Community College Completion Project: Focus Group Report by Mississippi State University

8/15/2019 Community College Completion Project: Focus Group Report by Mississippi State University

1/102

Community College Completion Project: Final Report February 2014 1

2014 Final ReportSUBMITTED TOWomen’s Foundation ofMississippi

PREPARED BYKathleen Ragsdale, PhDAnne Buffington, BSClaire Crawford, BASarah RutlandFamily & Children Research UnitSocial Science Research CenterMississippi State University


2/102


FUNDED BY TheWomen’s Foundation of Mississippi. Any opinions implied or expressed here are those oauthors and do not necessarily reflect those of theWomen’s Foundation of Mississippior ofMississippi State University.

CORRESPONDENCEDr. Kathleen Ragsdale, Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State UniversiMississippi State, MS 39762, USA. Tel: +1 662-325-9168; Fax: +1 662-325-7966E-mail: [email protected]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe gratefully acknowledge theWomen’s Foundation of Mississippifor their generous supportof the project. We thank Carol B. Penick (Executive Director), Jamie H. Bardwell (Programs), and theWomen’s FoundationBoard for their support. We gratefully acknowledginvaluable assistance and cooperation of Dr. Debra West of the Mississippi CommuBoard, and the dedicated community college administrators and students who madepossible. We thank Dr. Arthur G. Cosby, Dr. Angela Robertson, Bradley Long, JohnBen Walker, Anna Richards, and the Family & Children Research Unit of the SociaResearch Center at Mississippi State University for their assistance.

KEY ABBREVIATIONS & TERMSACT American College TestingCHE Chronicle of Higher EducationEM Ecological ModelFAFSA Free Application for Federal Student AidGED General Educational Development

GPA Grade Point AverageMCCB Mississippi Community College BoardMSU Mississippi State UniversitySSRC Social Science Research CenterTAACCCT Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College & Career TrainiWF Women’s Foundation of Mississippi


3/102


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………….…………….. 5

INTRODUCTION……………………………………….……………. 10 WHY IS COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETIONAN IMPORTANT WOMEN’S ISSUE?……………………. . 11WOMEN’S FOUNDATION OF MISSISSIPPI…………………………………………………. 13COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION PROJECT:COMPONENTS…………………………………. . 13

METHODS……………………….……………………….……………. 14 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………. . 14STUDY PROCEDURES………….……………………………………………………... 16ANALYSIS 1: QUANTITATIVE SURVEY…………………………………………………… . 16ANALYSIS 2: QUALITATIVE FOCUSGROUPS………….…………………………………… 17ANALYSIS 3: COMPARING TRADITIONAL VS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS……………….……….. 19

RESULTS………………………………………….…………………….. 20 SURVEY: AGGREGATEDRESULTS………..…………...…………..……………………… 20

Domain 1: Sociodemographic Variables Among Traditional vs Non-Traditional Student…………. . 20Domain 2: High School-Related Variables Among Traditional vs Non-Traditional Student…… . . . . . 21Domain 3: College-Related Variables Among Traditional vs Non-Traditional Student……………. 23Domain 4: Time Commitments Among Traditional vs Non-Traditional Student……………… . .... 26

FOCUS GROUPS: AGGREGATED RESULTS……………………..…………………………... 27Theme 1: Gendered Norm Expectations for Women………...…………………………… 27Theme 2: Family Attitudes Towards Higher Education ……………..……..……………… 31Theme 3: Time Management ……………..………………………………………... 34Theme 4: Financial Aid……………..…………………………………………….. 39Theme 5: College Preparedness ……………..……………………………………... 44Theme 6: Appeal of Two-Year Institutions ……………..……………………………… 49Theme 7: Campus Facilities …………………………………………..…………… 53Theme 8: Community College Faculty & Staff ……..…………………………………… 56Theme 9: Restrictions & Regulations of Community Colleges ………………….…………... 62

TRADITIONAL VS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS: AGGREGATED RESULTS…………………............ ... 67Domain 1: Effect of Taking Time Off From College……………..………………………... 67Domain 2: Stressors……………..……………………………………………..… 68Domain 3: Perceived Barriers to College Completion……………..…………………….... 71Domain 4: Impact of Family/Friends on College Goals……………..…………………….. 74Domain 5: Extracurricular Involvement……………..………………………………... 76


4/102


DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS………….……….… 78 STUDY STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS.………..…………………………………………….. 78RECOMMENDATION 1 ……………………………………………………………….. 78RECOMMENDATION 2 ……………………………………………………………….. 79

RECOMMENDATION 3 ……………………………………………………………….. 81RECOMMENDATION 4 ……………………………………………………………….. 81RECOMMENDATION 5 ……………………………………………………………….. 82RECOMMENDATION 6 ……………………………………………………………….. 83RECOMMENDATION 7 ……………………………………………………………….. 84RECOMMENDATION 8 ……………………………………………………………….. 85RECOMMENDATION 9 ……………………………………………………………….. 85RECOMMENDATION 10………………………………………………………………. 86RECOMMENDATION 11 ………………………………………………………………. 87RECOMMENDATION 12 ………………………………………………………………. 87

REFERENCES…………………………………………….……………. 90

APPENDICES……………………….………….…………...………… 95 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT (PROFILE SHEET)………………………………………… 95APPENDIX B: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE…………………………………………… 96APPENDIX C: RECRUITMENT FLYER……………………………………………………… 101

RESOURCES & WEBSITES…………….…………...……………. 102


5/102


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2013, the Women’s Foundation of Mississippi commissioned researchers at the SocialScience Research Center of Mississippi State University to conduct the Community CollegeCompletion Project . The purpose of the evaluation was to identify challenges and obstacles thatwomen students face in achieving their community college goals. This report summarizes theresults of the study, which will be used to inform the Women’s Foundation of Mississippi andother stakeholders of ways that the community college experience may be improved forwomen students. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Mississippi StateUniversity and the Mississippi Association for Community and Junior Colleges. Methods, key

results, and recommendations are discussed below.

METHOD & RESULTS

We collected and analyzed quantitative and qualitative data on multilevel and reciprocal factorsthat facilitate and constrain the completion of community college among resource-limited andother women students at six community colleges in Mississippi. The colleges were selected bythe Women’ s Foundation of Mississippi, of whom the majority were participants in the U.S.Department of Labor's TAACCCT program. In order to be eligible to participate in the project,women students had to be 18 years of age or older and enrolled at that college. STUDYMEASURES. Given the complexity of factors that impact community college completion, wechose the Ecological Model to frame the project. This model includes five multilevel andreciprocal factors that shape behaviors: 1) individual factors; 2) interpersonal factors; 3)community factors; 4) organizational factors; and 5) policy factors. Women students at eachcollege were administered a survey and participated in a focus groups to assess how thesefactors promoted and constrained their completion of community college.

ANALYSIS 1: QUANTITATIVE SURVEYThe 23-question survey used multiple-choice, fill-in-the blank, and ‘yes/no’ responses to collectsociodemographic data (age, race/ethnicity, etc.) and data on college courses. DEFININGTRADITIONAL VS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS. Participants were categorized as eithertraditional or non-traditional students based on age at anticipated matriculation fromcommunity college —which is calculated at a standard rate of 150% time (CHE, 2014).


6/102


Participants who were 18-21 years old on the day they participated in the study werecategorized as traditional students. Participants who were 22 years of age or older on the daythey participated in the study were categorized as non-traditional students. QUANTITATIVEANALYSIS. Descriptive analyses (i.e., frequencies) using SPSS 21.0 were conducted to describe

the sample ( N=65) and compare the responses of traditional students to those of non-traditional students. QUANTITATIVE DOMAINS & RESULTS. We organized the quantitativeresults into four domains. The domains and a sample of supporting results include:

DOMAIN 1: Sociodemographic VariablesParticipants ( N=65) ranged in age from 18-60 years old. The sample was relatively equalacross race/ethnicity: 52.3% ( n=34) were white and 46.2% ( n=30) were AfricanAmerican. Over 81% ( n=53) were traditional students.

DOMAIN 2: High School-Related Variables

Nearly 88% ( n=57) reported that the highest degree/certificate they had earned to datewas a high school diploma/GED, while 12.3% ( n=8) reported they had earned acareer/technical certificate, associate degree or above. Over 90% ( n=48) of traditionalstudents reported that their highest degree earned was a high school diploma/GED,compared to 75% ( n=9) of non-traditional students.

