Submitted to the college of education and health sciences benedictine university lisle, illinois

What are the trends in student persistence before and after the implementation of AtD at the College X?

H0: There are no statistically significant differences in student persistence rates before implementation of Achieving the Dream and after implementation of Achieving the Dream among first-year, full-time, degree-seeking students.

H_a: There are statistically significant differences in student persistence rates before implementation of Achieving the Dream and after implementation of Achieving the Dream among first-year, full-time, degree-seeking students.
Table 11
T-Test for Student Persistence Aggregate for Total Years of Study

Years	n	M	SD	df		t	P
Pre-AtD	3064	73.55	2.19
AtD	5232	69.53	1.96	3		2.16	.12

There was no statistically significant difference in student persistence rates among the aggregate population from Pre-AtD years to AtD years t(3)=2.16, p>.05 (see Table 11). The null hypothesis was retained.

Table 12

Two-Way Anova Race/Ethnicity Student Persistence for Total Years of Study

Factor	M (n= 8296)	SD	df	F	p
Race	72.27	7.77	4	3.25	.04*
AtD Status	72.27	7.77	1	2.19	.16
Race*AtD Status			4	.60	.67

*p<.05

To determine the effects of race and AtD status (pre- and post-AtD), a two way ANOVA was conducted, on the following three hypotheses:

A. H0: Race has no statistically significant effect on student persistence.

H_a: Race has a statistically significant effect on student persistence.

B. H0: AtD status has no statistically significant effect on student persistence.

H_a: AtD status has a statistically significant effect on student persistence

C. H0: There is no statistically significant interaction between Race and AtD status.

H_a: There is a statistically significant interaction between Race and AtD status.

Race had a statistically significant effect on student persistence, F(1, 4)=3.25, p<.05. Ho# A was rejected and the alternate hypothesis was retained. Post hoc analyses (Tukey) revealed that African-Americans’ scores (M = 64.64, SD= 4.40) were significantly lower than scores for (M = 78.54, SD= 5.64) Asians/Pacific Islanders (p<.05).

AtD status did not have a statistically significant effect on student persistence, F(1,4) = 2.19, p>.05. Ho# B was retained and the alternate hypothesis was rejected. No statistically significant relationship was found between Race and AtD status, F(1, 4) = .60, p>.05. Ho# C was retained and the alternate hypothesis was rejected.

For the male population, mean scores in student persistence decreased from Pre-AtD years (M=68.95, SD=3.74) to AtD years (M=66.40, SD= 0.85). However, the decrease was not statistically significant, t(1.07) = 0.946, p>.05.

For the female population, mean scores in student persistence decreased from Pre-AtD years (M=77.00, SD= 0.71) to AtD years (M=72.26, SD=2.99). The decrease was not statistically significant t(3)=2.09, p>.05 (see Table 13).

Research Question 3.
What are the trends in student academic achievement, measured by GPA, before and after the implementation of AtD at College X?

Figure 7

GPA displays a fluctuating trend throughout the years of the study. During the Pre-AtD years, the trend was downward, and from the first to second AtD year, it was upward. The trend then went downward again from 2006-2008, to the lowest mean GPA for first-year, full-time degree-seeking students (see Figure 7).

Hypothesis 3

H0: There are no statistically significant differences in student academic performance, as measured by GPA before implementation of Achieving the Dream and after implementation of Achieving the Dream among first-year, full-time, degree-seeking students.

H_a: There are statistically significant differences in student academic performance, as measured by GPA before implementation of Achieving the Dream and after implementation of Achieving the Dream among first-year, full-time, degree-seeking students.
Table 14
T-Test for GPA Aggregate for Total Years of Study

Group	Measurement	Year	n	M	SD	df	t	p
Aggregate	GPA	Pre-AtD (2)	3064	2.43	0.06
		AtD (3)	5232	2.34	0.08	3	1.32	.28

The aggregate GPA decreased from Pre-AtD years (M=2.43, SD=0.06) to AtD years (M=2.34, SD=0.08). The decrease was not statistically significant, t(3) = 1.32, p < .05. The null hypothesis for the aggregate population was retained (see Table 14).

