Community and diversity in urban community colleges: coursetaking among entering students.

Classrooms and curriculum are increasingly recognized as uniquely significant for student success. Due to high attrition rates, especially in urban community colleges, the first semester of study has garnered particular concern. Our limited knowledge about the student mix and coursetaking behaviors severely limits our ability to suggest policy and develop procedures to aid student success during the critical first semester. Surprisingly, there is virtually no research examining where first-semester, first-time students are concentrated or dispersed in the curriculum, or which courses nontraditional and other students take as their entry points of study.

Our lack of understanding of such matters is a result of ignoring courses as a unit of analysis in curriculum research. While curriculum research has analyzed the proportions of courses or enrollments, using the college as the unit of analysis, it has not looked at courses or the individual students that populate the classrooms. Academic success has been analyzed in terms of student characteristics but not in relation to coursetaking. This paper proposes to link student characteristics and courses through transcript research using courses as a unit of analysis.

Questions about such issues offer a fundamentally new direction in transcript analysis that builds on, and yet departs from, previous studies of curriculum trends (Cohen & Ignash, 1994; Grubb, 1989) and student demographics (Adelman, 1992). An understanding of the success of individual students presupposes basic research regarding which courses specific types of students enter, their subsequent paths through the curriculum, and the conditions affecting their success in particular courses. This study will address the first of these issues, while the others will require extensive investigations beyond the boundaries of this or any single report.

To explore the initial coursetaking patterns of students, this study will examine the general question: In the first semester of study at an urban community college, what types of students enter which sectors of the curriculum? Specifically, what kinds of first-time students--with regard to gender, age, ethnicity, and full- or part-time status--enroll in which specific types of courses? The principal findings of this study provide important implications concerning the dispersal, concentration, possibility of community among students, and the access of racial minorities to various tracks in the curriculum.

The broader question driving this study is exploratory in nature and tests the usefulness of using courses as a unit of analysis in curriculum research. While we did not focus on one or a few specific hypotheses drawn deductively from existing conceptual traditions, we will indicate some of the theoretical implications for current ideas and controversies in the conceptual literature. Our goal is to identify whether or not student patterns emerge when using transcripts and courses as a unit of analysis.

In addition to the value of this question for fundamental knowledge about students, this topic is important for college efforts in supporting first-time students. Recent research has identified classrooms as a key area of focus for colleges seeking to promote the success of their new students (Maxwell, 1998). When the college does not know which classrooms at-risk students are entering, students may be in classes without sufficient support. Thus, colleges need information as to which kinds of entering students are attending what kinds of courses.

Changing Community College Roles

The role of community colleges has expanded from strictly "university parallel programs" to full-service colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Gleazer, 1994), adding components such as occupational curriculums (Zwerling, 1976; Brint & Karabel, 1989), remedial and developmental courses (McGrath & Spear, 1994; Spann, 2003), ESL education (Ignash, 2000; Striplin, 2000), and other types of courses.

Though researchers continue to debate the relative importance of these new functions and their effects on student outcomes (Clark, 1980; Brint & Karabel; 1989), the expanded community college mission has encouraged the enrollment of diverse types of students. The curriculums have increased considerably, but knowledge is lacking about the types of students enrolled in the various types of courses provided by the comprehensive community college.

Changing Coursetaking Patterns

Recent reviews of the curriculum (Cohen & Ignash, 1994; Schuyler, 1999; Striplin, 2000) highlight the changing numbers of students within various types of courses. Cohen and Ignash (1994) found that enrollment patterns in the humanities changed little between 1978 and 1991, while at the same time enrollments in some science subjects doubled, and enrollments in ESL courses tripled. A more recent review by Striplin (2000) noted that between 1991 and 1998, computer science courses showed the greatest increase in enrollments. Examinations of types of course offerings provide another form of evidence that coursetaking patterns are changing (Striplin, 2000).

The present study combines and elaborates analytic schemes that have been previously used to examine trends in the curriculum. First, we borrow from Cohen and Ignash's (1994) distinction between remedial and standard types of academic courses, in which remedial courses are defined as below college-level proficiency and without transferability to four-year degree programs (Hagedorn, Chavez, & Perrakis, 2001). Cohen and Ignash observe that the "standard" level include courses which are applicable to the A.A. degree but not to transfer, and also courses which carry both A.A. graduation and transfer credit. The analysis in this study incorporates this distinction between these two levels of standard courses, "A.A. applicable/not transferable" and "A.A. applicable/transferable," because it is useful in identifying demographic patterns among first-time students. Secondly, some analyses have paid particular attention to two academic subjects with very large numbers of enrollments: English and mathematics courses. Third, adapting Grubb's (1987) conceptualization of occupational courses, Cohen and Ignash (1994) found that most occupational enrollments fall within four areas: business and office, health, technical education, and trade and industry. Along with these four occupational areas we add Grubb's category of education, because distinctive types of students enroll in large numbers in programs concerning the development and care of children. And fourth, the recent growth of ESL merits a separate category.

Based upon the work of these foregoing authors and recent trends, we suggest in Table 1 a refined classification of courses which identifies two main dimensions: 1) the level of the courses--remedial, A.A. applicable/not transferable, and A.A. applicable/transferable and 2) the subjects of study. (As examples of the categories, Table 1 lists the courses that will be analyzed in this study.)

