Demographic risk factors, study patterns, end campus involvement as related to student success among Guilford Technical Community College students.

The educational literature suggests that certain demographic characteristics are more likely to put community college students at risk of not attaining a degree or program completion than their four-year public college counterparts. This study examines the prevalence of demographic risk factors of students attending Guilford Technical Community College as well as two other factors related to student success: study patterns and student involvement. The study compares these factors across three different groups of students: current students, graduates, and students who had recently left the institution prior to completion.

Introduction

Community colleges are facing increased pressure to educate students who come to them academically unprepared. The educational literature suggests that certain demographic characteristics, study patterns and campus involvement factors are more likely to put students at risk of not attaining a degree or program completion (Bonham & Luckie, 1993; Mohammadi, 1994; Price, 1993; Windham, 1994). The GTCC Foundation funded this study at Guilford Technical Community College (GTCC) in order better to understand the factors related to student persistence and success.

The first section of the paper briefly compares demographic risk factors at community colleges and four-year colleges using data from the National Center for Education Statistics. This section also examines three GTCC cohorts with respect to demographic risk factors with emphasis on how the cohorts differ from each other on each demographic risk factor. The second part analyzes the three cohorts with respect to study patterns at GTCC. The third part evaluates campus involvement outside class at GTCC for the three cohorts. Finally, repercussions of demographic risk factors, study patterns, and campus involvement are analyzed and recommendations made, including suggestions for further research on student persistence.

The study attempted to compare three different GTCC student cohorts across the areas of demographic risk factors, study patterns, and campus involvement. We were particularly concerned with the following questions: What are the major demographic risk factors that differentiate the three cohorts? How is persistence at the community college related to study patterns among the three cohorts? To what degree is campus involvement important in persistence at GTCC?

The composition of the community college student body is unique compared to other institutions of higher education. To serve the diverse community college student population, one must understand student needs when developing policies, programs, and services. This study of GTCC students was carried out in order to promote better planning for student services and curriculum. The study was designed to examine three cohorts of GTCC students. The first group was composed of students who attended GTCC for a minimum of one semester but did not return to, or graduate from, GTCC during fall 2001. The second group is a representative sample of current curriculum students who were selected to complete the Faces of the Future survey during fall 2001. The final sample included students who attained a degree or completed a program during the 2001/2002 academic year.

Methodology

Design and Survey Administration

Three surveys currently administered by the GTCC Office of Institutional Research and Planning or the GTCC Educational Support Services staff were used in collecting data for this study. Demographic risk factor data were obtained from the college database for the respondents to the three surveys. In order to understand additional factors influencing student success, questions were included in the three surveys to gauge participation in activities outside class at GTCC as well as student study patterns. These additional questions were adapted from a study by Rau and Durand (2000). By asking the same questions of the three different populations, it was possible to make comparisons among them.

The 2001 Non-Returning Student Survey was primarily based on a survey design required by the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS) Office to assess student satisfaction ratings as well as other information on students who did not return from the previous year. The staff of the Office of Institutional Research and Planning administered the 2001 Non-Returning Student Survey by mail in October 2001. Of the 2,665 students enrolled in fall 2000 who did not return for fall 2001, 201 had moved, making the survey undeliverable. A total of 2,464 surveys were delivered, to which 367 students responded. This provided a response rate of 14.9%, which is considered sufficient, based on the NCCCS requirement of a 10% response rate for the survey to be considered statistically valid. Because of the involvement with the grant project, funds were provided for incentives to return the survey. Those who returned the survey were entered into a drawing for 13 cash prizes ranging from $25 to $100.

GTCC Educational Support Services staff administered the 2001 Faces of the Future Survey, generated by the ACT Evaluation/Survey Service. The survey responses provide information on current students and their general background, employment background, educational background, and current college experience. Various members of the GTCC Educational Support Services staff visited a cross section of classes (randomly selected and in session) to administer the 2001 Faces of the Future Survey. The cross section of classes included curriculum classes from each of the seven divisions of the college, included curriculum classes at the college's Jamestown, High Point, and Aviation campuses, and included both day and evening classes. Classes surveyed included 710 students; 395 students responded for a response rate of 55.6%.