Table 15

Two-Way Anova Race/Ethnicity GPA for Total Years of Study

Factor	n	M	SD	df	F	p
Race	8296	2.43	.38	4	41.08	.00*
AtD Status	8242	2.43	.38	1	0.75	.40
Race*AtD Status				4	1.47	.26

*p<.001

To determine the effects of race and AtD status (pre- and post-AtD), a two way ANOVA was conducted, on the following three hypotheses:

A. H0: Race has no statistically significant effect on GPA.

H_a: Race has a statistically significant effect on GPA.

B. H0: AtD status has no statistically significant effect GPA.

H_a: AtD status has a statistically significant effect on GPA

C. H0: There is no statistically significant interaction between Race and AtD status.

H_a: There is a statistically significant interaction between Race and AtD status.

Race had a significant effect on GPA, F(1, 4)=41.08, p<..05 (see Table 15). Ho #A was rejected and the alternate hypothesis was retained. Post hoc analyses (Tukey) revealed that African-American students (M = 1.91, SD = 0.09) had a statistically significantly lower GPA than Asians/Pacific Islander (M = 2.95, SD = 0.10), Caucasian (M = 2.61, SD = 0.05), Hispanic (M = 2.24, SD = 0.15) and Other (M = 2.43, SD =0.23) students (p<.05). Asians/Pacific Islander students (M = 2.95, SD = 0.10) had a statistically significantly higher GPA than Caucasian (M = 2.61, SD = 0.05), Hispanic (M = 2.24, SD = 0.15), and Other (M = 2.43, SD = 0.23) students (p<.05). Caucasian students (M = 2.61, SD = 0.05) had a statistically significantly higher GPA than Hispanic (M = 2.24, SD = 0.15) students (p<.05).

AtD status did not have a statistically significant effect on GPA, F(1,4) = 0.75 , p>.05. Ho# B was retained and the alternate hypothesis was rejected. No statistically significant relationship was found between Race and AtD status, F(1, 4) = 1.47, p>.05. Ho# C was retained and the alternate hypothesis was rejected.

Table 16
T-Test for GPA by Gender for Total Years of Study

Group	Measurement	Year	n	Mean	SD	df	t	p
Males	GPA	Pre-AtD(2)	1299	2.32	0.03
		AtD (3)	2396	2.24	0.07	3	1.35	.27
Females	GPA	Pre-AtD(2)	1765	2.52	0.09
		AtD(3)	2836	2.43	0.08	3	1.23	.31

For the male population, there was a decrease in GPA from Pre-AtD years (M=2.32, SD= 0.03) to AtD years (M=2.24, SD= 0.07). There was no significant difference in GPA for the male population, t(3)=1.35, p>.05 (see Table 16).

For the female population there was a decrease in GPA from Pre-AtD years (M=2.52, SD= 0.09) to AtD years (M=2.43, SD= 0.08). There was no significant difference in GPA for the female population, t(3)=1.23, p>.05 (see Table 16).

Relationships in the Aggregate Population

The following two tables present correlations among the variables of student engagement, GPA, and Student Persistence. The first table presents the correlation coefficients throughout the five-year study, a combination of Pre-AtD years and AtD years. The second table presents only the correlations in the AtD years.

Table 17
Pearson's Correlation Coefficient Aggregate for Total Years of Study

Measure	M	SD	*SPFS	*BMK1	*BMK2	*BMK3	*BMK4	*BMK5
GPA	2.38	0.08
Student Persistence (SPFS)	71.14	2.82	.84
Active and Collaborative Learning (BMK1)	0.35	0.01	.38	.72
Student Effort (BMK2)	0.47	0.03	-.44	-.71	-.49
Academic Challenge (BMK3)	0.59	0.02	.33	.44	.80	.09
Student-Faculty Interaction (BMK4)	0.37	0.03	-.39	-.17	.42	.51	.69
Support for Learners (BMK5)	0.46	0.03	.27	.22	.61	.02	.79	.36

*SPFS = Student Persistence; BMK1 = Active and Collaborative Learning; BMK2 = Student Effort; BMK3 = Academic Challenge; BMK4 = Student-Faculty Interaction; and BMK5 = Support for Learners.
When combining Pre-AtD years and AtD years, there are no statistically significant correlations in the data for any of the variables (see Table 17).