Changing Student Demographics

The community college literature has consistently noted demographic changes through both individual institutional accounts (e.g., Angle, Dennis-Rounds, Fillpot, & Gaik, 1992; Spicer, Karp, & Amba, 1999) and national accounts of community colleges (Adelman, 1992; Phillippe & Patton, 2000).

National accounts document changes within community colleges, such as the finding that female enrollments have increased to a majority, about 58%, of the population of community college students. While 50% of the students in community colleges are less than 25 years of age, those aged 40 and above represent about 16% of the enrollments. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of community college students attend less than full time (as compared to 22% of four-year college students). Minority enrollments increased 5% from 1992 to 1997 due primarily to increasing numbers of students of Hispanic and Asian origins (Phillippe & Patton, 2000). As indicated earlier, these demographic reports ignore any relationships with curriculum.

One of the few studies to examine the link between the curriculum and ethnicity was Hirose's (1994) analysis of the proportions of liberal arts and minority enrollments. Finding that the community college's proportion of liberal arts course offerings was unrelated to the college's proportion of non-White students, this evidence was interpreted as refuting the contentions of Pincus (1980) and Brint and Karabel (1989) that the community college curriculum was tracking ethnic minority students into vocational rather than baccalaureate education. This interpretation was in fact not supported by Hirose's data because her unit of analysis was college (instead of course) enrollments, resulting in what Robinson (1950) coined as an "ecological fallacy." We contend that ethnic tracking remains an open question.

Method

Student Population. This study focused on an entering cohort of students in their first semester of study. (Data about continuing cohorts is also included in Table 2 for purposes of comparison.) Although future research on the sequence of subsequent course enrollments for a continuing cohort would be valuable, the importance and complexity of the course selections of the entering students is sufficient to require the full attention of this present study.

The study's population consisted of the first-time students among the 155,361 students who registered for courses in the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) in the spring of 2001. The district has great student diversity across its nine campuses, representing 8% of the state's community college enrollment and 6% of the public undergraduate enrollment in California (LACCD, 2001). Compared to the rest of the state and to national norms, the residents of the Los Angeles district have significantly higher proportions of persons below the poverty level and with less than a ninth grade education and of nonnative speakers of English.

Students were defined as enrolled in a course if they remained in the course past the first census date and thus earned either a favorable (A,B,C,D, Pass) or unfavorable (F, Withdrawal, Incomplete, No Pass) grade. Using this definition of enrollment, 18,825 of the first-time students were dropped from the analysis because they had not enrolled in any course in LACCD for the spring of 2001. From the remaining 136,536 students, first-time entering college students were identified by having marked on their admission form that they were a "first-time college student." This yielded a group of 13,108 first-time students.

Drawing on the experience of several institutional researchers, we note that delimitation of the sample of first-time college students in studies of this kind may involve discrepancies of as much as 5-10%. Some of the students report themselves as a "first-time college student" when in fact they 1) previously have attended their college or another college in the district (frequency is estimated as [less than or equal to] 5%) or 2) previously have attended another college outside the district ([less than or equal to] 5%). Discrepancies in the opposite direction occur when students, or the college data systems, report continuing status when in fact 1) they are first time college students with previous college course(s) acquired as part of their high school curriculum (5-10%) or 2) previous college experience involved merely registering and attending no or very few class sessions ([less than or equal to] 5%). To some extent these several types of distortions cancel each other's effects, and in the experience of institutional researchers these sampling distortions appear to have only small effects on the measures of demographic differences between courses.

Of the first-time students, 6,196 (47.27%) were identified through analysis of enrollment records as enrolling in at least one of the courses selected for this study (see below). Since students could enroll in more than one of these courses, the total enrollment number for first timers (8530 enrollments) exceeded the number of first-time students in the selected courses.

Measures. Computerized files of section enrollments were used to determine the courses in which each student was enrolled. Given the careful processes involved in assembling these files (which are the basis for course transcripts), these data provide a much higher degree of reliability and validity than do student survey reports of course enrollments. Adelman (1995) has called for greater reliance in research on transcripts because, as he observes, they do not "lie, ... exaggerate, [or].... forget" (p. vii). The demographic variables were measured with student rsponses on their college admission forms.

Sample. As this study's goal was to understand variability of enrollment patterns by first-time students entering the college curriculum, a list of introductory courses was sought that would identify both representative courses with large enrollments and probable entry points into the curriculum by specific groups. The search was conducted through discussions with college counselors, institutional researchers, and by exploratory examination of the district datasets. From these efforts, the following list of courses was generated (for the specific course titles, please refer to Table 1):

* remedial, A.A. applicable/not transferable, and A.A. applicable/ transferable levels of English

* remedial, A.A. applicable/not transferable, and A.A. applicable/ transferable levels of mathematics

* psychology

* English as a second language (ESL)

* business

* office administration

* chemistry (a prehealth sciences course)

* computer science

* automotive technology

* administration of justice

* child development

The selected courses are only a fraction of the large number of courses in which first-time students enter. However, these courses include the courses in both the academic and occupational sectors which have the largest enrollments, courses with demonstrated variability, and smaller occupational courses.

Demographic variables. Four student demographic characteristics were examined in relation to the above courses: gender, ethnicity, age, and full-time or part-time enrollment.

Females comprised 59% of the sample.