DOMAIN 3: College-Related VariablesNearly 90% ( n=58) reported that their present college was the first college they haveever attended. Non-traditional students were more likely to have begun college

elsewhere as compared to traditional students (16.7% and 9.4%, respectively).

DOMAIN 4: Time CommitmentsNon-traditional students were more likely to report that they typically worked (on-campus or off-campus) ≥30 hours per week (47.2% and 7.7%, respectively). Non-traditional students were also more likely to report that they typically spent ≥30 hoursper week caring for dependents (54.5% and 4.2%, respectively).

ANALYSIS 2: QUALITATIVE FOCUS GROUPS

Following administration of the surveys, we conducted focus groups among the participants ateach college. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS. The focus groups were transcribed verbatim andpersonal identifiers were removed. In an iterative process, coders identified themes deductivelyto develop the initial coding scheme. Next we used an inductive approach to expand thethemes, identify new themes, and refine the coding scheme. Finally, the team used the coding


7/102


scheme to organize the qualitative data into themes. QUALITATIVE THEMES & RESULTS. Weorganized the qualitative results into nine major themes. The themes and samples ofsupporting quotes include:

THEME 1: Gendered Norm Expectations for WomenYou are expected to perform. You know —get the food cooked, get the laundry done, getthe house cleaned, take care of the kids. …. Go to the ball game. Get your homeworkdone. You’re expected to do more. It’s hard. [CC1]

THEME 2: Family Attitudes Towards Higher Education…she [mother] did not think that college was worth it. She didn’t go to college herselfand thought that it was a waste of time. [CC2]

THEME 3: Time Management

You’re wondering if you need to focus on your schoolwork, or work so you can go toschool. It’s a struggle. [CC4]

THEME 4: Financial AidHow am I gonna be able to pay [for college]? I guess I’m gonna have to get a loaninstead of using my financial aid because it’s gonna run out eventually. [CC5]

THEME: College PreparednessI feel like my teachers weren’t really challenging us in some of my classes in high school.You just memorized things. In college, you have to study and apply things; it’s not just

memorizing them. [CC2]

THEME 6: Appeal of Two-Year InstitutionsThe reason that I chose [CC2] is because I didn’t feel quite comfortable going straight toa university for four years right after I just finished high school. I feel like going to acommunity college is getting your feet wet first... [CC2]

THEME 7: Campus Facilities...the single most important thing for women would be [on- campus] childcare that’saffordable. You know we want good care for our children. …a ffordable child care wouldbe excellent. [CC1]

THEME 8: Community College Faculty & StaffOne of the things I see with the instructors is that they have focused on the main goal —which is getting us educated. We’re in here to learn and they’re seeing that we’re


8/102


getting what w e need here because that’s why we’re here. We’re here to get a degree.They want us to excel. They’re helping us to succeed. [CC4]

THEME 9: Restrictions & Regulations of Community Colleges…you went through high school and you did fine… You get here and they have an Accuplacer test. You take this test based on your ACT score —you’re being told yougotta drop down to beginning English even though you took English 4 all the waythrough high school . [CC4]

ANALYSIS 3: TRADITIONALVS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS

In order to compare traditional students to non-traditional students, we also organized the

qualitative results into five domains on which the two groups of students differed substantively.The domains and a sample of supporting quotes include:

DOMAIN 1: Effect of Taking Time Off From CollegeI took off for a semester, but it helped me. I’m becoming the person that I want to be ,and it’s helping me be successful and succeed. I’m really thankful for that. Once you’reout, it’s hard to catch up. I’m not looking back; I’m moving forward . [CC4]

DOMAIN 2: StressorsTaking care of my two children and my husband —I’m sitting there studying and theycome in asking, “Mom, what are you doing?”, and say things like, “All you ever do isstudy.” Well, mama is in school too. [CC4]

DOMAIN 3: Perceived Barriers to College CompletionI think they [people] get comfortable. They get a [high school] degree, and then theystart working. They get a job, and they get accustomed to making money. So, you know,th ey don’t wanna necessarily go back and struggle again and work with going to school[college] when they trying to pay bills. [CC6]

DOMAIN 4: Impact of Family/Friends on College Goals

Homework and lunch, dinner, PTA meetings, karate, and ‘brush your teeth.’ I’m lucky ifmy son gets in the tub every night... It’s exhausting— it really is. [CC1]

DOMAIN 5: Extracurricular InvolvementI’d love to do extracurriculars , but there’s too much at stake. I have too manyresponsibilities… I wish I could, it would be fun, but… [CC1]


9/102


RECOMMENDATIONS & STUDY LIMITATIONS

This study has several strengths and potential limitations. In terms of limitations, it wasconducted among a convenience sample composed of women students. Although nonrandom

sampling is regularly used to conduct qualitative research in the social and behavioral sciences,care should be taken when generalizing the present results to other women students attendingcommunity colleges in Mississippi and the U.S. In addition, “i ndividual responses are notindependent of one another and group dynamics can vary considerably ” (Chronic PovertyResearch Centre, 2014: 59) such that participants may feel peer pressure to agree with oneanother on a certain topic or to abstain from comments. In terms of strengths, focus group“responses have high ‘face validity’ due to the clarity of the context and detail of the discussion” (ibid). In the present study, the depth of discussions was enhanced due to highparticipation rates among participants (which averaged 11 persons per discussion) and length

of sessions (which averaged more than 1.5 hours per discussion). Based on the results of theCommunity College Completion Project, we developed the following twelve recommendationsfor consideration:

Ensure students are prepared for academic rigors of community college

Engage high school students in the college application process priorto senior year

Increase efforts to move remedial students into college-level courses

Improve the community college orientation process

Remove restrictions on how student purchase textbooks —including eBooks

Offer information sessions periodically rather than one-time opportunities

Employ highly trained non-student staff as financial aid advisors/counselors

Implement campus- wide ‘support’ forums for women students

Facilitate better healthcare access for women students

Expand affordable on-campus childcare for women students

Expand evening classes to accommodate more students

Improve campus security for women students


10/102


INTRODUCTION

“I feel like that’s what we get out of communitycollege —the help we need, hands on. I feel like at auniversity you won’t be so lucky. That’s why I cameto a community college...”

– Participant, Community College Completion Project

Since two-year institutions were first recognized as separate from four-year institutions in1969, the importance of community colleges has continued to rise as students seek highereducation that is both of high-quality and affordable (Brock, 2010). Community colleges act asan important stepping stone to further one’s education and/or obtain better employment,given that a college degree is increasingly necessary for those seeking to be competitive intoday’s job market. I ndeed, Rath (2013) reports that by 2018, workers will need to have earneda postsecondary credential in order to be minimally eligible for more than 60% of all jobs in theUnited States (U.S.). Postsecondary education has also been found to pay big dividends in termsof future earnings. According to Rath, “the average lifetime earnings for an individual with an

associate’s degree is approximately $1.6 million, nearly $400,000 more than the expectedearnings of a high school graduate” (2013 : 6).

Although the number of students enrolled in community colleges has increased substantially inthe last forty years, matriculation rates have remained relatively stable, such thatapproximately 20.4% of community college students graduate in 150% time (Brock, 2010;Jenkins, 2011). It is important to note that matriculation rates are calculated differently forfour-year institutions versus two-year institutions. For students in public four-year institutions,the 150% time (i.e., six years) includes the time period from the date of initial enrollment todate of graduation with a bachelor’s degree (CHE, 2014). For students in public two-yearinstitutions, 150% time (i.e., three years) also includes the time period from the date of initialenrollment to date of graduation with an associate’s degree (CHE, 2014). These rates were setby the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives in 2008 as the standards for each type ofhigher education institution through the Higher Education Opportunity Act –2008 (U.S. Dept ofEducation, 2014a).

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html


11/102


Of the millions of students enrolled in public two-year institutions in the U.S., only 20.8% hadcompleted an associate’s degree in 150% time in 2010 (CHE, 2014). In Mississippi, 25.2% ofcommunity college students graduated in 150% time in 2010, while 49.9% of students attendingfour-year institutions graduated in 150% time (CHE, 2014). As these statistics indicate,

Mississippi students at four-year institutions are matriculating at nearly twice the rate of theircounterparts at two-year institutions.

WHY IS COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETIONAN IMPORTANT WOMEN’S ISSUE?

Given that enrollment of female students now outpaces that of male students at two-yearinstitutions across the U.S. (NCES, 2014), it is important to understand the barriers andfacilitators to community college completion among women students. Affordability, geographic

proximity, and more inclusive admittance policies make community colleges an attractiveoption for many students. However, a number of barriers to community college completionhave been identified, including poor high school preparation, outside obligations such as workand family life, rising tuition costs, inadequate financial aid, and mandatory remedial education(Rath, 2013; Jenkins 2011).