Table 18
Pearson's Correlation Coefficient of AtD Years' Aggregate

H0: There is no statistically significant relationship between student engagement and student persistence among first-year, full-time, degree-seeking students following the implementation of the Achieving the Dream initiative.

H_a: There is a statistically significant relationship between student engagement and student persistence first-year, full-time, degree-seeking students following the implementation of the Achieving the Dream initiative.

There was no significant relationship between student persistence and the student engagement benchmarks of Active and Collaborative Learning, Student Effort, Academic Challenge, and Student-Faculty Interaction. The null hypothesis was retained for these benchmarks and student persistence. There was a statistically significant relationship between student persistence and the student engagement benchmark of Support for Learners r(3)=.99, p<.05. The null hypothesis was rejected for the relationship between student persistence and the student engagement benchmark of Support for Learners.

H0: There is no statistically significant relationship between student engagement and academic performance among first-year, full-time, degree-seeking students following the implementation of the Achieving the Dream initiative.

H_a: There is a statistically significant relationship between student engagement and academic performance among the aggregate population of first-year, full-time, degree-seeking students following the implementation of the Achieving the Dream initiative.

For the years of the study, there were no significant relationships in GPA and any of the five student engagement benchmarks. The null hypothesis was retained. When the data was restricted to AtD years only, there was a significant relationship between the student engagement benchmark of Student Effort and GPA r(3)=.99, p<.05.

H0: There is no statistically significant relationship between student persistence and academic performance among first-time, full-time, degree-seeking students following the implementation of the Achieving the Dream initiative.

H_a: There is a statistically significant relationship between student persistence and academic performance among first-time, full-time, degree-seeking students following the implementation of the Achieving the Dream initiative.

For the years of the study, there was no significant relationship in student persistence and GPA. The null hypothesis was retained. When the data were restricted to AtD years only, there was no significant relationship between student persistence and GPA. The null hypothesis was retained.

This study was conducted to determine the impact of the Achieving the Dream (AtD) initiative on first-year, full-time degree-seeking students at a state community college, College X. The study was conducted using only the years when data for all three variables, GPA, fall to spring student persistence, and student engagement data from the CCSSE surveys were available. The study compared differences between pre-AtD and AtD years as well as relationships among the study variables following the implementation of AtD.

For the aggregate population, there was no significant difference in GPA between Pre-AtD years and AtD years. In racial categories, the African-American, Asian/Pacific-Islanders, Caucasian, and Other student populations had no significant difference in GPA mean scores between pre-AtD and AtD years. Hispanic students had a significant decline in GPA from pre-AtD years to AtD years. Males and Females displayed no statistically significant differences in mean scores for GPA for pre-AtD and AtD years.

For the aggregate population, there was no significant difference in student persistence rates between pre-AtD years and AtD years. In racial categories, the African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Caucasian, Hispanic, and Other students had no significant differences in student persistence rates mean scores from pre-AtD to AtD years. Males and females had no significant difference in student persistence rates between pre-AtD years and AtD years.

For all populations, all student engagement benchmarks were found to be significantly different from pre-AtD to AtD years with the exception of the following:

• 
  Aggregate population - The benchmark of Student Effort was significantly different between pre-AtD and AtD years.
  
• 
  Caucasian population - The benchmark of Student Effort was significantly different between pre-AtD and AtD years.
  
• 
  Hispanic population - The benchmarks of Active and Collaborative Learning (active collaboration) and Support for Learners were statistically significantly different between pre-AtD and AtD years.
  
• 
  Other Student population - The benchmarks of Student Effort, Academic Challenge, and Support for Learners were significantly different between pre-AtD and AtD years.
  
• 
  Male population - The benchmark of Student Effort was significantly different between pre-AtD and AtD years.
  

While there were increases in mean scores from Pre-AtD to AtD years, none of them were statistically significant. The data do show significant increases in GPA and student persistence rates for specific subgroups. Student engagement benchmarks, while not increasing statistically significantly, did in most cases increase from pre-AtD years to AtD years.