The 2002 Graduate Exit Survey, generated by the GTCC Office of Institutional Research and Planning, was also primarily based on a survey design required by the NCCCS Office to assess student satisfaction ratings as well as student goal completion data. The 2002 Graduate Exit Survey was administered through the Registrar's Office as part of the graduation application process throughout the 2001 fall semester and the 2002 spring semester. Of the 732 graduates, 501 responded to the survey, providing a response rate of 68.4%.

In summary, three surveys were utilized that are administered annually at GTCC and reach the nonreturning students from the prior fall semester, the graduates from the previous year, and a sample of the currently enrolled students. As part of a faculty project using a grant from the GTCC Foundation, to each survey were added the same twelve questions patterned after those from the national survey focusing on demographic risk factors, study patterns, and campus involvement.

Limitations

Caution should be used when generalizing results of the surveys to the entire nonreturning student group, the entire enrolled curriculum student group, and the entire graduating class, or to the same groups from another institution. The low response rate for nonreturning students indicates the results may not be reflective of the entire group at the institution. In addition, this is a single institution study and the results are indicative of the GTCC population. Also, identification codes were used only on the 2002 Graduate Exit Survey; therefore, some demographic data obtained from the college database for the Faces of the Future Survey survey cohort and the Non-Returning Student Survey were for the entire survey population, not just those who responded to the questionnaire.

Analysis Format

Descriptive statistics are presented as the primary format for analysis. The analysis is kept separate for each survey cohort in order to compare demographic risk factor and campus involvement percentages to the national community college and the national four-year college rates, and for the comparison of study patterns across the nonreturning student group, the current student group, and the graduating student group.

Findings and Discussion

Demographic Risk Factors

According to a study by the Educational Testing Service (Coley, 2000), seven demographic factors put students at risk of not attaining a degree or completing a program. These demographic factors include delayed entry, part-time enrollment, full-time work, financial independence, dependents, single parenthood, and community college attendance without a high school diploma. Coley (2000) found that these seven demographic factors are much more common among community college students than among students who attend four-year public universities, as shown in Table 1. Three fourths of community college undergraduates nationally are characterized by at least one of these demographic factors. Students entering community colleges are more likely to have several of these seven demographic factors. Nationally, in the 1995-96 academic year, 24% of students entering community colleges had 4 or more of these demographic factors. In contrast, only about 4% of students at public four-year colleges showed this level of risk. Almost one half (48%) of beginning community college students had delayed entry (did not enter college in the first year after high school). Almost one half (46%) of first-time entrants into the community colleges enroll part-time (taking fewer than twelve hours) as compared to 11% of first-time students attending public four-year institutions. Thirty-five percent of first-time entrants into community colleges work full time compared to 11% in four-year colleges. About 35% of community college students are financially independent, and approximately one fifth have dependents. The Coley (2000) study, based on National Center for Education Statistics (1999), found that 26% of students in two-year institutions have no risk factors in comparison to 70% of students in four-year institutions.

The GTCC students in all three cohorts are more likely than community college students from the 1995-1996 Coley sample to have delayed entry (Coley, 2000). According to the three GTCC cohorts shown in Table 2, about three fourths of the students did not enroll in college directly after high school. This percentage does not differentiate nonreturning students from graduates of GTCC.

As shown in Table 2, GTCC students differ from the national 1995-1996 community college cohort in a number of ways. These differences can most likely be attributed to the fact that North Carolina and Guilford County have both experienced a rapid transition from manufacturing, especially from textiles and furniture, to service-sector jobs. They are much more likely (over 25%) to have delayed their entry to GTCC than are the national sample. In addition to delayed entry, they are significantly more likely to be financially independent and somewhat more likely to have dependents. On the other hand, GTCC students are more likely to have completed a high school diploma. This factor may be related to the five-year time lag between the 1995-96 samples and the recent North Carolina emphasis upon completing high school.