Although the gender balance in community college “reversed between 1970 and 2005 frommostly male to mostly female,” women students are likely to face a significant number ofbarriers to completing their education (Brock, 2010: 112). The Chronicle of Higher Education(CHE, 2014) indicates that women students enrolled in Mississippi community collegesgraduated at a rate of 26.2% in 2010, while their male counterparts graduated at a rate of24.0%. However, it is important to note that these statistics do not include students who attendcollege on a part-time basis or those who have dropped out for any period of time (CHE, 2014).For this reason, non-traditional women students may be under-represented in the Chronicle ofHigher Education data, and those results must be interpreted with caution.

TRADITIONAL VS NON-TRADITIONALWOMEN STUDENTS

In the Community College Completion Project , traditional and non-traditional women studentswere defined by age at anticipated graduation from community college, based on matriculationcalculated at 150% time (i.e., three years) —which is the national standard established withpassage of the Higher Education Opportunity Act –2008 (U.S. Dept of Education, 2014a). Wedefined women students as traditional if they had entered community college directly aftergraduating from high school at ~18 years old, and therefore would be expected to matriculate


12/102


from community college at ~21 years old (i.e., three years from date of enrollment). Thus,women students who were 18-21 years old on the day they participated in the CommunityCollege Completion Project were categorized as traditional students, while women studentswho were 22 years or older on the day they participated in the study are categorized as non-

traditional students.

Brock (2010) found that non-traditional women students enrolled in two-year institutions oftenare at heightened risk for non-college completion, due to factors including “delayed entry intocollege from high school, working full-time, [and ] single parenthood” (2010: 115). According toBrock (ibid), women students at community colleges are more likely to have dependentchildren than their male counterparts. This is noteworthy given that Brock and otherresearchers have foun d that being a single parent can be a major factor in a female student’ sdecision to take time off from community college (Brock, 2010; Paulson, 2012; Rath, 2013). Inaddition to responsibilities associated with raising children, 75% of the nation’ s communitycollege students are employed, commute to college (rather than live on-campus), and/orcannot afford to attend college full-time (Rath, 2013; Goldrick, 2010). In fact, nearly half ofcommunity college students who are between 16-24 years old are employed (NCES, 2011) andmany community college students have to work in order to fund their college education (Baileyet al, 2004).

BARRIERS & FACILITATORS TOACHIEVING COMMUNITY COLLEGE

GOALS IN MISSISSIPPIIn order to better understand the barriers and facilitators faced by women students enrolled inMississippi community colleges as they seek to meet their educational goals, researchers at theSocial Science Research Center (SSRC) were commissioned by the Women’s Foundation ofMississippi to conduct the Community College Completion Project . The multimethods projectused the Ecological Model (Glanz, Rimer & NCI, 2005) as a framework for exploring barriers andfacilitators to women students’ college completion across five factors associated withmatriculation at two-year institutions (Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005; Burdman, 2005;

Lotkowski, Robbins & Noeth, 2004; Rath, Rock & Laferriere, 2013; Smith, 2009; Wassmer,Moore & Shulock, 2004).

In this document, we first detail the Ecological Model and the five factors used to frame theCommunity College Completion Project in the Methods section. In the Methods section, we alsopresent the complete methodology used to conduct the project, including participantrecruitment procedures. Next, we present our findings in the Results section from focus groups


13/102


and surveys administered to participants at six community colleges selected for inclusion in theproject by the Women’s Foundation of Mississippi. Finally, in the Summary &Recommendations section, we offer recom mendations for enhancing women students’community college experience based on our findings. All data in this report is presented in the

aggregate, and the names of individual participants and the community colleges they attendhave been changed to help pr eserve participants’ confidentiality.

THEWOMEN’S FOUNDATIONOF MISSISSIPPI

The Women’s Foundation of Mississippi is the“only grantmaking organization in Mississippientirely dedicated to funding programs thatimprove the lives of women and girls statewide”

(WF, 2013). The Women’s Foundation— with support from local and national organizationssuch as the Walmart Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation —is a statewidegrantmaking foundation that funds nonprofit organizations, statewide conferences, andcutting-edge research and policy-scans on issues affecting the health and well-being of womenand girls in the state. In 2013, the Women’s Foundation of Mississippi commissionedresearchers at the Social Science Research Center of Mississippi State University to conduct theCommunity College Completion Project .

COMMUNITY COLLEGE COMPLETION PROJECT:EVALUATION COMPONENTS

The purpose of the Community College Completion Project is to inform the Women’sFoundation of Mississippi and other national, state, and community stakeholders on barriersand facilitators associated with women’s completion of community college . The evaluationproject has two main components: 1) a 23-item survey; and 2) focus group sessions. This reportsummarizes the results of the Community College Completion Project evaluation conducted onbehalf of the Women’s Foundation of Mississippi by researchers at the Social Science ResearchCenter of Mississippi State University. Methods, results, and recommendations for futureconsideration are discussed below.

http://www.womensfoundationms.org/http://www.womensfoundationms.org/http://www.womensfoundationms.org/http://www.ssrc.msstate.edu/http://www.ssrc.msstate.edu/http://www.ssrc.msstate.edu/http://www.ssrc.msstate.edu/http://www.womensfoundationms.org/


14/102


METHODS

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Given the complexity of multilevel factors that impact the completion of community collegeamong students, we chose the Ecological Model as the theoretical model to frame the project(Glanz, Rimer & National Cancer Institute, 2005). This theoretical model includes five multileveland reciprocal factors that shape individual behaviors: 1) individual factors; 2) interpersonalfactors; 3) community factors; 4) organizational

factors; and 5) policy factors (see Table 1).We collected data to assess how the EcologicalModel ’s multilevel and reciprocal factorsconstrain and promote the completion ofcommunity college among resource-limited,non-traditional, and other women students.The Ecological Model ’s five factors include:

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS include variablessuch as race/ethnicity, gender, age, andfamily socioeconomic status. In thepresent study, variables also included gradepoint average (GPA), employment status,parents’ educational attainment (Bailey,Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005; Próspero &Vohra-Gupta 2007); effort-outcome gap(Greene, Marti & McClenney, 2008) andacademic preparedness for college(Boswell, 2002; Fernandez et al, 2008; Rath,Rock & Laferriere, 2013; Wassmer, Moore & Shulock, 2004); academic-related skills (timemanagement, study skills, etc.) (Lotkowski, Robbins & Noeth, 2004); first in family to attendcollege/lack of role models (Fernandez et al, 2008; Próspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007; Smith,2009); age of enrolled, full-time enrollment, continuous attendance (e.g., number of timesand duration that community college has been interrupted) (Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach,2005); Wassmer, Moore & Shulock, 2004); self-efficacy related to completing community

Table 1. Ecological Model: Five factors that constrain/promothe completion of community college among resource-limitedfemale students

Concept DefinitionIndividual

FactorsIndividual characteristics that influencebehavior (e.g., knowledge, attitudes, beliefspractices) that constrain/promote communitcollege completion

InterpersonalFactors

Interpersonal processes and primary groups(e.g., family, friends, peers) that providesocial identity, support, and role definitionthat constrain/promote community collegecompletion

CommunityFactors

Community-level social networks, culturalnorms that constrain/promote communitycollege completion

OrganizationalFactors

Rules, regulations, policies, andorganizational structures thatconstrain/promote community collegecompletion

Policy Factors Local, state, federal policies that regulateactions that constrain/promote communitycollege completion

Adapted from: Glanz K, Rimer BK, National Cancer Institute. 2005.


15/102


college and to academic self-confidence (Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005; Lotkowski,Robbins & Noeth, 2004); aspirations of earning a bachelor’s degree, an associate’s degree,or certificate (Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005); beliefs regarding importance of highereducation to achieve career/life goals (Lotkowski, Robbins & Noeth, 2004); debt aversion

(Burdman, 2005; Dowd & Coury, 2006); and competing obligations (e.g., children/otherdependents, work duties) (Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005; Rath, Rock & Laferriere, 2013;Wassmer, Moore & Shulock, 2004).

INTERPERSONAL FACTORS include interpersonal processes and primary groups (family,friends, and peers) that provide social identity, support, and role definition. In the presentstudy, variables include family/peer norms regarding importance of a college education(Smith, 2009); family/peers educational attainment (Lotkowski, Robbins & Noeth, 2004);whether family/peers serve as trusted sources of college/career advice (Alford, 2000;Fernandez et al, 2008; Smith, 2009).