GPA increased from pre-AtD (2.95) to AtD (2.96) years for the Asian/Pacific Islander population. GPA increased from pre-AtD (2.35) to AtD (2.49) years for the Other Students population. For the African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic, male, and female populations, GPA decreased from pre-AtD years to AtD years.

Student persistence rates increased from pre-AtD (72.25%) to AtD (75.20%) years for the Other student population. All other populations decreased in student persistence rates from pre-AtD to AtD years.

Except for the Active Collaboration benchmark, all student engagement benchmarks increased from pre-AtD to AtD years in the aggregate population. In other words, students at College X had fewer students in the AtD years asking questions in class or contributing to class discussions, making class presentations, working with other students on class projects, or working outside of class with other students discussing readings, class material, or ideas from peers or faculty. However, the data also show that the students felt that their personal effort increased, that they prepared more drafts on an assignment before turning it in; worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources; came to class completing readings and assignments; used peer or tutoring services; and used the skill labs and computer lab. Students also felt more challenged in their schoolwork, with increased readings in assigned textbooks and course readings, more papers written with greater length. They also felt challenged in the examinations given and felt they were motivated to do their best work. Students also felt that their interaction with their faculty instructors increased; they had access to email with the instructor, discussed grades and assignments, talked about career plans with an instructor or advisor, discussed class material with the instructor outside of class, received prompt feedback on assignments and exams, and worked with instructors on activities other than coursework. The students felt that their support system increased, where the college was seen as encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial, or ethnic backgrounds. College X made available to students help with nonacademic responsibilities such as work and family, and providing the financial support needed to afford their education. Despite the increase in four of five benchmark scores, GPA and student persistence decreased for the aggregate population.

For the African-American population, all benchmarks increased in mean scores from pre-AtD to AtD years. As with the aggregate population, African-American students also saw increased support from the college; were encouraged to interact with students from different social, racial or ethnic backgrounds (as well as given cultural minority support in student activities, clubs, or organizations at the college; saw increased academic challenge in increased reading assignments and examinations; had increased interaction with faculty through email, class time, or outside of class; and felt they performed with greater effort in writing papers and reading textbooks. African-American students, unlike the aggregate population, increased in Active and Collaborative Learning, asking questions in class or contributing to class discussions; making class presentations; working with other students on class projects; or working outside of class with other students discussing readings, class material, or ideas from peers or faculty. Despite an increase in all student engagement benchmarks, GPA and student persistence decreased for the African-American student population.

For the Asian/Pacific Islander population, all benchmarks increased from pre-AtD to AtD years except Active and Collaborative Learning. GPA stabilized from pre-AtD years to AtD years, with a slight increase from 2.95 (pre-AtD) to 2.96 (AtD). Despite the increase in four out of five student engagement benchmarks, and a slight increase in GPA, student persistence decreased for the Asian/Pacific Islanders population. For the Caucasian population, all benchmarks increased from pre-AtD to AtD years except Active and Collaborative Learning.

For the Hispanic students, only the benchmarks of Student Effort and Support for Learners increased while the remaining benchmarks decreased from pre-AtD to AtD years. Hispanic students indicate they receive greater support and have increased their personal effort in AtD years, but report a decrease in asking questions in class, working together with classmates on class assignments, or making class presentations; reading more textbooks or writing more papers; and interacting with faculty through email or personal contact in or out of class. The decrease in these benchmarks indicates a decline in areas of written or oral communication, while at the same time exerting greater attempts to do school work. GPA and student persistence decreased for the Hispanic population.

For the Other student population, all student engagement benchmarks increased from pre-AtD years to AtD years, with student effort, academic challenge, and support for learners having a significant increase (See Table 8). GPA and student persistence also increased for the Other student population, although they were not statistically significant changes from the pre-AtD years to AtD years.

Male students demonstrated increases in the student engagement benchmarks of Student Effort, Student-Faculty Interaction, and Support for Learners from pre-AtD to AtD years while Active and Collaborative Learning and Academic Challenge decreased. Males participated less in class discussions and discussed material in and out of class less in the AtD years than the pre-AtD years. They also read less of the assigned class materials and text, and did not feel examinations challenged them to do their best work. Yet males perceived they had put forth greater effort in assignments, interacted with faculty more, and received greater support in their academic and social life in the AtD years than the pre-AtD years. GPA and student persistence decreased for the male population.