Considering the nonreturning student sample in Table 2, of note are important differences between these students and the other cohorts of GTCC students. Perhaps the most significant comparisons are between nonreturning students and GTCC graduates. Forty-six percent of nonreturning students work full-time compared to 37% of GTCC graduates, and 13% more of the nonreturning students were financially independent than were the GTCC graduates. Nonreturning students were 31% more likely to be enrolled part-time than were the GTCC graduates. This statistic seems to support the Voorhees and Zhou (2000) study, which found that cumulative credit hours are related to student persistence. Therefore, part-time students are more at risk of attrition. In the sample reported in Table 2, nonreturning students did not differ significantly from the other GTCC cohorts with respect to having dependents, being single parents, or not receiving a high school diploma before entering GTCC. For this group of nonreturning students, it would seem that the work that makes them financially independent has a higher priority than going to college only part time.

Study Patterns

Another area related to student persistence is students' study patterns. Responses to the surveys showed that in a normal week, when there were no tests or papers due, 73% of prospective graduates spent time studying, while 27% felt they did all right without studying. In comparison, 70% of nonreturning students spent time studying, while 30% felt they did all right without studying, and 60% of current students spent time studying, while 40% felt they did all right without studying. Table 3 shows of those prospective graduates who did study, 31% studied 5 hours or less in a normal week and 64% studied 10 hours or less. In comparison, 46% of nonreturning students and 68% of current students studied 5 hours or less, and 77% and 94%, respectively, studied 10 hours or less.

On a normal weekend, when there were no tests or papers due, 58% of the prospective graduates spent time studying, while 42% felt they did all right without studying. In comparison, 56% of nonreturning students spent time studying, while 42% felt they did all right without studying, and only 41% of current students spent time studying, while 58% felt they did all right without studying. Table 3 shows of those prospective graduates who did study, 31% studied 5 hours or less on a normal weekend, and 69% studied 10 hours or less. In comparison, 45% of nonreturning students and 44% of current students studied 5 hours or less, and 84% and 76%, respectively, studied 10 hours or less.

Table 3 shows that the two most popular study patterns were 1) weekly study with reviews before exams (graduates--43%, nonreturning students--35%, current students--32%) and 2) cramming before exams and some study during the week (graduates--29%, nonreturning students--28%, current students--38%) Other patterns were studying almost every day (16%, 19%, 12% respectively), primarily cramming before exams (7%, 7%, 14% respectively) and studying every day (6%, 7%, 4% respectively).

In addition to effort put into classes, consistent study instead of cramming is also more likely to pay off in terms of graduation from GTCC. Over one third of GTCC graduates studied 11 or more hours per week. It is interesting to note that nonreturning students studied more than the cross section of current GTCC students captured in the Faces of the Future study.

Consistent study rather than cramming is more likely to bring success in terms of GTCC program completion. Table 3 shows GTCC graduates were the most likely of the three groups to study consistently during the week and to review before exams. As we will see in the next section, they were also more likely to use other resources such as study groups and faculty help outside class. Study time alone is only one factor in student success. Studying with peers in study groups and systematic study appear to interact with hours studied to produce students who are more likely to complete programs at GTCC.

Student Involvement

Coley found some significant differences in student involvement in college life, depending on the type of institution the student first attended (Coley, 2000). Community college students were less likely than other four-year students to participate in study groups, to speak to faculty outside class, and to participate in school clubs. According to Tinto and Russo (1994), student involvement is difficult to achieve at most community colleges. Literature on student retention and attrition suggests that contact with faculty and students outside class is a crucial factor in a student's decision to remain in college (Chickering and Gamson, 1987; Glennen, Farren, and Vowell, 1996).

As shown in the national data in Table 4, community college students were less likely in the 1995-96 study by the Educational Testing Service to participate in college life than were students at public four-year schools. Seventy-seven percent of the national sample of public four-year college students participated in study groups as compared to 46% of the national sample of community college students. The percentage of four-year public college students participating in school clubs was also much greater than that of their community college counterparts (49% versus 18%) (Coley, 2000).