COMMUNITY FACTORS include variables that can “exert uncontrollable influences”(Wassmer, Moore & Shulock, 2004: 659) on community college completion that may differin rural areas as compared to urban areas, such as local employment opportunities forstudents, high-speed Internet access, transportation barriers (distance traveled to college,lack of public transit), and expense, availability, and quality of local childcare services(Wassmer, Moore & Shulock, 2004).

ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS include rules, regulations, policies, and organizationalstructures that constrain or promote particular behaviors and/or outcomes. In the presentstudy, variables include rules, regulations, policies, and organizational structures thatconstrain or promote community college completion, such as the college’s ‘culture ofcompletion,’ wherein the goal of completion “is given high priority among the facu lty, staffand administration” ( Wassmer, Moore & Shulock, 2004: 654); available and engagedfaculty/staff (Brock, 2010; Lotkowski, Robbins & Noeth, 2004); higher ratios of part-timefaculty (e.g., lack of office space, fewer PhD-level faculty) (Eagan & Jaeger, 2009; Jacoby,2006); online classes (Aragon & Johnson, 2008; Jenkins, 2012); remedial education(Bettinger & Long, 2009; Brock, 2010); student support services (e.g., structured academicadvising) (Brock, 2010; Fernandez et al, 2008; Lotkowski, Robbins & Noeth, 2004); financialaid and advising (Brock, 2010); childcare services (Wassmer, Moore & Shulock, 2004); highlystructured programs with limited bureaucratic obstacles (Scott-Clayton, 2011).

POLICY FACTORS include local, state, and federal policies that regulate or support actionsthat constrain or promote particular behaviors and/or outcomes. In the present study,variables include local, state, and federal policies that regulate/support actions that


16/102


constrain or promote the completion of community college. Variables include makingfederal- and state- level loan programs “more attractive and efficient” (Burdman, 2005: 1);making “more grant money available for low -income and first-generati on students” (ibid );aligning high school graduation requirements with state-level standards and with college

admissions requirements (Boswell, 2002).

STUDY PROCEDURES

We administered surveys to 65 women students at six community colleges across Mississippi,followed by focus group discussions at each respective college. The Women’s Foundation ofMississippi selected the institutions for inclusion in the project, which included but were notlimited to community colleges in Mississippi participating in the U.S. Department of LaborTAACCCT program. Eligible participants had to be enrolled at the specific community college

where each focus group was conducted and had to be 18 years of age or above. Participantsincluded but were not limited to women students who were dually enrolled in Adult BasicEducation/GED and Workforce, Career and Technical Education programs.

We also sought to recruit women students who varied across age, race/ethnicity, relationshipstatus, and whether they had dependents (e.g., children). Participant completed a 23-questionsurvey prior to participating in the focus group discussion conducted at their college. Allparticipants contributed to their discussion without prompting, and the focus group sessionstypically lasted one hour and forty minutes. Each participant received a $20 gift card for taking

part in the study. Data collection and analyses were conducted between October 2013 andFebruary 2014. The study was funded by the Women’s Foundation of Mississippi , and theprotocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Mississippi State University and bythe Mississippi Association for Community and Junior Colleges.

ANALYSIS 1:QUANTITATIVE SURVEY

The 23-question survey used multiple-choice, fill-in- the blank, and ‘yes/no’ responses to collect

sociodemographic data (age, race/ethnicity, etc.) and data on college courses. DEFININGTRADITIONAL VS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS. In the present study, participants werecategorized as either traditional or non-traditional students based on age at anticipatedmatriculation from community college —which is calculated at a standard rate of 150% time(i.e., three years) (CHE, 2014; U.S. Dept of Education, 2014b). Participants were categorized astraditional students if they enrolled in community college directly after graduating from high


17/102


school (at the approximate age of 18 years old) and, therefore, were expected to matriculatefrom community college at the approximate age of 21 years old. Thus, participants who were18-21 years old on the day they participated in the study were categorized as traditionalstudents. Participants who were 22 years of age or older on the day they participated in the

study were categorized as non-traditional students. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS. We conducteddescriptive analyses (i.e., frequencies) using SPSS 21.0 to describe the sample ( N=65) andcompare the responses of traditional students to those of non-traditional students.QUANTITATIVE DOMAINS & RESULTS. We organized the quantitative results into four domains:

DOMAIN 1: Sociodemographic VariablesDOMAIN 2: High School-Related VariablesDOMAIN 3: College-Related VariablesDOMAIN 4: Time Commitments

ANALYSIS 2:QUALITATIVE FOCUS GROUPS

APPLIED QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: BACKGROUND. The purpose of collecting and analyzingqualitative data —through, for example, focus group discussions —is to better understand theunique and personal experiences of participants. As Rabiee has noted, “The uniqueness of afocus group is its ability to generate data based on the synergy of the group interaction ” (2003:656). Due to their interactive nature, focus groups are typically capped at 6-8 participants.

However, given that we anticipated that it would be difficult to recruit college students toparticipate in the focus group sessions, we capped each focus group at a maximum of 12participants.

TRANSCRIPTION, CODING & INTERPRETING THE QUALITATIVE DATA. The focus groups weretranscribed verbatim by our team of coders and personal identifiers were removed. Then, in aniterative process, our coders identified themes deductively to develop the initial codingscheme, using t he Ecological Model’s five multilevel and reciprocal factors as our theoreticalframework. Next we used an inductive approach to expand the themes, identify new themes

that emerged from reviewing the qualitative data, and refine the coding scheme. Finally, theteam used the coding scheme to organize the qualitative data into the final set of nine themes(discussed below). Disagreements between which transcriptions best fit into which themeswere resolved by discussion.

Bailey has observed that although “[t]ranscribing appears to be a straightforward technicaltask ” it actually is a complex act that “involves judgements about what level of detail to choose


18/102


(e.g. omitting non-verbal dimensions of interaction), data interpretation (e.g. distinguishing ‘Idon’t, no’ from ‘I don’t know’) and data representation (e.g. representing the verbalization‘hwarryuhh’ as ‘How are you?’)” (2008: 127). When undertaking such acts as datainterpretation and representation, researchers must make decisions as to whether to present

text in its ‘naturalized’ form —i.e., verbatim text left just as the transcriber has‘heard’/interpreted and transcribed it —or adjust transcriptions. Indeed, this is a difficultdecision given that a number of tangibles and intangibles complicates the transcriber’s task—including recording quality, background noise, overlapping talk, accents, and colloquial styles ofspeech, and knowledge of (or lack of knowledge of) local context.

During this complicated process, it “ is important that researchers make decisions in a mannerthat shows respect for participants’ words and intentions” (Oliver et al, 2005: 1273). Indeed,“naturalized transcription could be seen as disrespectful if the participant would have writtenthe words differently or perceived their grammar more accurately than portrayed in naturalizedtext" (ibid). This is important consideration, complicated by the fact that most individuals ‘codeswitch’ from informal speech to more formal or Standard English based on the context in whichcommunication is occurring. In the present study, we have made minor revisions to sometranscriptions in order to ensure that we are respectful of the many great women who gave oftheir energy and time to take part in the study. We have also added a word or phrase in orderto clarify a quotation. Finally, we have removed personal identifiers and have assigned eachcommunity college its own unique code, which we discuss below.

UNIQUE NUMERIC CODES FOR EACH COLLEGE. Each community college was randomly assignedits own unique numeric code from a set of coded that ranged from 1 to 6. In order to assigncodes to each college, we wrote the name of the college on separate sheets of paper, whichwere then folded and placed in a bowl. We assigned a unique numeric code from 1 to 6 to eachcollege based on the chronological order in which its name was randomly withdrawn from thebowl. When presenting qualitative results, we included the assigned community college codebased on where the participant was enrolled. We abbreviated “community college” to “CC” forthese codes, which range from CC1 to CC6 and appear in brackets following quotations.

