degree-granting
postsecondary institutions in fall 2000. NCES 2004-010, Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2
A third decade of research (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Pizzolato. J. E. (2004). Coping with conflict: Self-authorship, coping, and
adaptation to college in first-year, high-risk students. Journal of College
Student Development, 45, 425-442.

Pritchard, M. E., & Wilson, G. S. (2003). Using emotional and social factors to
predict student success. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 18-
28.

Rendon, L. I. (1999). Toward a new vision of the multicultural community
college for the next century. In K.M. Shaw, J. R. Valadez. & Rhoads, R.
A. (Eds.), Community colleges as cultural texts: Qualitative explorations
of organizational and student culture (pp. 195-204). Albany, New York:
State University of New York Press.

Rendén, L. 1., Jalomo, RE, & Nora. A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the
study of minority student retention in higher education. In J. M. Braxton

134

(Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 127-156). Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press.

Reynolds, W.M. (1988). Measurement of academic self-concept in college
students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(2), 223-240.

Richardson, S. M., & Sullivan, M. M. (1994). Identifying noncognitive factors
that influence success of academically under-prepared freshmen. Journal
of F irst- Y ear Experience and Students in Transition, 6(2), 89-100.

Robertson, J. S. (2000). Is attribution training a worthwhile classroom
intervention for K—1 2 students with learning difficulties? Educational
Psychology Review, 12, 111-134.

Ruble, D.N. (1994). A phase model of transitions: Cognitive and motivational
consequences. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 26, 163-214.

Rutter, M. (1987). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 5 7, 316-331.

Saxon, D. P., & Boylan, H. R. (1999). Characteristics of community college
remedial students. Retrieved July 10, 2004 from:
http://www.ncde.appstate.edu/reserve_reading/Student_Characteristics

Shavelson, R. J., & Bolus, R. (1982). Self-concept: The interplay of theory and
methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 3-17.

Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J .J ., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation
of construct interpretation of test scores. Review of Educational Research,
46, 407-441.

Shaw, K. M. (1999). Defining the self: Constructions of identity in community
college students. In K.M. Shaw, J. R. Valadez, & Rhoads, R. A. (Eds.),
Community colleges as cultural texts: Qualitative explorations of
organizational and student culture (pp. 125-152). Albany, New York:
State University of New York Press.

Shaw, K. M., Rhoads, R. A., & Valadez, J. R. (1999). Community colleges as
cultural texts: A conceptual overview. In K.M. Shaw, J. R. Valadez, &
Rhoads, R. A. (Eds.), Community colleges as cultural texts: Qualitative
explorations of organizational and student culture (pp. 1-14). Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press.

135

Silver, B. B., Smith. E. V., & Greene. B. A. (2001). A study strategies self-
efficacy instrument for use with community college students. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 61. 849-865.

Simmons, A. B.. & Musoba. G. D. (2004, November). Predicting persistence
amongfirst-generation students: Family background, pre-college
academic achievement, and college experiences. Paper presented at the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Kansas City, MO.

Spann, M. G. (2000). Remediation: A must for the 21” century learning society.
Policy Paper. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

Spelling Commission (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S.
higher education. U.S. Department of Education.

Stage. F. K., & Hossler. D. (2000). In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student
departure puzzle (pp. 170-195). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Stanovich. P., Jordan. A., & Perot. J. (1998). Relative differences in academic
self- concept and peer acceptance among students in inclusive classrooms.
Remedial and Special Education, 19(2), 120-126.

Stipek. D. (1998). Motivation to learn: From theory to practice (3rd Ed.).
Needham Heights. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

Stipek. D. J ., & Mac Iver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children’s
assessment of intellectual competence. Child Development, 60, 521-538.

Stovall. M. (2000). Using success courses for promoting persistence and
completion. New Directions for Student Services, 112, 45-54.

Strauss. L. C. and Volkwein. J. F. (2004). Predictors of student commitment at

two-year and four-year institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 203-
227.

Systems Portfolio, Jackson Community College (2006). AQIP systems portfolio.
Jackson. MI: Author.

Tabachnick. B. G.. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed).
Needham Heights. MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Thombs, D. L. (1995). Problem behavior and academic achievement among first-

semester college freshmen. Journal of College Student Development, 3 6.
280-288.

136

Thompson, J. M. (1998). Developmental students in higher education: Path
analysis of a national sample. College Student Journal, 32(4), 499-510.

Thompson, M. D. (2001). In formal student-faculty interaction: Its relationship to
educational gains in science and mathematics among community college
students. Community College Review, 29(1), 35-57.

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

Trautwein, U., Ludtke, O., Koller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Self-esteem,
academic self-concept, and achievement: How the learning environment

moderates the dynamics of self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90(2), 334-349.

Trippi, J., & Stewart, J. B. (1989). The relationship between self-appraisal
variables and the college grade performance and persistence of black
freshmen. Journal of College Student Development, 30(6), 484-491.

Trujillo, A., & Diaz, E. (1999). “Be a name, not a number:” The role of cultural
and social capital in the transfer process. In K.M. Shaw, J. R. Valadez, &
Rhoads, R. A. (Eds.), Community colleges as cultural texts: Qualitative
explorations of organizational and student culture (pp. 125-152). Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press.

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: race, social fit,
and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(2),
82-96.

Wawrzynski, M., & Pizzolato. J. E. (2006). Predicting needs: A longitudinal
investigation of the relation between student characteristics, academic
paths, and self-authorship. Journal of College Student Development, 4 7(6).
677-692.

Weissman, J ., Bulakowski, C, & Jumisko, M. K. (1997). Using research to
evaluate developmental education programs and policies. New Directions
for Community Colleges, I 00(4), 73-80.

Weissman, J ., Silk. E., & Bulakowski, C. (1997). Assessing developmental
education policies. Research in Higher Education, 38(2), 187-200.

Wild, L., & Ebbers, L. (2002). Rethinking student retention in community

colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(6),
503-519.

137

Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of
personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 231-248.

Woodside. B. M., Wong, E. H., & West, D. J. (1999). The effect of student-
faculty interaction on college students’ academic achievement and self
concept. Education, 119(4), 730-733.

Young, K. M. (2002). Retaining underprepared students enrolled in remedial
courses at the community college. Champagne, IL: Parkland College.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 467 850).

138

   

1111111111114»11111