Community college students were also less likely to speak with faculty outside class. Sixty-nine percent of community college students spoke with faculty outside classes compared to 85% of public four-year college students. Even though full-time faculty teach a larger percentage of the classes, there are usually more adjunct faculty than full-time faculty at community colleges, as is the case at GTCC. Adjunct faculty are not required to hold office hours but are encouraged to be available to students before each class that they teach and also immediately after class. This lack of availability of some faculty could be one of the reasons that student interaction with faculty outside classes is less at community colleges than at public four-year colleges.

Other findings from the three GTCC surveys are that, outside the classroom, 52% of prospective graduates, 41% of nonreturning students, and 66% of current students spoke with faculty, as also shown in Table 4. A number of studies have indicated that regular faculty-student contact is one of the most important factors in student involvement and motivation (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Heisserer & Parette, 2002). This interaction can provide students with the needed support to get through difficult financial and academic times, which are more common among community college students.

In addition to contact with faculty, the interchange with other students in study groups is also very important. Among GTCC students, 37% of prospective graduates, 22% of nonreturning students and 41% of current students participated in study groups. School clubs are another source of connection with the school and with students who have common interests. With respect to school club involvement, 19% of prospective graduates, 7% of nonreturning students, and 2% of current students participated in club activities.

In the 2001 Faces of the Future study, a college-wide cross section of current students, GTCC students closely mirrored the 1995-1996 national sample of community college students with respect to three factors: 1) participation in school clubs, 2) speaking to faculty outside class, and 3) participation in study groups. Table 4 shows that nonreturning students, however, are considerably less involved in college student life than are a cross section of 2001 current GTCC students. They are 19% less likely to participate in study groups, 25% less likely to speak with faculty outside class, and 14% less likely to participate in school clubs than the current GTCC student.

These findings are consistent with other research indicating that involvement in school activities leads to greater retention (Hagedorn, Maxwell, Rodriguez, Hocevar, & Fillpot, 2000; Maxwell, 2000; Napoli & Wortman, 1998). As shown in Table 4, those students who invest the least amount of time and are the least involved also are more likely to drop out. This finding is consistent with Turnbull's statement: "Student retention increases in direct proportion to student involvement" (1986, p. 6).

Summary

Students entering community colleges are more likely than are their peers at four-year institutions to confront demographic risk factors that make it more difficult for them to complete their course of study (Cofer & Somers, 2001; Bryant, 2001). This study has shown that community college students at GTCC are not a homogeneous group. GTCC nonreturning students are confronted with a number of demographic risk factors beyond those of their counterparts in the other two cohorts. The nonreturning students had substantially greater rates in three risk factor areas: 1) working full-time, 2) enrolling part-time, and 3) financial independence.

In contrast to demographic risk factors, study patterns between the three cohorts show less consistent differences. The two major findings relate to the number of hours studied and systematic review before exams between the nonreturning and graduate cohorts. Graduates were more likely to study 11 or more hours per week and to review weekly before exams than nonreturning students.

In addition to these factors, the nonreturning students were, on average, less integrated into college life. Students who participate in study groups, speak with faculty outside class and participate in school clubs are more likely to complete their programs of study at both two- and four-year colleges. Nonpersisters differ from persisters in that they do not successfully integrate themselves into college. The model for persistence, then, involves integration of academic and personal spheres (Goldsmith & Archambault, 1997). Napoli and Wortman (1998) indicate that academic and social integration have both direct and indirect effects on persistence in college. Students who are integrated into the college life have stronger goal and institutional commitments, and these in turn influence persistence.