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS. The focus groups were transcribed verbatim by our team of codersand personal identifiers were removed. Then, in an iterative process, our coders identifiedthemes deductively to develop the initial coding scheme. Next we used an inductive approachto expand the themes, identify new themes, and refine the coding scheme. Finally, we used thecoding scheme to organize the qualitative data into themes. QUALITATIVE THEMES. Weorganized the general qualitative results into nine major themes:


19/102


THEME 1: Gendered Norm Expectations for WomenTHEME 2: Family Attitudes Towards Higher EducationTHEME 3: Time ManagementTHEME 4: Financial Aid

THEME 5: College PreparednessTHEME 6: Appeal of Two-Year InstitutionsTHEME 7: Campus FacilitiesTHEME 8: Community College Faculty & StaffTHEME 9: Restrictions & Regulations of Community Colleges

ANALYSIS 3:COMPARING TRADITIONAL

VS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTSTRADITIONAL VS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS: QUALITATIVE DOMAINS.In order to comparetraditional students to non-traditional students, we also organized the qualitative results intofive domains on which the two groups of students differed substantively. We organized thesequalitative results into five domains:

DOMAIN 1: Effect of Taking Time Off From CollegeDOMAIN 2: StressorsDOMAIN 3: Perceived Barriers to College CompletionDOMAIN 4: Impact of Family/Friends on College GoalsDOMAIN 5: Extracurricular Involvement


20/102


SURVEY: AGGREGATED RESULTS

DOMAIN 1:SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES AMONGTRADITIONAL VS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS

As Table 2 indicates, participants ( N=65) ranged in age from 18-60 years old. The sample wasrelatively equal across race/ethnicity: 52.3% ( n=34) were white, 46.2% ( n=30) were AfricanAmerican and 1.5% ( n=1) self- reported as ‘other.’ As mentioned previously, participants whowere 18-21 years old on the day they participated in the study were categorized as traditionalstudents. Participants who were 22 years of age or older on the day they participated in thestudy were categorized as non-traditional students. Among the total sample of 65 participants,81.5% (n=53) were traditional students and 18.5% (n=12) were non-traditional students.

Among the entire sample, 15.6% ( n=10) reported a spouse/live-in partner and 17.2% ( n=11)reported children. As expected, non-traditional students were more likely to report aspouse/partner and children than were traditional students. For example, 33.3% ( n=4) of non-traditional students reported a spouse/partner as compared to 11.5% ( n=6) of traditional

students. Likewise, 75% ( n=9) of non-traditional students reported children as compared to3.8% (n=2) of traditional students. Among the subsample of 11 participants who reportedchildren, 44.4% ( n=4) reported that their children did not require childcare, 44.4% ( n=4)reported that their children attend a childcare center located off-campus, 22.2% ( n=2) reportedthat their children were cared for by family or at someone’s home, and 11.1% ( n=1) reportedthat she had not been able to find adequate or affordable childcare in the current college term.

Participants were asked to indicate all sources of financial support received during their currentcollege term. We chose to collect this information this way because many students use multiple

sources of support to fund their college educations. In the present student, 75.4% ( n=49) ofparticipants reported that they were receiving grants and scholarships (Pell grants, etc.), 21.5%(n=14) reported self-support, 20% ( n=13) reported support from a parent or spouse/partner.10.8% (n=7) reported student loan support (FAFSA, etc.), 3.1% ( n=2) reported military servicebenefits, and no participants reported employer contributions.


21/102


Table 2. Comparison of sociodemographic variables among traditional and non-traditionalstudents

Sample(N =65)

% ( n )

TraditionalStudents

(n =53)% ( n )

Non-TraditionalStudents

(n =12)% ( n )

Race/ethnici tyWhite, Non-HispanicBlack / African American Other

52.3 (34)46.2 (30)

1.5 (1)

49.1 (26)50.9 (27)

―

66.7 (8)25.0 (3)8.3 (1)

Age range*18‒21* 22‒25 26‒30 31‒35 36‒40 ≥41 (*Matriculation in standard time of 150% = traditional students)

81.5 (53)4.6 (3)3.1 (2)4.6 (3)

― 6.2 (4)

100 (53)― ― ― ― ―

― 25.0 (3)16.7 (2)25.0 (3)

― 33.3 (4)

Spous e / l ive-in partner

YesNo 15.6 (10)84.4 (54) 11.5 (6)88.5 (46) 33.3 (4)66.7 (8)Children

YesNo

17.2 (11)82.8 (53)

3.8 (2)96.2 (50)

75.0 (9)25.0 (3)

If YES: Describ e your chi ldc are s i tuat ion this termMy children attend childcare center at this collegeMy children attend off-campus childcare centerMy children are cared for by family or at someone’s home I have not been able to find adequate or affordable childcareMy children do not require childcare

― 44.4 (4)22.2 (2)11.1 (1)44.4 (4)

― 22.2 (2)

― ― ―

― 22.2 (2)22.2 (2)11.1 (1)44.4 (4)

Serving / served in mil i taryYesNo

― 100 (64)

― 100 (52)

― 100 (12)

Health insuranc eYesNoDon’t know

59.4 (38)37.5 (24)

3.1 (2)

59.6 (31)36.5 (19)

3.8 (2)

58.3 (7)41.7 (5)

― I f YES: Who i s pay ing your hea lth insurance th i s t e rm

SelfParent, spouse/partnerEmployerMilitary service benefits

12.5 (5)75.0 (30)10.0 (4)2.5 (1)

8.8 (3)82.4 (28)

5.9 (2)2.9 (1)

33.3 (2)33.3 (2)33.3 (2)

―

DOMAIN 2:HIGH SCHOOL-RELATED VARIABLE AMONGTRADITIONAL VS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS

As Table 3 indicates, 87.7% ( n=57) of participants reported that the highest degree or certificatethey had earned to date was a high school diploma/GED, while 12.3% ( n=8) reported they hadearned a career/technical certificate (3.1%; n=2), an associate degree (6.2%; n=4), a bachelor


22/102


degree (1.5%; n=1), or a masters or above (1.5%; n=1). Over 90% ( n=48) of traditional studentsreported that their highest degree earned was a high school diploma/GED, compared to 75%(n=9) of non-traditional students. In contrast, when asked to report the highest degree orcertificate participants planned to earn, 21.9% ( n=14) reported that they were seeking a

bachelor degree, (1.5%; n=1), 21.9% ( n=14) were seeking a master ’s degree, 18.8% ( n=12)were seeking a PhD or MD, 14.1% ( n=9) were seeking an associate degree in Applied Science(AAS), 12.5% (n=8) were seeking an associate degree in Art (AA), and 7.8% ( n=5) were seeking acareer/technical certificate. It is interesting that non-traditional students were more likely toreport that their ultimate academic goal was a B achelor’s of Art or Science, while traditionalstudents were more likely to report that their ultimate academic goal was a Master ’s of Art orScience (33.3% and 25%, respectively).

Forty-four participants (67.7%) reported that one or more immediate family members hadattended at least some college. These participants were then asked to identify all collegeattendees in their family using the following response categories: mother, father, sibling,spouse/partner. The participants were instructed to check all responses that applied, andtherefore, each participant could check a maximum of four responses. Responses fromtraditional students ( n=36) and non-traditional students ( n=8) varied considerably among thissubsample who reported that at least one family member had attended college. Among the 36traditional students in this subsample, 83.8% ( n=31) reported that a mother had attendedcollege, 82.6% ( n=19) that a father had attended college, 78.8% ( n=26) that at least one siblinghad attended college, and 66.7% ( n=2) that a spouse/partner had attended college. Among the8 non-traditional students in this subsample, 16.2% ( n=6) reported that a mother had attendedcollege, 17.4% ( n=4) that a father had attended college, 21.2% ( n=7) that at least one siblinghad attended college, and 33.3% ( n=1) that a spouse/partner had attended college.

Table 3. High school educational attainment, college degree aspirations, and related variablesamong traditional and non-traditional students

Sample(N =65)

% ( n )

TraditionalStudents

(n =53)% ( n )


(n =12)% ( n )

Highest degree or cert i f icate earned to dateHigh School diploma / GED

Career / Technical Certificate AssociateBachelorMasters, PhD, MD

87.7 (57)

3.1 (2)6.2 (4)1.5 (1)1.5 (1)

90.6 (48)

1.9 (1)7.5 (4)― ―

75.0 (9)

8.3 (1)― 8.3 (1)8.3 (1)

Highest degree or cert i f icate you plan to earn Associate of Art (AA) Associate of Applied Science (AAS)Career / Technical CertificateBachelor’s degree (BA, BS) Master’s degree (MA, MS)

12.5 (8)14.1 (9)7.8 (5)

21.9 (14)21.9 (14)

13.5 (7)13.5 (7)5.8 (3)

19.2 (10)25.0 (13)

8.3 (1)16.7 (2)16.7 (2)33.3 (4)8.3 (1)


23/102


PhD or MDOther

18.8 (12)3.1 (2)

21.2 (11)1.9 (1)

8.3 (1)8.3 (1)

Courses t aken dur ing h igh schoo lCollege courses (dual credit)College Prep coursesCareer / Technical courses

