Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Demographic and Instructor-Student Interaction Factors Associated with Community College Students' Intent to Persist.
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Mitchell, Yolanda F. Hughes, G. David |
| Copyright Year | 2014 |
| Abstract | The classroom is the main point of contact for community college students due to their part-time status, employment, family responsibilities, and limited campus involvement. To examine the relationship between community college students’ demographics and instructor interactions as they relate to intention to persist in college, researchers utilized logistic regression analysis to analyze data from the Survey of Entering Student Engagement. Results indicated all eight predictor variables (instructor-student interaction, student-instructor interaction, age, sex, generation status, children, employment, and enrollment status) made statistically significant contributions to distinguishing between students who were most likely to intend to persist and those who were not. Student engagement has received significant attention from numerous scholars (Astin, 1993a, 1993b; McClenney, 2007). Described by Hu and Kuh (2001) as the quality of effort students devote to educationally purposeful activities, student engagement is considered to be an important factor in student learning in higher and postsecondary education (Astin, 1993a, 1993b; Kuh, 2001; McClenney, 2007). Examples of engaging activities include classroom discussions, faculty and peer interactions, and interactive course assignments and homework (Hu & Kuh, 2000; Kuh, 2005, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000). College student profile research findings indicate diversity in today’s college campuses. Community colleges have traditionally dealt with diverse students; however, initial definitions of diversity primarily focused on race and ethnicity (Jenkins, 2007). More recent definitions have expanded to include the student’s level of remediation, full-time versus part-time enrollment, and the age differences of traditional and nontraditional students (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Diverse campus cultures have also led to changing student expectations in that students want to be challenged and engaged, and they want to know instructors are available to them both in and out of the classroom (Kuh, 2003). The Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE, 2009b) findings indicated that faculty and student interactions are related to quality student engagement and satisfaction in the classroom. The findings also indicated that the most successful engagement strategies are likely to happen in classrooms. This finding is especially important as most community college students spend little time on campus beyond class time due to attending college part-time, working, commuting, and sometimes caring for dependents. Journal of Research in Education Volume 24, Number 2 Fall and Winter 2014 64 In response to the 2007 Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) findings which indicated that “many students have barely made it through the door before they slip off their college’s radar” (Ashburn, 2007, para. 2), the Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE) was developed (CCCSE, 2009a, 2010). Grounded in research about what works in retaining and supporting entering students, SENSE focuses on students’ experiences from the time they decide to attend through the end of their third academic week. Classroom Instruction Classroom instruction is a major influence on student success and engagement. John Dewey (1993) believed instructors are guides who help lead students into engaging learning environments. Tinto (1997), who noted the importance of classroom instruction in student persistence, asserted that faculty-student interactions were most likely to occur in the classroom and stated: The college classroom lies at the center of the educational activity structure of institutions of higher education . . . If academic and social involvement or integration is to occur, it must occur in the classroom. Seen in this light, it is surprising that the classroom has not played a more central role in current theories of student persistence. (Tinto, 1997, p. 1) Similarly, Seidman (2005) found that for the motivated student, a bad classroom experience ranked high as a reason for withdrawing from classes and college. Instructor-Student Interaction As previously noted, due to community college students’ part-time status, employment responsibilities, lack of involvement in student activities, and attendance at non-residential campuses, the classroom is their main point of contact (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Thus, community college students interact more with instructors than with anyone else. Numerous researchers have examined the role of instructor interaction and outcomes such as student development, students’ satisfaction level, and academic performance. Pascarella and Terenzini (1997, 2005) asserted that student-instructor interaction plays an essential role in the connection between a student and an institution. Likewise, Cotton and Wilson (2006) found that instructorstudent interaction is not only positively correlated to student development and achievement, but also improves students’ satisfaction level and academic performance. The role of instructor interaction on student persistence has also been examined (Braxton, Bray, & Berger, 2000). Bean (1983, 1990) included student-instructor contact as a behavioral measure in his student persistence model. His research findings demonstrated that student-instructor interaction played an important role in persistence, so much so that “When students feel faculty members do not care about their development, their bonds to the institution weaken” (Bean, 2005, pp. 225). Similarly, Filkins and Doyle (2002) found this interaction to be a strong predictor in first-generation students in that it impacts nontraditional students’ understanding of college expectations due to their possible lack of knowledge about college and career choices. Journal of Research in Education Volume 24, Number 2 Fall and Winter 2014 65 Hagedorn, Maxwell, Rodriguez, Hocevar, and Fillpot (2000) and Nadler and Nadler (2001) examined the differences between male and female community college students regarding peer and faculty-student interactions. Their research found that most students had low rates of contact with faculty outside of the classroom. Their findings also noted that female students were significantly more likely to develop close relations with faculty members and to discuss career plans with faculty than were male students. |
| Starting Page | 63 |
| Ending Page | 78 |
| Page Count | 16 |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Volume Number | 24 |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1098172.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