In order to help students who are at higher than average risk of not succeeding at community colleges, colleges need to identify them early in their college career so that additional intervention can be provided (Drew, 1990; Harris, 1998; Price, 1993). Additional financial aid would undoubtedly be helpful. Currently, only 32% of GTCC students receive financial aid. Also important are innovative ways of linking at-risk students with college resources and their peers on campus. According to Kane & Rouse (1995), the proportion of students from the lowest income quartile who enrolled in community colleges increased by 6% (from 16% to 22%) between 1980 and 1992, while it declined slightly in four-year colleges. The proportion enrolling from the highest quartile stayed constant in two-year colleges at just under 20%. The highest quartile in four-year colleges increased from 55% to 65%. Unless well-designed policies are in place to identify and provide support for these highly nontraditional students, the completion of a college education will remain a diverted dream for many (Brint & Karabel, 1989).

This review highlights demographic risk factors in the community college population at GTCC. It also shows that community college students represent a complex and diverse population. By understanding students at one institution who are able to persist despite significant risks (as well as those more likely not to complete their studies), administrators, faculty, and college personnel may benefit from this research when developing policies, programs, and services to serve all segments of the community college population. More comparative research is needed at diverse institutions to understand persistence in the community college and the structures that aid in student success.

Recommendations

Based on the results of the study, it is recommended that GTCC look at ways to get students more involved in campus activities. Increased involvement in college clubs might be achieved by making students more aware of the clubs that are available and making participation in those clubs more attractive to the students. Faculty, in conjunction with the Tutoring Center, should determine ways to encourage students to form study groups. Providing selective space for such groups and encouraging students to space their classes instead of taking them back to back would allow more time for study groups. Faculty should also invite students to talk to them before the students experience academic problems.

Special study skills classes or sessions could be held to help students learn how to study and to understand the importance of studying on a consistent basis instead of cramming. These classes or sessions could also focus on the merits of study groups, as well as how to form and maintain them. Rendon (1994, 2000) observes that because most students drop out during the first semester, institutions should put these recommendations in place early in a student's community college career. Making the transition to college and making academic and social connections in college are extremely important in student success and persistence.

The Financial Aid Office should also review its efforts to inform and educate students on the availability of student aid. In addition, emergency loans might provide the difference between students staying in school or dropping out. Makaukane-Drechel & Hagedorn (2000) found that there is a positive relationship between retention and the extent of financial aid. Finally, after improvement efforts have been put into place, further research needs to be conducted to determine if the efforts have had an effect on student retention and student success.

Table 1
National Student Success and Demographic Risk Factors

                                                 Public Four-Year
                            Community Colleges       Colleges
Risk Factor                     1995-1996           1995-1996

Delayed entry                      48%                 17%
Enrolled part-time                 46%                 11%
Worked full-time                   35%                 11%
Financially independent            35%                  9%
Had dependents                     21%                  5%
Single parent                      11%                  3%
No high school diploma             11%                  3%
Four or more risk factors          24%                  4%

Data from: Coley, R. J. (2000). The American community college turns
100: A look at its students, programs and prospects. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center.

Table 2
Guilford Technical Community College Demographic Risk Factors

                              GTCC             GTCC            GTCC
Demographic               Nonreturning   Current Students    Graduates
Risk Factor                Fall 2001        Fall 2001       Spring 2002

Delayed entry                 75%              74%              76%
Enrolled part time            78%              58%              47%
Worked full-time              46%              39%              37%
Financially independent       64%              58%              51%
Had dependents                30%              35%              28%
Single parent                  9%              13%               7%
No high school diploma         5%               6%               3%

Table 3
Study Patterns of Guilford Technical Community College Students

                               GTCC            GTCC           CTCC
                           Nonreturning  Current Students   Graduates
                            Fall 2001       Fall 2001      Spring 2002

Hours studied per week

  0-5                          46%             68%             31%
  6-10                         31%             26%             33%
  11 or more                   23%              6%             36%

Hours studied on weekends

  0-5                          45%             44%             31%
  6-10                         39%             32%             38%
  11 or more                   16%             24%             31%

Study pattern that best
characterized students

  Primarily relied
  on cramming                   7%             14%              7%

  Cramming before
  exams and some study
  before exams                 28%             38%             29%

  Weekly study with
  review before exams          35%             32%             43%

  Studying almost every
  day                          19%             12%             16%