Advanced Placement (AP) coursesHonors coursesDid not take any of the courses listed above

― ― ―

― ― ―

100 (7)93.3 (14)80.8 (21)

94.7 (18)91.7 (11)75.0 (15)

― 6.7 (1)

19.2 (5)

5.3 (1)8.3 (1)25.0 (5)

Enro l led in co l lege immedia tely a f te r h igh sch oolYesNo

86.2 (56)13.8 (9)

94.3 (50)5.7 (3)

50.0 (6)50.0 (6)

Family mem ber(s) at tended som e collegeYesNo

67.7 (44)32.3 (21)

67.9 (36)32.1 (17)

66.7 (8)33.3 (4)

If YES: Which family m ember(s) at tended som e collegeMotherFatherSiblingSpouse/partner

― ― ― ―

83.8 (31)82.6 (19)78.8 (26)66.7 (2)

16.2 (6)17.4 (4)21.2 (7)33.3 (1)

DOMAIN 3:COLLEGE-RELATED VARIABLES AMONGTRADITIONAL VS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS

As Table 4 indicates, 89.2% ( n=58) of participants reported that their current college was thefirst college they have ever attended. Non-traditional students were nearly twice as likely tohave begun college elsewhere as compared to traditional students (16.7% and 9.4%,respectively). Non-traditional students were slightly more likely to report that this was theirfirst term at their current college as compared to traditional students (33.3% and 30.2%,respectively). More than 98% of participants were enrolled fulltime ( n=59) and it is noteworthythat enrollment status differed only slightly among traditional and non-traditional students(100% and 91.7%, respectively). Nearly 46% of participants were enrolled in 13‒16 credit hours ,and 37.7% were enrolled in 17 or more credit hours. The number of hours in which participantswere enrolled differed very little among traditional and non-traditional students.

In terms of GPA, 3.7% ( n=2) of participants reported a 4.0 GPA, 27.8% ( n=15) reported a 3.9‒3.5GPA, 27.8% (n=15) reported a 3.4‒3.0 GPA, 35.2% (n=19) reported a 2.9‒2.5 GPA, and 5.6%(n=3) reported a GPA of less than 2.5. Traditional and non-traditional students were relativelymatched across each of these GPA categories with two exceptions. In terms of the 3.9‒3.5 GPA category, more non-traditional students reported a GPA of 3.9‒3.5 as compared to traditionalstudents (44.4% and 24.4%, respectively). Approximately 17% ( n=11) of participants haddropped out of college for any period of time. As expected, considerably more non-traditional


24/102


students in this subsample had dropped out at some time as compared to traditional students(58.3% and 7.5%, respectively). Non-traditional students were also more likely to have droppedout for 3 or more years.

Just over 28% ( n=18) of participants had enrolled in remedial courses at their current college,and this percentage was relatively equal for traditional and non- traditional students. Amongthe subsample of students who had enrolled in remedial courses, 72.7% ( n=8) had enrolled inone English remedial course and 82.4% ( n=14) had enrolled in one Math remedial course. It isinteresting that 88.9% of traditional students in the subsample reported that they had enrolledin one English remedial course, as compared to no non-traditional students. Although thedifferences are less dramatic, it is also interesting that 75% of non-traditional students in thesubsample reported that they had enrolled in one Math remedial course, as compared to 66.7%of traditional students.

Nearly 57% ( n=37) of participants had enrolled in online courses at their current college, with66.7% of non-traditional students reporting this action as compared to 54.7% of traditionalstudents. Among the subsample of students who had enrolled in online courses, 40% ( n=14)had taken one online course to date, 22.9% ( n=8) had taken two online courses, and 37.1%(n=13) had taken three or more online courses. As expected, among the subsample ofparticipants who had taken online courses, 57.1% of non-traditional students reported thatthey had enrolled in three or more online courses as compared to 32.2% of traditional students.

Table 4. Comparison of college-related variables among traditional and non-traditional studentsSample(N =65)

% ( n )

TraditionalStudents

(n =53)% ( n )


(n =12)% ( n )

Is this col lege the f i rs t col lege you have ever at tendedYes (began college here)No (began college elsewhere)

89.2 (58)10.8 (7)

90.6 (48)9.4 (5)

83.3 (10)16.7 (2)

First term at this col legeYesNo

30.8 (20)69.2 (45)

30.2 (16)69.8 (37)

33.3 (4)66.7 (8)

Curren t enro l lment s ta tusFull timePart time

98.3 (59)1.7 (1)

100 (48)―

91.7 (11)8.3 (1)

Number o f TOTAL cred i t hours enro l led in th i s t e rm9 credit hours12 credit hours13‒16 credit hours ≥17 credit hours

1.6 (1)14.8 (9)

45.9 (28)37.7 (23)

― 11.8 (6)

47.1 (24)41.2 (21)

10.0 (1)30.0 (3)40.0 (4)20.0 (2)

Current col lege GPA4.0 GPA3.9‒3.5 GPA 3.4‒3.0 GPA

3.7 (2)27.8 (15)27.8 (15)

4.4 (2)24.4 (11)28.9 (13)

― 44.4 (4)22.2 (2)


25/102


2.9‒ 2.5 GPA


26/102


DOMAIN 4:TIME COMMITMENTS AMONG TRADITIONALVS NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS

As Table 5 indicates, 47.2% ( n=5) of non-traditional students reported that they typicallyworked 30 hours per week or more, as compared to only 7.7% ( n=4) of traditional students. Asexpected, 54.5% ( n=6) of non-traditional students also reported that they typically spent 30 ormore hours per week caring for dependents, as compared to 4.2% ( n=2) of traditional students.In addition, 54.5% ( n=6) of non-traditional students reported that they typically spent 1-10hours per week commuting to and from class, as compared to 39.6% ( n=21) of traditionalstudents. In contrast, 45.3% ( n=24) of traditional students typically spent 1-10 hours per weekengaged in extracurricular activities, as compared to 27.3% ( n=3) non-traditional students.

Table 5. Comparison of self-reported time commitments in a typical week among traditional andnon-traditional students ( N =65)

Traditional Students ( n =53)0

hours% ( n )

1-10hours % ( n )

11-20hours % ( n )

21-30hours % ( n )

≥30hours % ( n )

In a typic al 7-day week, about ho w m anyh o u r s d o y o u s p e n d :

Working on-campusWorking off campus Caring for dependents (children, etc.)Commuting to and from classExtracurricular activities

64.2 (34)51.9 (27)76.0 (38)47.2 (25)37.7 (20)

20.8 (11)9.6 (5)

10.0 (5)39.6 (21)45.3 (24)

7.5 (4)17.3 (9)10.0 (5)13.2 (7)13.2 (7)

5.7 (3)15.4 (8)

― ―

3.8 (2)

1.9 (1)5.8 (3)4.0 (2)

― ―

Non-Traditional Students ( n =12)0

hours% ( n )

1-10hours % ( n )

11-20hours % ( n )

21-30hours % ( n )

≥30hours % ( n )

In a typic al 7-day week, about ho w m anyh o u r s d o y o u s p e n d :

Working on-campusWorking off campus Caring for dependents (children, etc.)Commuting to and from classExtracurricular activities

58.3 (7)―

45.5 (5)36.4 (4)63.6 (7)

8.3 (1)44.4 (4)

― 54.5 (6)27.3 (3)

8.3 (1)33.3 (3)

― ― ―

― ― ―

9.1 (1)―

25.0 (3)22.2 (2)54.5 (6)

― 9.1 (1)


27/102


FOCUS GROUPS: AGGREGATED RESULTS

THEME 1:GENDERED NORM EXPECTATIONS FOR WOMEN

I feel like in today’s generation, a lot of young women are becoming pregnant at an early age. It’s either go to college or stay at home and takecare of babies. Which would you choose? [CC4]

Gendered norm expectations are culture-specific sets of attitudes and behaviors that

individuals are socialized to consider appropriate for those of a particular sex (Bonvillain, 2001;Crooks & Baur, 2013). It has been argued that contemporary U.S. women live in a post-feministsociety in which men and women are social, political, and economic equals (Jayson, 2011; seealso Autor & Wasserman, 2013) and wherein gendered norm expectations exert little influenceon women’s educational and career choices. Others hold that gendered norm expectationscontinue to exert powerful influences on women’s major life choices (Goudreau, 2011)including their career aspirations and choices in achieving their higher education goals (CGO,2012; Mollborn, 2010).