Ethnicity was measured with an item from the admission form. Southeast Asians (6% of the sample) were defined as those who selected any of the following categories: Laotian, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Indian SubContinent, Filipino, or other Asian. East Asians (6%) were defined as those who selected any of the following: Chinese, Japanese, or Korean. Hispanics (48%) were defined as those who selected any of the following: Mexican, Chicano, Mexican American, Central American, South American, or other Hispanic. Pacific Islanders (1%) were defined as those who selected any of the following: Pacific Islander (Guamanian), Pacific Islander (Hawaiian), Pacific Islander (Samoan), or other Pacific Islander. The remaining general ethnic categories included: African American (19%), Caucasian (16%), American Indian (1%), or other Non-White (2%). (These figures corresponded to the distributions, within 2% or less, in each of the ethnic categories in the district population of all first-time students.) Those first-time students who did not identify their ethnicity were labeled as Unknown.

The variable of age was classified in five categories: less than 20 (18%), 20-24 (38%), 25-34 (26%), 35-44 (12%), and over 44 (6%). A full-time student was defined as being enrolled in four or more classes during the present semester (33%). The students enrolled in three or fewer courses were designated as part time (67%).

Results

The transcript data show a remarkable dispersal of the first-time students among courses. The evidence in Table 2 indicates that the students entered the colleges through a wide range of courses comprised mainly of continuing students. First-time students comprised a minority of the enrollments in various introductory courses across the curriculum, generally ranging between 7.3% to 24.3% of the enrollments. First timers were broadly distributed among these courses, not concentrated in any one sector of the curriculum. In striking contrast to many four-year colleges, entering students apparently were not clustered with each other in designated introductory courses. The contrast is particularly dramatic for courses such as A.A. applicable/transferable English. At the four-year campus such a course exists as a classic freshman classroom, but in these urban community college courses, less than 10% of the students were first timers. Only the introductory ESL course was dominated by first-time students, comprising 55.6% of the enrollments, and these ESL courses enrolled only a small minority of the total number of first timers.

At all three entry levels in the academic track--remedial, A.A. applicable/not transferable, and A.A. applicable/transferable--and in both English and mathematics courses, first timers filled only about one-fourth or less of the enrollments in these courses. Each of these levels of academic track courses was comprised mainly of students from continuing cohorts. An examination of the several levels of English and mathematics courses revealed that at the higher levels there were smaller proportions of first-time students, with first-time students accounting for no more than between 7% to 8% of the population in these A.A. applicable/transferable level English and mathematics courses.

Historically introductory English courses have been a primary point of concentration for community college freshmen. Such courses continue to enroll the largest number of students, but they do not enroll many of the entering students who register for occupational courses. Table 3 indicates that only about 7% to 20% of the first-timers enrolled in occupational courses were also enrolled in any of the several levels of introductory English courses. Overall, only 16% of the first-time students in the occupational courses examined here were concurrently enrolled in an introductory English course. Some of the first-time students enrolled in English courses undoubtedly have occupational rather than academic educational goals, yet these findings suggest that the general education courses such as English do not enroll a large portion of first-time students with primarily occupational purposes. (Though not reported here in the data tables, our analyses found a similar low level of overlapping enrollments across introductory mathematics and vocational courses.) Among entering students there is limited overlap across different sectors of the curriculum.

A gender analysis of first-time students in various introductory courses (Table 4) indicates different coursetaking patterns between the sexes. Females accounted for over 85% of the first-time enrollments in child development, and over 70% of office administration, and prehealth sciences such as chemistry (a result of a largely female nursing program). In contrast, males dominated enrollment in automotive technology, accounting for 98% of the enrollment, and were slightly over 50% of the first-time enrollments in business, computer science, and administration of justice. The percentage distributions did not vary by much for either women or men between the several levels of the English and mathematics courses.

Important coursetaking differences occurred among the various ethnic groups (Table 5). There was a high concentration of first-time Hispanic students in the introductory automotive technology courses (69%), remedial math (58%), remedial English (59%), and introductory child development (60%). Less frequent choices for Hispanics included business and computer science courses. A high proportion of first timers (52%) in the ESL course identified themselves as White, many of whom were Russian or Armenian immigrants (Prather, 1995). Whites were more likely to enroll in office administration and less likely to enroll in administration of justice and child development. Compared to other courses, African Americans were more likely to enroll in business, office administration, and computer science courses, and noticeably less likely to be enrolled in the automotive technology and A.A. applicable/transferable mathematics courses. Asian Americans were more likely to enroll in computer science and A.A. applicable/transferable mathematics courses, and less likely to enter courses in the administration of justice, auto technology, and child development. Notwithstanding these ethnic differences in coursetaking, in general there was great ethnic diversity among first timers in many of the introductory courses.

The distinction earlier proposed in the conceptualization of remedial, A.A. applicable/not transferable, and A.A. applicable/transferable courses was particularly relevant for the ethnic differences among students. These findings have important implications for transfer to four-year colleges and the attainment of the bachelor's degree. Among the several levels of English, there was a decline in the proportion of Hispanic students at the higher levels, similar proportions of Asian Americans, and increases in the proportions of African-American and White students. The contrasts between the levels of mathematics were quite different, with increases in the proportions of Asian Americans and Whites, and decreases in the proportions of African Americans and Hispanics. In the remedial mathematics courses Hispanic students comprised 58% of the first-timer enrollments, but only 33% of the enrollments in the A.A. applicable/ transferable course. The increases between the levels of mathematics were dramatic for East Asians, involving a proportion at A.A. applicable/transferable levels that was double that of the A.A. applicable/not transferable level and 10 times that of the remedial level.