  Studying every day            7%              4%              6%

Table 4
Guilford Technical Community College and National Student Involvement

                     GTCC         GTCC
                     Non-       Current       GTCC
                  returning     Students    Graduates

Participate in
study groups         22%          41%          37%

Speak with
faculty outside
class                41%          66%          52%

Participate in
school clubs          7%          21%          19%

                                National
                   National      Public
                  Community       Four
                  Colleges *   Colleges *

Participate in
study groups         46%          77%

Speak with
faculty outside
class                69%          85%

Participate in
school clubs         18%          49%

* Data from: Coley, R. J. (2000). The American community college
turns 100: A look at its students, programs and prospects.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information
Center.

References

Bonham, L. A., & Luckie, J. I. (1993). Taking a break in schooling: Why community college students stop out. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 17(3), 257-270.

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

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

Chickering, E. & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin 39(7), 3-7.

Cofer, J., & Somers, P. (2001). What influences student persistence at two-year colleges? Community College Review. 29(3), 56-76.

Coley, R. J. (2000). The American community college turns 100: A look at its students, programs and prospects. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, Policy Information Center.

Drew, C. P. (1990). We can no longer love 'em and leave 'em: A paper on freshman retention. Community College Review, 17(4), 54-60.

Goldsmith, D. J., & Archambault, F. X. (1997). Persistence of adult women in a community college re-entry program. Connecticut. (ERIC Service Document No. ED 409 958).

Glennen, R., Farran, P., & Vowell, F. (1996). How advising and retention of students improves fiscal stability. NACADA Journal 16, 38-41.

Hagedorn, L. S., Maxwell, W., Rodriguez, P., Hocevar, D., & Fillpot, J. (2000). Peer and student-faculty relations in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(7), 587-598.

Harris, B. W. (1998). Looking inward: Building a culture for student success. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22(4), 401-418.

Heisserer, D. & Parette, P. (2002). Advising-at-risk students in college and university settings. College Student Journal 36, 69-84.

Kane, T. J., & Rouse, C. (1995). Labor market returns to two-year and four-year college. American Economic Review, 85(3), 600-614.

Manuanane-Drechsel, T. & Hagedorn, L.S. (2000). Correlates of retention for Asian Pacific Americans in community colleges. The case for Hawaiian students. Journal of Research and Practice, 24(8), 639-656.

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

Mohammadi, J. (1994). Exploring retention and attrition in a two-year public community college. Martinsville. VA: Patrick Henry Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED382257).

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

National Center for Education Statistics (1999). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Price, L. A. (1993). Characteristics of early dropouts at Allegany Community College and recommendations for early intervention. Cumberland, MD: Allegany Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361051).

Rau, W. & Durand, A. (2000). The academic ethic and college grades: Does hard work help students "Make the Grade"? Sociology of Education, 73(1), 19-38.

Rendon, L. (2000). Fulfilling the promise of access and opportunity: Collaborative community colleges for the 21st century. New expeditions: Charting the second century of community colleges. (Issues Paper No 3). Washington, D.C. American Association of Community Colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED440670).

Rendon, L. (1994). Beyond involvement. Creating validating academic and social communities in the community college. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED374728).

Tinto. V. & Russo. P. (1994). Coordinated studies programs: Their effect on student involvement at a community college. Community College Review, 22(2), 16-25.

Turnbull. W. W. (1986). Involvement: The key to retention. Journal of Developmental Education, 20, 6-11.

Voorhees, R.A. & Zhou, D. (2000). Intentions and goals at the community college: Associating student perceptions and demographics. Community" College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(3), 219-232.

Windham, P. (1994). The relative importance of selected factors to attrition at public community colleges. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association for Community Colleges, Savannah, GA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED373833).

Carol Schmid is a professor in the Sociology Department at Guilford Technical Community College in Jamestown, North Carolina. [e-mail]

Patricia Abell is the Director of Institutional Research and Planning at Guilford Technical Community College in Jamestown. North Carolina. [e-mail]