In the present study, we found that gendered norms directly influenced a number ofparticipants’ attitudes towards pursuing higher education as well as their abilities to achievetheir community college goals —particularly among women with spouses/partners and womenwith dependent children. As the headline in a recent article from the Washington Postdeclared, “Today’s typical college students often juggle work, children and bills withcoursework” (Johnson, 2013). This juggling usually comes with costs for women students whohave dependent children. For example, a number of mothers in our study expressed guilt aboutfeeling that “ your children may think you’re kind of neglecting them” [CC1].

Other participants found that being enrolled in community college necessitated that they(re)negotiate the gender roles and expectations of their family members and partners, as wellas their own internalized expectations. As one participant put it, “ When you have kids, societytells you [that] you need to st ay at home with the kids… Instead of listening to other people’sopinions…do what you want to do” [CC3]. We also found that —more indirectly —a number ofparticipants reported that taking courses in traditional male-dominated fields made it necessary

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Mollborn%20S%5Bauth%5Dhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Mollborn%20S%5Bauth%5D


28/102


for them to (re)negotiate gendered norm expectations among their male classmates and (inone case, an instructor).

In order to balance family responsibilities and academic commitments and ultimately succeed

in community college, women students —particularly those with spouses and/or children — reported that they had to learn to adjust to (although not necessarily condone or accept)traditional gendered norm expectations and values that society often places upon them.

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS played a significant part in how participants viewed their own genderednorm expectations and social responsibilities. These included competing obligations related tocaring for children, partners, or other dependents, as well as employment responsibilities(Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005; Rath, Rock & Laferriere, 2013; Wassmer, Moore & Shulock,2004). Many participants experienced guilt due to their own perceptions of society’sexpectations of them, such as not spending adequate time with their families. In response tothe quest ion, “What kept you from doing your best in school ?”, one participant responded:

My kid. I mean, you know, not being able to get him on the bus and having to leave. We hadan accident today. He fell and hurt himself, and I just worried…Of course my child absolutelycomes first —I’d go through hell and high water for my son. But I still need to be here [incollege]. [CC1]

This statement is an example of how individual views regarding the role and responsibilities ofbeing a mother can serve to undermine or hinder commitment to college completion amongwomen students when internalized and societal gendered norm expectations conflict with theiracademic responsibilities. Another participant expressed deep regret that she did not have timeto spend at her child ’s school to support his academic pursuits. She remarked that she missedthe “valuable ‘me’ stuff” [CC1] that she gained by spending quality time with her child at hisschool functions. Other participants agreed that they struggled with balancing time spent withtheir children and time spent on their academic obligations. As a participant stated:

Having a child in school, you feel like you need to be involved in their school too. But yet youhave your own school [that] you have to be involved in. So your c hildren may think you’re

kind of neglecting them and their fun stuff because you can’t always be there. [CC1]

In contrast, while admitting that with “kids and other responsibilities at home, it’s gonna behard” [CC5] to be enrolled in college, some par ticipants adopted a determined ‘can -do’ attitudein juggling domestic/childcare responsibilities and academic obligations. Beliefs regarding the


29/102


importance of higher education to achieve career/life goals is associated with enhancingstudents’ progress in community college (Lotkowski, Robbins & Noeth, 2004):

You’ve got to have your mind set—have your mind set to finish school. I think that [is] ‘cause

women often are the ones more in charge of the children. If they have children, they need tomake sure that they have a support system. [CC2]

Many participants noted that they rely on family members and friends in their support networkto help them meet their everyday domestic/childcare responsibilities and to serve as soundingboards when the participants felt overwhelmed. Those who adopted this attitude reported thatthey were able to use those in their support network to keep them motivated and on the trackto college completion success:

I’ll finally graduate in May…Have somebody to help guide your way: your family, yourspouse, or anybody. Don’t just have your advisors. You need somebody. Without the personthat I’m with, I wouldn’t be able to do it. You need a rock and stone to fall back on. [CC4]

When asked what advice they would give women who were preparing for college, manyparticipants focused on the importance of setting personal goals. This is not surprising giventhat self-efficacy has been linked to completing one’s community college and to academic self-confidence (Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005; Lotkowski, Robbins & Noeth, 2004). A CC4participant believed that the most important factor was to “ believe in yourself and know thatyou can do it” [CC4] while a CC5 participant echoed her sentiments, “Be determined on what

you want to do, set goa ls for yourself, and motivate yourself too” [CC5]. Another participantcautioned that outside employment should not get in the way of college completion: “If youhave a job, don’t let your job overrule your school [goals] because there will always be a way foryou to go” [CC4]. Previous research suggests that “community college students have morecharacteristics that might compromise their ability to succeed in college, ” including later age ofenrolled in college and part-time attendance are associated wit h achieving one’s college goals (Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005: 2). However, a CC4 participant who had re-entered collegemuch later in life said that age should not keep women away from school:

I had to overcome the fact of my age…Don’t let that be a factor to not enter college. Even ifyou dropped out, you can still go back. I was enrolled here forty- two years ago. I said, ‘Ohmy gosh, how can a sixty-year- old woman enter back into college?’ But she can! [CC4]

Her belief was reflected by other non-traditional students who also felt that being more matureon entering community college had important advantages. For example, non-traditional


30/102


students stated that being older allowed them to stay more focused on their academic goalseven when family and employment responsibilities competed for their attentions.

INTERPERSONAL FACTORS challenged participants to reflect on how gendered norm

expectations regarding the ‘proper’ role of women as spouses/partners and mothers maydetermine whether they pursue or continue a college career:

When you have kids, society tells you [that] you need to stay at home with the kids, so you put that [college] on the back burner. No one knows exactly what’s best except you. Insteadof listening to other people’s opinions, or w hat statistics tell you, do what you want to do.That’s best. [CC3]

One participant shared that when she married shortly after graduating from high school,“everyone ” assumed she would not enroll in college or discouraged her from doing so becauseshe “would never make it ” [CC5] in community college due to the fact that she would have to juggle attending college, working to earn a living, and adjusting to being married.

In contrast, participants noted that gendered norm expectations for men as husbands/partnersand fathers —especially when it comes to child-rearing —were much less constraining. Oneparticipant remarked that two of her female friends had to take time off from college followingthe births of their children and noted wryly: “I don’t know a single man who’s had to sit out a semester or two because of children” [CC1]. After acknowledging that women students oftenhave to drop out of college to take care of their children, another commented that “ men don’thave that problem” [CC3].

Participants reported that expectations that spouses/partners held regarding routinehousehold responsibilities and childrearing also constrained women students’ ability to devoteadequate time to college coursework. One participant remarked, “Even though I’m a studenttoo, I still have to wash clothes, do dishes, and cook dinner for three other people, and that canbe a hindrance to my school work” [CC4]. Another acknowledged that “ everybody hasresponsibilities ” but believed that married women with children have more responsibilityplaced on them:

You are expected to perform. You know —get the food cooked, get the laundry done, get thehouse cleaned, take care of the kids. Go to the reading fair [at your child’s school]. Go to theball game. Get your homework done. You ’re expected to do more. It’s hard. [CC1]


31/102


Finally, some participants enrolled in male-dominated courses reported that they faced barriersrelated to gender stereotyping. One participant noted that “ I understand it’s a male dominated field” and that when she enrolled, “I didn’t think I was gonna come in here and get flowers.”But, as she explained, “I was not the first girl that’s ever done this.” Male students’ attitudes

towards her presence in the classroom sometimes added extra pressure to the academicenvironment. As she explained, “I know, like it’s cool or whatever, or you may think it’s neat.But don’t just gawk at me like I’m some three -legged person — just treat me like everybodyelse” [CC1].

Faculty members’ attitudes towards the pr esence of women students in male-dominatedcourses also sometimes added extra pressure to the academic environment. As anotherparticipant recounted: “ I have this blueprint that’s part of my final, but I didn’t know that a two -by-four [piece of lumber] is really one-and-a-half by three-and-a- half” after it’s planed anddried. When she received her assignment back from the instructor and asked him to explain, “Why is this wrong?” She was embarrassed when, instead of explaining the issue to her, “helaughed a t me.” She concluded to her other focus group members that “little stuff like that”[CC1] can be discouraging for women students.