An examination of first-time students' coursetaking patterns by age (Table 6) demonstrates that older and younger students had some different course interests, and yet there was also a broad range of age categories in most of the courses. In most of the introductory academic track courses, such as English, mathematics, and psychology, the majority of first timers were less than 25 years of age. By contrast, in ESL and occupational subjects such as computer science, office administration, and child development courses, the majority of new students were 25 years or older. However, in some of the occupational courses such as administration of justice, auto technology, and business, the majority of the first-time students were younger. Moreover, computer science, office administration, and child development display a diverse mix of age ranges by first-time students. Thirty percent or more of the first-timer occupational course enrollments in areas such as prehealth sciences, chemistry, and office administration were comprised of students in the age range of 25 to 34. Interestingly, the ESL course manifested a distinctive pattern, such that ages 45 and up accounted for the largest proportion of the enrollment.

The distribution of full and part timers varied across the curriculum. A breakdown of coursetaking patterns by enrollment status, full or part time (Table 7), reveals that the majority of first-time students enrolled in these various introductory courses were enrolled part time, taking three or fewer classes. The only exception to this pattern was the administration of justice course, for which the majority of its students were enrolled full time (four or more courses). In several of the classes--administration of justice, prehealth sciences, chemistry, both levels of A.A. applicable English, A.A. applicable/transferable mathematics, office administration, and psychology--more than 43% of the students were taking four or more courses. In all of the courses, except ESL and auto technology, at least one-third of the students were enrolled in four or more courses. This was the case even for the students enrolled in remedial English or mathematics courses where over one-third of the students were taking four or more courses. Note that these courses represented both academic and occupational areas of the curriculum. In none of the courses did the proportion of first-timers enrolled in only one course exceed 30%. However, 28% of the first-timers in child development were enrolled in only that one course. In contrast with the other courses, very few of the first-time students in ESL were enrolled in more than two courses. Auto technology was also distinctive in that one-half of its new students were enrolled in only one or two courses (this is explained in part by the fact that these auto technology courses involve more hours of meeting time than do other courses, usually about eight hours per week for each auto technology course).

Though there were these variations among the courses in the proportion of full-time students, with the exception of the ESL course, there was also great variation within each of the courses. In general, most of these courses had within them a broad range of students differing in the numbers of courses in which they were enrolled.

Discussion

The dispersal of the entering students is a dramatic feature of the colleges. First-time students are not concentrated in a few main introductory courses. They are a minority in the introductory English and mathematics courses. Moreover, even though English is the largest area in the curriculum, most first-time students in occupational courses are not enrolled in an English course. The first-time students enter the curriculum as minorities in most courses and are broadly distributed across a range of introductory courses. Based on a spring semester sample, the course concentrations of these entering students were smaller than students who enter the colleges in the fall, but not by much.

Dispersal of first-time students is one of the distinguishing, but often unnoted, characteristics of the community college and possibly one of several reasons why there is so little community among the students. There is no broad common first year, or even first semester, experience for the new students. Though the colleges are not perceived as unfriendly, there are relatively few social bonds between the students, few participate together in campus organizations, and little leisure time is spent with each other on campus (Maxwell, 2000). This situation potentially poses major dilemmas for faculty attempting to relate to the distinctive needs of entering students.

It must be recognized that a finding of dispersal among courses may imply but does not demonstrate that first-time students are scattered among classrooms. Because the unit of analysis in this study is courses rather than classrooms, the findings are not conclusive regarding the classroom densities of entering students. For example, even though the percentage of first-time students may be low for a course title, it is possible in specific sections of this course that the percentage of first timers might be high. Further research that takes the classroom as the unit of analysis is necessary to determine if first-time students are concentrated in or dispersed among specific classrooms.

If it is found that first-time students are dispersed among classes, such a finding might have large implications for college administrators and counselors as they consider using class schedules as a strategy for reducing the high attrition rates among entering students. Social and academic integration have been posited as central in promoting student persistence (Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997; Tinto, 1993). A growing body of research suggests that classrooms organized as learning communities promote both integration and increased persistence for entering students (MacGregor, 2000; Tinto, 1997). Scheduling courses to mandate learning communities for entering students is a feasible, relatively low-cost policy that could address the dispersion of first timers.

The classification of courses as academic, occupational, or ESL, and as remedial, A.A. applicable/not transferable, or A.A. applicable/transferable levels, was found to be to useful for identifying relationships with the student characteristics of gender, ethnicity, age, and full-time or part-time enrollment.

Not surprisingly, gender is related to coursetaking in ways that parallel the labor market. However, the enrollments do not simply mirror the gender distributions in the job structure. The segregation in the curriculum appears to be less than in the labor market (Hagedorn, Nora, & Pascarella, 1996). The most gender-segregated courses are auto technology and child development; the former course's population of males is 98%, and women comprise 88% of the latter. Other courses such as the administration of justice, formerly an almost exclusive male preserve, are now comprised of almost equal distributions of men and women. Although gender continues to be related to coursetaking, in general, most of the courses have substantial numbers of both women and men.