The female population increased in all student engagement benchmarks from pre-AtD to AtD years. Despite the increase in all student engagement benchmarks, GPA and student persistence decreased for the Female population.

Institutional Changes Affecting Curriculum

From 2007- 2008, College X initiated technology advancement through their Banner program to use the Degree Audit tool to identify specific courses needed by students (College X AtD Annual Report, 2008). In Fall 2007, a policy change of offering a longer tuition payment window was initiated in an attempt to increase student retention. Faculty met and developed new initiatives for developmental education. One of them was to develop a new modularization of developmental math courses that were integrated to prevent students from taking one course and not the other. The college also began student success discussions to improve the orientation program, develop a model providing more options for completing the First Year Experience program, as well as identify and develop a college readiness assessment tool (College X AtD Annual Report, 2008). The college also piloted an Early Discovery program to identify those students in developmental courses that require intervention. The college also joined Public Agenda's student success initiatives to develop focus groups that would identify issues of non-returning students and use that data to improve student retention. The president of College X initiated college-wide events and brought in speakers from other colleges to share best practices in student success. An upgrade to the Institutional Research Office with additional staff and support was reported for 2007 and 2008 (College X AtD Annual Report, 2007, 2008).

Math 0800 (Developmental Special Topics in Mathematics) was embedded into the Math 0950 (Beginning Algebra I) curriculum as a developmental student interventional strategy at College X. The college’s goal was to eliminate student avoidance in remediation of one of the courses, as both are necessary for going beyond the gatekeeper course(s). Learning communities were initiated for those students testing into developmental English courses (College X AtD Annual Report, 2007). A college transition program was started to target students who have delayed entry from high school to college by at least a year, the college taking this action based on data showing that retention and completion rates are lower for those who delay college than for those who come from high school straight to college.

In 2010, College X developed and implemented both full-day and half-day orientation programs that included a requirement for a counseling session that made use of a college readiness assessment tool and academic assessment results. Funding was secured from the Kresge Foundation to develop a volunteer tutoring program to support students in gatekeeper courses.

Although most student populations in the study experienced decreases in GPA from Pre-AtD years to AtD years, data for Hispanic students showed a significant decrease in GPA, along with decreases in student persistence during the same time period. Student engagement benchmarks show Student Effort and Support for Learners increasing from pre-AtD years to AtD years, suggesting that Hispanic students attempted to fulfill academic requirements, and that assistance from the institution was provided. The benchmarks of Active and Collaborative Learning, Academic Challenge, and Student-Faculty Interaction all decreased from pre-AtD to AtD years among Hispanic students. Hispanic students' lower scores in AtD years in the area of Active and Collaborative Learning could be explained by difficulties with social integration into a general student population (Salis, Reyes, & Nora, 2012; Tinto, 1975). This benchmark measures students’ engagement in asking questions in class or contributing to class discussions, making class presentations, working with other students on class projects during class, taking part in study groups with other students, as well as participating in community-based projects as part of a class assignment.

Academic Challenge requires understanding of the material in order to analyze elements of an idea or theory, synthesize and organize ideas and information, and make sound judgments on information or methods. It also involves much reading of textbooks and written papers. Academic Challenge would require a basic foundation in communication with the material presented in class.

Student-Faculty Interaction is communication between professor and student. The student would have to use email to communicate with the instructor (student email was available at College X), discuss assignments and grades with an instructor, discuss class material outside the classroom, and receive feedback the student can understand from the instructor.

The CCSSE survey tracked Hispanic students who did not have English as their native language, as well as those who planned to enroll in the English as a Second Language (ESL) program at the college. The program consists of several courses, from basic to advanced levels, in English grammar, reading, writing, and communication. The following data are from only those Hispanic students who took the survey, and were first-year, full-time degree-seeking students at College X:

Data from first-year, full-time Hispanic students who took the survey show an increase in the percentage of those for whom English was not their native language, from pre-AtD (2003-2004) to AtD years (2006, 2008, 2011), and a large increase in 2006 (AtD year) of those taking or planning to take courses in English as a Second Language. The sample is not large enough to draw a conclusion that the increase was significant, though the data show an increase from pre-AtD to AtD years among these sample students in the survey (Table 19).