THEME 2:FAMILY ATTITUDES TOWARDS HIGHER EDUCATION

It’s not always quite like what your parents say it’s like. Times chang e. [CC4]

Family attitudes towards higher education exert strong influences on the community collegeexperiences of women students. INTERPERSONAL FACTORS such as the educationalattainment of parents, spouses, and partners as well as familial beliefs regarding theimportance of a college education impacted how participants viewed their own roles andresponsibilities as college students (Smith, 2009). Of the 65 women who participated in the sixfocus groups, 32% were first generation college students (n=21). Thirty-seven indicated thattheir mothers had enrolled in college for some period of time, and 23 said their fathers haddone so. Participants also reported that a siblings, peers, and family friends were also

important role models for them when it came to pursuing higher education (Fernandez et al,2008; Próspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007; Smith, 2009). According to participants, many parentswho had not experienced college themselves adopted a ‘ don’t be like me ’ approach. Otherparents who did not grasp the importance of pursuing higher education goals chose toencourage their daughters to maintain lifestyles with which they had become accustomed.Both beliefs seemed to garner stressors among this sample of first generation college students:


32/102


My mom didn’t go [to college]. My daddy didn’t go. So, it kind of makes me feel like I haveto. I can’t stop where they stopped. I have to go on and keep on and show them that— youknow —I can do it. [CC3]

And:

They [family members] make comments like, “Why do you have t o talk so intelligently? Whycan’t you talk where we understand it?” It makes me feel bad because I feel like I’m doingsomething good for my life [by going to college]. I’m not trying to down them at all. They’resuccessful in their own way. But they make me feel bad for wanting to be successful in myown way. [CC1]

Another first generation participant remarked that her parents didn’t value the importance ofhigher education when they were younger, but her mother had changed her viewpoint over theyears:

It [college enrollment] wasn’t important to them [parents]. Finishing high school was moreimportant than going to college. But, she [mother] always told us growing up that —youknow —“Don’t follow in our footsteps just because we stopped, keep going. It shows thatyou can do better than us.” [CC3]

One participant said she didn’t want to “ dishonor ” her mother by attending college [CC5]. Abusiness owner without a college degree, the mother had often asked her daughter why shewas pursuing higher education and had pushed her daughter to follow her own career pathinstead. Another said her parents finally “ came around ” [CC1] to the idea of her re-enteringcollege after she had taken some time off. One participant shared that her mother felt thatattending college was a “ waste of time ” and had continually “ shot down the idea of going tocollege ” [CC2]. Her mother’s negative attitude towards getting a college education had pushedher to seek support from friends. In fact, a number of participants indicated that while parentscould be supportive ‘in theory,’ it was often friends and co -workers who offered the mostconsistent hands-on and emotional support as they pursued their academic and career goals.One participant remarked that her parents had been “big su pporters as far as anythingscholastic goes, but as far as actually helping me with work and everything, [it’s] just otherstudents” [CC5].

Another interpersonal factor that served as a primary influence on the participants’ choice toattend college was t heir parents’ views towards the im portance of a college education (Smith,2009). Some participants struggled with trying to please their parents at the expense of their


33/102


own goals and dreams, while others accepted the paths that had been outlined for them bytheir parents. As one participant put it, “ I guess you can say it’s kind of a tradition. Everybody inmy family goes here [to CC4] ” [CC4]. Another participant said she was “ expected ” [CC5] toattend CC5 because her mother was employed at the college. But when they followed their

parents’ directives, some participants felt disappointed in the choices that were made on theirbehalf, which speaks to whether family, peers, and even family friends were available to serveas trusted sources of college advice (Alford, 2000; Fernandez et al, 2008; Smith, 2009).

A CC6participant noted that, “ I kinda’ went where my parents wanted me to go because of themoney, and then I regretted it the whole first semester. It took me awhile; I cried every night ”[CC6]. Still others accepted advice from parents and chose not to question the validity of theirviews: “My mom attended a junior college and wanted me to attend a junior college too for my first year because it’s cheaper, and you learn a lot better than at a universit y your first year ”[CC6]. Participants also acknowledged that their parents’ personal dreams were not necessarilyshared by them. As a CC3 participant explained:

When I was [initially] wanting to be a nurse —that’s what she [mother] always wanted todo—but she joined the military to support my grandma. When I would tell her that I wantedto be a nurse, I could see that she was happy, but at the same time it was a “her dream”type of thing. [CC3]

The educational attainment of spouses and partners also influenced how participants felt abouttheir own desires to pursue higher education. At least one participant noted that “ a lot of timesif your spouse has no college education, they hold that resentment too” [CC1]. Conversely,another maintained that her husband (who did not have a college degree) recognized the needfor her to succeed in the classroom and had been very supportive:

My husband is a big help…He’s been there for me through all of it. I couldn’t do it by myself.He took on a lot of responsibilities at home, like now the nights that I work til 10 or 11o’clock, I come home to a clean house and dinner cooked. [CC5]

It was also noteworthy that many participants who had children said their children were animportant source of support in achieving their academic and career goals. One participant saidher young child “loves that Mama goes to college ” [CC1]while another said her son “ asks meevery day what [grades] I made today ”[CC1]. Such positive feedback from their children helpedto ease participan ts’ frustration s when academic and job responsibilities limited their timespent with their children.


34/102


Research suggests that INDIVIDUAL FACTORS—including views about finances and debtaversion —are important influences on students ’ decisions to pursue higher education(Burdman, 2005; Dowd & Coury, 2006). However, we found that that issues related to financesmore accurately fell under INTERPERSONAL FACTORS. According to participants, many family

members discouraged these individuals from enrolling in college because their family membersfelt the person’s time could be better spent on earning a living rather than on academics. Oneparticipant reported that her parent warned her that, “Once you start making money whenyou’re off from college, you’re going to miss that money when you go back” [CC3]. Another saidher parents “just didn’t agree with me not having a full- time job trying to support my kid” [CC1].

Finally, POLICY FACTORS regarding parental views as well as participants’ own personal viewstowards government assistance programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) influenced whether or notsome were willing to apply for assistance. For example, one single mother expressed that shehad struggled with applying for much needed assistance because her parents stronglydisapproved of her doing so: “ My parents didn’t want to see me getting help from thegovernment, but at the same time, it’s only gonna be two years of my life. I need help, and thenI can work” [CC1]. Another participant said she had struggled with applying for childcareassistance because she didn’t want the community saying she “was just doing that for the government money” [CC1]. She believed that the stigma that is often attached to teen mothersaccepting assistance kept her from actually applying and only within the last two months didshe do so. In response, one participant said, “It’s a huge difference between needing it andabusing it. I mean, you need it, [so] take advantage ” [CC1] of the opportunity to receivenecessary assistance.

THEME 3:TIME MANAGEMENT

You have your work responsibilities; you have your school responsibilities;and then you have your home responsibilities. A nd there’s not a lot of time toget it all done. So just the fact that you are a woman in school is stressful.

[CC5] For non-traditional and traditional women students, time management among competingobligations (home, school, employment) hinders academic performance. Issues related to timemanagement crossed all five Ecological Model factors.


35/102


INDIVIDUAL FACTORS played a large role in participants’ time management. As in previousresearch, most participants in the present study reported challenges to balancing college, work,and family (Bailey, Jenkins & Leinbach, 2005; Rath, Rock & Laferriere, 2013; Wassmer, Moore &Shulock, 2004). Some participants attributed personal habits (e.g., procrastination) to their

trouble completing college assignments in an efficient manner. Others shared that the amountof time they spent on-campus (including in the classroom, library, etc.) —which was up to ninehours a day in some programs —kept them from working at a job or other activity in which theyplaced value. One participant, who said she had enjoyed being a Sunday school teacher beforeenrolling in community college, stated that she had to stop teaching because “ there were thingsI had to give up to be a student ” [CC5].

Many participants reported that they had to work in order to pay for tuition and other fees attheir community college. Yet they also reported that the necessity to work decreased valuablestudy time and could result in lower grades. As one participant stated, “ You’re wondering if youneed to focus on your school work —or work so you can go to school. It’s a struggle ” [CC4].Working often took a physical and emotional toll on participants, especially when it took awayvaluable time from studying or completing college assignments. As one participant said, “ I’mworking three jobs and in school full- time so…my attention…it’s in four or five other places atthe same time because I constantly have a million things running through my mind ” [CC1].Several participants cited stress from the necessity to juggle the demand of their workplacewith the demand of being in college as the cause of health problems. A participant hospitalizedfor stress-related causes cautioned:

Don’t let stress overcome you , because it will kill you….I was working two jobs, going toschool, and planning a wedding . I thought everything was fine and that it wasn’t botheringme. It will catch up with you sooner or later. [CC4]

Balancing the demands of community college with caring for the physical and emotional needsof dependents —including children, spouses/partners, and elders, was noted by ma

Documents

Community College Completion Project: Focus Group Report by Mississippi State University