Ethnic distributions varied among courses. These patterns appear to be related to local systems of culture, opportunities, and social relations. In a few of the courses some ethnic groups appeared to be nearly absent. However, this was not a feature common to most of the college-level curriculum. There was little sense of segregation by race. There was great ethnic diversity in most college-level courses. There was not a clear pattern of tracking and exclusion in vocational and academic courses along a White/non-White divide. White students were interested in most of the vocational courses examined here. East Asians were the most likely of all ethnic groups to tend to avoid several specific vocational areas, and yet, they were the most likely to enroll in a vocational area such as computer science.

There are large differences among ethnic groups in entry into the colleges at remedial or A.A. applicable/transferable levels of English and mathematics. It is here that evidence for a hypothesis of some partial degree of tracking is implied for some but not all minorities. White and, to a lesser degree, African-American students have an advantage in English courses. East Asian students have an overwhelmingly greater level of advantage in mathematics courses, and Southeast Asian and White students have a moderate level of advantage here. Some members of all racial and ethnic categories enter the colleges at privileged levels. Indeed, due to their large numbers in the college population, in the A.A. applicable/transferable levels of both English and mathematics courses, Hispanic students outnumber members of any other ethnic group. However, Hispanic students are at a great proportional disadvantage in the English courses, and in mathematics courses both Hispanic and African-American students are entering remedial levels at an even greater rate of proportional disadvantage. The "tracks" are operating thus not along a simple White/non-White divide, but in a complex fashion with many tracks and an uneven mix of advantages for the groups.

There was much variation in age among the first-time students and some relationship between age and types of courses. Students under the age of 25 were more likely, than were students 25 or older, to be enrolled in academic courses. In contrast to the younger students, students over the age of 24 were more likely to enroll in occupational courses. Despite these differences between age groups, for both the younger and older students, the courses with the largest enrollments were English and mathematics.

In most of the introductory courses examined here, the majority of the entering students were enrolled in three or fewer courses. Full-time and part-time students were generally distributed broadly among almost all of the courses examined. Both full-time students and nontraditional part timers did not appear to be concentrated at particular points of entry into the curriculum. They were scattered across a broad range of courses. There were a few areas, ESL and some occupational courses, in which the majority of the students were enrolled in only one or two courses.

Counselors and curriculum administrators may be concerned that large proportions of the students in the remedial English or mathematics courses are taking four or more courses, and that well over one half are enrolled in three or more courses.

Lack of language skills creates one of the great divides in the community college. Thus, in the beginning ESL courses that were examined, the students displayed very different features from the other first-time students. It was only in these ESL courses that first timers were in the majority. The majority of the students were Whites despite their being a minority in the general student population. Ninety percent of these students were over the age of 24, and one-third were over 44. Given this distribution of age it is possible that many of these students had major responsibilities outside college, such as work and families, and thus, almost all of these students were enrolled in only one or two courses. It is likely that at higher levels of the ESL courses there is a different distribution of student demographic characteristics. Further research is necessary on the characteristics of students at other levels of the ESL curriculum. We know too little about "tracks" or successes that may follow ESL enrollments.

In summary, our main conclusion is that this new direction in research is fruitful for finding many distinctive patterns when courses are examined as the unit of analysis. We have touched on the relevance of the findings for campus community and for ethnic tracking. There are potentially many other theoretical and policy issues that could be raised in relation to the gender, ethnic, age, and part-time study patterns reported above.

The results of this study lead to many possibilities for future investigation. The units of analysis in further curriculum research must include not only the individual but also the classroom. Given the problem of high first semester attrition rates, it has been useful in this study to examine only one semester of coursetaking patterns. However, several limitations of the current study emanate from a sample of one semester. The use of only one semester's data precludes our knowing whether the observed findings are reliably representative or an anomaly. Additionally, weaknesses in the method for identifying first-time students within the curriculum may have slightly distorted or hidden patterns. Thus, future research can deepen our understanding of the students by refining the measure of first-time and continuing enrollments, and by examining the enrollments of continuing cohorts in addition to first-timers, and by studying fall and summer terms in addition to the spring term. Coursetaking research is needed to understand the patterns of shopping and dropping of courses that leads to repetition and high enrollments of continuing students in introductory courses. Research is needed on various kinds of students on their entry points and pathways through the curriculum that are linked with success in subsequent education and occupations.

Future research can continue to build on the examination of student enrollments by examining the academic outcomes in these courses and success and failures along various subsequent course pathways. New conceptual schemes are needed which capture the full complexity of the relationships between students and curriculum. Findings from these types of inquiries will aid both researchers and community college leaders in locating and helping students within the curriculum.

Table 1
Classification of Courses

                         Academic

Level                    English

A.A. applicable/   English 101--College
transferable       Reading and Composition

                   English 064--Intermediate
                   Reading and Composition
A.A. applicable/   English 031--Composition
not transferable   and Critical Reading
                   English 028--Intermediate
                   Reading and Composition

                   English 021--English
                   Fundamentals
Remedial           English 073--Beginning
                   College Reading and
                   Writing

                                      Academic

Level                     Mathematics                    Other

A.A. applicable/   Math 245--College Algebra        Psychology 001--
transferable       Math 240--Trigonometry           General
                   Math 225--Introduction           Psychology I
                   to Statistics

A.A. applicable/   Math 125--Intermediate Algebra
not transferable   Math 120--Plane Geometry
                   Math 115--Elementary Algebra

Remedial           Math 112--Prealgebra
                   Math 105--Arithmetic for
                   College Students

                                   Occupational

                     Business
Level               and Office         Health          Technical

A.A. applicable/   Bus 001--       Chem 051--       CO SCI 001--
transferable       Introduction    Fundamentals     Introduction to
                   to Business     of Chemistry I   Computers and
                   OFF ADM 001--   Chem 055--       Their Users
                   Typewriting/    Chemistry        ADM 001--
                   Keyboarding     for Health       Introduction to
                                   Sciences         Administration
                                                    of Justice

A.A. applicable/
not transferable

Remedial

                           Occupational

                     Trade and
Level                 Industry       Education

A.A. applicable/   AST 001--        CH DEV 001--
transferable       Automotive       Child
                   Engines          Growth and
                   AUTO TEK 113--   Development
                   Automotive
                   Principles
                   AUTO TEK 001--
                   Drive Train
                   Components
                   Principles and
                   Practices

A.A. applicable/
not transferable

Remedial

                       ESL

Level

A.A. applicable/
transferable

A.A. applicable/
not transferable

Remedial           ESL 001--Beginning College ESL

Table 2
Percent of First-Time Students in Various Introductory Courses,
Spring 2001

                                               All       % First timers
Course                                     enrollments        (n)

Remedial English                              4589        24.1% (1108)
A.A. applicable/not transferable English      6429        14.8% (953)
A.A. applicable/transferable English          5988         7.5% (447)
Remedial mathematics                          5856        24.1% (1410)
A.A. applicable/not transferable
  mathematics                                10411         9.8% (1018)
A.A. applicable/transferable mathematics      2393         8.1% (193)
Psychology                                    5790        14.9% (865)
ESL                                            540        55.6% (300)
Business                                      1929        18.7% (361)
Office administration                         1501        22.3% (334)
Chemistry                                      628         7.3% (46)
Computer science                              3436        18.4% (632)
Automotive technology                          124        33.9% (42)
Administration of justice                      793        24.3% (193)
Child development                             3087        20.3% (628)
Total enrollments in these courses           53496        15.9% (8530)

Table 3
Percent of First-Time Students in Various Vocational Courses Also
Enrolled in English Courses, Spring 2001

Vocational courses          Concurrent English

Business                          17.7%
Office administration             19.2%
Computer science                  16.3%
Automotive technology              7.1%
Administration of justice         10.9%
Child development                 15.5%
Total                             16.1%

Note: remedial, A.A. applicable/not transferable, or
A.A. applicable/transferable English courses

Table 4
Gender among First-Time Students in Various Courses, Spring 2001

Course                                      Men    Women    Total (n)

Remedial English                           42.0%   58.0%   100% (1108)
A.A. applicable/not transferable English   42.0%   58.0%   100% (953)
A.A. applicable/transferable English       40.0%   60.0%   100% (447)
Remedial mathematics                       41.2%   58.8%   100% (1410)
A.A. applicable/not transferable
  mathematics                              45.1%   54.9%   100% (1018)
A.A. applicable/transferable mathematics   46.6%   53.4%   100% (193)
Psychology                                 34.3%   65.7%   100% (865)
ESL                                        34.3%   65.7%   100% (300)
Business                                   54.0%   46.0%   100% (361)
Office administration                      26.6%   73.4%   100% (334)
Chemistry                                  23.9%   76.1%   100% (46)
Computer science                           54.7%   45.3%   100% (632)
Automotive technology                      97.6%    2.4%   100% (42)
Administration of justice                  52.3%   47.7%   100% (193)
Child development                          12.4%   87.6%   100% (628)
Totals                                     40.3%   59.7%   100% (8530)

Note: Percentages are computed as the ratio between the number of
first timers of the target gender in the course to the total number
of first timers enrolled in the course.

Table 5
Ethnic Origins among First-Time Students in Various Courses,
Spring 2001

                       East    Southeast   African
Course                 Asian     Asian     American   Hispanic   White

Remedial English        5.6%     5.9%       15.5%      58.6%      8.5%

A.A. applicable/not
transferable English    4.5%     5.8%       19.5%      48.8%     13.3%

A.A. applicable/
transferable English    5.4%     6.7%       19.7%      35.6%     22.4%

Remedial
mathematics             1.9%     4.0%       21.1%      58.4%      8.9%

A.A. applicable/
not transferable
mathematics             9.6%     8.4%       14.2%      43.2%     17.5%

A.A. applicable/
transferable
mathematics            22.3%     8.8%       11.4%      32.6%     18.1%

Psychology              4.7%     6.2%       20.0%      45.0%     17.3%

ESL                     7.0%     2.0%        0.0%      34.7%     52.3%

Business                4.7%     5.5%       24.9%      39.6%     17.5%

Office
administration          1.8%     5.1%       25.1%      42.5%     20.1%

Chemistry               2.2%     4.3%       17.4%      45.7%     23.9%

Computer science       10.8%     9.8%       23.3%      31.8%     16.1%

Automotive
technology              0.0%     2.4%        4.8%      69.0%     19.0%

Administration
of justice              1.6%     0.0%       20.2%      50.3%      8.8%

Child development       1.9%     4.9%       17.8%      59.7%     10.0%

Totals                  5.5%     5.9%       18.3%      48.1%     15.2%

                       Native              Non-     Un-
                        Ame-    Pacific    White   known
Course                 rican    Islander   Other   data     Total (n)

Remedial English        .5%       .4%       2.1%    3.0%   100% (1108)

A.A. applicable/not
transferable English    .9%       .2%       2.0%    4.9%   100% (953)

A.A. applicable/
transferable English    .9%        0%       2.7%    6.7%   100% (447)

Remedial
mathematics             .4%       .4%       1.8%    3.1%   100% (1410)

A.A. applicable/
not transferable
mathematics             .5%        0%       2.6%    3.9%   100% (1018)

A.A. applicable/
transferable
mathematics             .5%       .5%       2.1%    3.6%   100% (193)

Psychology              .5%       .3%       2.2%    3.7%   100% (865)

ESL                      0%       .3%       2.7%    1.0%   100% (300)

Business                 0%       .8%       2.2%    4.7%   100% (361)

Office
administration          .6%       .3%       1.2%    3.3%   100% (334)

Chemistry                0%        0%       2.2%    4.3%   100% (46)

Computer science         0%       .3%       3.2%    4.7%   100% (632)

Automotive
technology               0%        0%       2.4%    2.4%   100% (42)

Administration
of justice             1.0%      1.0%       1.0%   16.1%   100% (193)

Child development       .5%       .2%       1.8%    3.2%   100% (628)

Totals                  .5%       .3%       2.1%    4.1%   100% (8530)

Note: Percentages are computed as the ratio between the number of
first timers of the specified ethnicity who are enrolled in the
course to the total number of first timers enrolled in the course.

Table 6
Age Groups among First-Time Students in Various Courses,
Spring 2001

Course                                      <20    20-24   25-34

Remedial English                           23.3%   40.3%   23.7%
A.A. applicable/not transferable English   21.2%   39.3%   25.8%
A.A. applicable/transferable English       20.0%   38.6%   27.6%
Remedial mathematics                       17.1%   40.3%   27.2%
A.A. applicable/not transferable
  mathematics                              26.3%   43.9%   20.0%
A.A. applicable/transferable mathematics   16.6%   46.6%   25.9%
Psychology                                 23.3%   44.3%   20.7%
ESL                                         2.1%    8.2%   20.3%
Business                                   22.8%   40.3%   25.6%
Office administration                      14.8%   26.9%   30.5%
Chemistry                                  15.2%   41.3%   32.6%
Computer science                           14.2%   33.0%   24.6%
Automotive technology                      24.4%   39.0%   29.3%
Administration of justice                  18.4%   49.5%   27.9%
Child development                          13.8%   30.7%   27.3%
Totals                                     19.5%   38.4%   24.7%

Course                                     35-44    45+    Total (n)

Remedial English                            9.4%    3.2%   100% (1101)
A.A. applicable/not transferable English    9.6%    4.1%   100% (945)
A.A. applicable/transferable English        9.4%    4.5%   100% (446)
Remedial mathematics                       11.4%    4.0%   100% (1398)
A.A. applicable/not transferable
  mathematics                               7.5%    2.3%   100% (1006)
A.A. applicable/transferable mathematics    8.8%    2.1%   100% (193)
Psychology                                  8.2%    3.5%   100% (857)
ESL                                        32.6%   36.8%   100% (291)
Business                                    8.9%    2.5%   100% (360)
Office administration                      18.4%    9.4%   100% (331)
Chemistry                                  10.9%      0%   100% (46)
Computer science                           17.1%   11.0%   100% (625)
Automotive technology                       4.9%    2.4%   100% (41)
Administration of justice                   3.2%    1.1%   100% (190)
Child development                          17.2%   11.1%   100% (623)
Totals                                     11.5%    5.9%   100% (8453)

Note: Percentages are computed as the ratio between the number of
first timers of the target age in the course to the total number
of first timers enrolled in the course.

Table 7
Full-Time vs. Part-Time Students among First-Time Students in
Various Courses, Spring 2001

                                Total number of courses
                                enrolled in spring 1999

Course                    1       2       3      4+     Total % (n)

Remedial English        12.6%   26.7%   22.8%   37.8%   100% (1108)

A.A. applicable/not
transferable English    11.3%   24.1%   20.5%   44.1%   100% (953)

A.A. applicable/
transferable English    10.1%   22.4%   20.4%   47.2%   100% (447)

Remedial mathematics    13.3%   28.4%   21.5%   36.7%   100% (1410)

A.A. applicable/
not transferable
mathematics             10.3%   22.5%   29.0%   38.2%   100% (1018)

A.A. applicable/
transferable
mathematics             15.5%   17.6%   21.8%   45.1%   100% (193)

Psychology              12.3%   21.8%   22.1%   43.8%   100% (865)

ESL                     21.7%   66.0%   10.3%    2.0%   100% (300)

Business                13.3%   24.4%   24.4%   38.0%   100% (361)

Office administration   18.6%   22.8%   15.0%   43.7%   100% (334)

Chemistry               13.0%   13.0%   26.1%   47.8%   100% (46)

Computer science        21.4%   22.5%   18.5%   37.7%   100% (632)

Automotive technology   23.8%   26.2%   21.4%   28.6%   100% (42)

Administration
of justice              17.1%   14.5%   17.1%   51.3%   100% (193)

Child development       27.9%   24.0%   12.7%   35.4%   100% (628)

Totals                  14.7%   25.5%   21.0%   38.7%   100% (8530)

Note: Percentages are computed as the ratio between the number of
first timers enrolled in the course by the number of other concurrent
course enrollments to the total number of first timers enrolled in
the course.

References

Adelman, C. (1992). The way we are: The community college as American thermometer. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Adelman, C. (1995). The new college course map and transcript files. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Angle, N., Dennis-Rounds, J., Fillpot, J., & Gaik, F. (1992). The changing student demography of Cerritos College. Norwalk, CA: Cerritos College Topical Paper Series (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED354976)

Braxton, J.M., Sullivan, A.V. S., & Johnson, R.M. (1997). Appraising Tinto's theory of college student departure. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 12. (pp. 107-164). Edison, N.J.: Agathon.

Brint, S. & Karbabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press.

Clark, B. (1980). The `cooling out' function revisited (pp.67-78). In J. Ratcliff, S. Schwarz, & L. Ebbers (Eds.), Community Colleges (2nd ed.). Needam Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.

Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Cohen, A.M., & Ignash J.M. (1994). An overview of the total credit curriculum. In A.M. Cohen (Ed.), Relating curriculum and transfer (pp.13-29). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 86. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gleazer, E.J. (1994). Evolution of junior colleges into community colleges. In G. Baker III (Ed.), A handbook on the community college in America: Its history, mission, and management. (pp. 17-27). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.

Grubb, W.N. (1989). The effects of differentiation on educational attainment: The case of community colleges. The Review of Higher Education, 12(4), 349-374.

Grubb, N. (1987). The postsecondary education of 1972 seniors completing vocational A.A. degrees and certificates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Hagedorn, L.S., Chavez, C., & Perrakis, A. (2002). Remedial education. In J. J. K. Forest & K. Kinser (Eds.), Higher education in the United States: An encyclopedia. (pp. 518-512) Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Hagedorn, L.S., Nora, A., & Pascarella, E.T. (1996). Pre-occupational segregation among first-year college students: An application of the Duncan Dissimilarity Index. Journal of College Student Development, 37(4), 425-437.

Hirose, S.M.. (1994). Curriculum and minority students. In A.M. Cohen (Ed.), Relating curriculum and transfer (pp. 93-100). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 86. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ignash, J.M. (2000). ESL population and program patterns in community colleges. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED353022)

Los Angeles Community College District (2001). [On-line] Retrieved from http://research.laccd.edu/research

MacGregor, J. (2000). Restructuring large classes to create communities of learners. In J. MacGregor, J. Cooper, K. Smith, & P. Robinson (Eds.), Strategies for energizing large classes: From small groups to learning communities (pp. 47-61). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 81. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Maxwell, W. E. (1998). Supplemental instruction, learning communities, and studying together. Community College Review, 26(2), 1-18.

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

McGrath, D. & Spear, M. (1994). The remedialization of the community college. In J. Ratcliff, S. Schwarz, & L. Ebbers (Eds.), Community Colleges (2nd ed.). (pp. 217-228). Needam Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.

Phillippe, K., & Patton, M. (Eds.). (2000). National profile of community colleges: Trends and statistics (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440671)

Pincus, F. (1980). The false promises of community colleges: Class conflict and vocational education. Harvard Educational Review, 50 (3), 332-361.

Prather, G. (1995). Educating a generation of immigrants: Dispatches from the front. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Institutional Research Forum, Boston, MA.

Robinson, W.S. (1950). Ecological correlation and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.

Schuyler, G.E. (1999). A historical and contemporary view of the community college curriculum. In G. E. Schuyler (Ed.), Trends in community college curriculum (pp. 3-16). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 108. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.

Spann, M.G, Jr. (2000). Remediation: A must for the 21st century learning society (Rep. No. CC-00-4). Denver, CO: Center for Community College Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED439771)

Spicer, S., Karp, E., & Amba, C. (1999). Glendale community college campus profile '99. Glendale, CA: Planning and Research Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED437082)

Striplin, J.C. (2000). A review of community college curriculum trends. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED438011)

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

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

Zwerling, L. (1976). Second best: The crisis of the community college. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

The research reported in this paper is drawn from the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College (TRUCCS) research project, a collaborative project between the University of Southern California, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Community College District. This project is supported by a U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research grant no. R305T000154. The authors are grateful for this support, and acknowledge that the opinions expressed in this paper are their own.

William Maxwell, Associate Professor, Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, and Co-Principal Investigator on the TRUCCS Project.

Linda Serra Hagedorn, Associate Professor and Associate Director of the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis; also Chair of the Community College Leadership Program, and Program Director on the TRUCCS Project, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.

Scott Cypers, Research Assistant, TRUCCS Project, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.

Hye S. Moon, Senior Research Associate, TRUCCS Project, and College Persistence, Transfer, and Success of Kamehameha Students Project, Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.

Phillip Brocato, Project Coordinator, TRUCCS Project, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.

Kelly Wahl, Director of Assessment and Data Analysis, Loyola Marymount University.

George Prather, Chief, Office of Institutional Research, Los Angeles Community College District.