College X follows national trends for AtD colleges for academic performance, when measuring GPA from 2002-2011. The average trend for GPA in AtD colleges was flat, indicating little or no change (MDRC, 2011).

The national trend for high school GPA, ACT, and SAT scores also decreased from 2000-2010, indicating that colleges and universities, including community colleges, were receiving students with downward trending high school and college testing scores (Liu & Roohr, 2013). For College X, the trend continued in Pre-AtD years and rose briefly the first year of AtD (2005-2006), then fell to the lowest point from 2007-2008, before rising again and stabilizing in the AtD years that followed (Figure 7). The data suggest that College X stabilized any aggregate downward trend in academic performance in AtD years. Mean scores on GPA indicate lower scores in AtD years from Pre-AtD years in many populations, though the differences were not statistically significant for any group, with the exception of the Hispanic student population.

Trends in College X

College X had upward trends in all student engagement benchmarks in AtD years, in particular between 2008 and 2011. In Pre-AtD years, all benchmarks had a downward trend with the exception of Student Effort. Student engagement, if student-driven, represents a greater effort in academic studies (Kuh & Umbach, 2004). College X in the AtD initiative made institutional efforts to engage the student, such as updating technology, centralizing enrollment procedures and online learning, mandatory orientation, faculty training on engaging and interacting with students in the classroom and online, student mentors and tutors, study group involvement, class projects, and encouraging extracurricular activities. Developmental education or remedial programs as they are called, were streamlined for Mathematics and English in order that students could not enroll in higher courses without first completing prerequisites. Students could not enter into gatekeeper courses and go on to college level material without first completing remedial requirements.

Figure 8

The AtD Model at College X (see Figure 8) is much like the accumulated models of John Braxton's Theory of Pedagogical Engagement, which took from the works of Vincent Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993), and William Spady's Model (1971). Braxton proposed the academic and social integration of the student into an institution for student success. Arthur Chickering's Theory of Student Development and Program Design (1969, 1993) proposed this integration by encouraging contact between students and faculty, peer cooperation and peer groups, and encouraging active learning, such as in group classroom projects, and student activities, generally organized through the Office of Student Affairs. College X had achieved success in the area of student engagement with the AtD framework having been institutionalized from 2005-2011.

The Achieving the Dream initiative, which was launched in the 2004-2005 academic year for College X, had no significant impact on GPA and student persistence from 2004-2011. The data do suggest evidence that the AtD initiative had some effect on student engagement, and that GPA and student persistence increased, beginning in 2008 and peaking in 2010. The data suggest many years of small increases in student engagement were followed by an increase in student persistence and GPA in the later years of the study, none of the increases being statistically significant, however. The data suggest that Achieving the Dream is a long-term goal for community colleges, taking time for institutions, faculty, and students to adjust to new best practices and a new academic culture, and that results may not be initially visible.

The data in the study was limited to only those years for which the CCSSE data were available. The trends reported in this study may have been different for variables if more years were examined. Furthermore, this study only focuses on a single college, and as such, the results may not be generalized toward other AtD implementing institutions.

Research could be enhanced at College X if the CCSSE survey was implemented every academic year. Answering the question of why some students were academically and socially engaged in the college while others were not, is beyond the scope of this study. The CCSSE survey does delineate demographic information on students to statistically indicate which demographic groups are at risk of attrition. The precise reasons why students leave college in their first year, or any year, needs further research. A qualitative approach to include comprehensive interviews with exiting students or those who have dropped out of college would be essential to discovery. The college would then be empowered with information to further assist students with special circumstances. This would all be dependent on student cooperation with surveys, interviews, and assistance from the college.

The data suggest a possible effect, albeit not always statistically significant, on student engagement throughout the study with a possible later effect of rising student persistence and GPA. It is recommended that College X continue on course with AtD strategies and continue to study the effect on student engagement, student persistence, and GPA. The data suggest this effort to institutionalize best practices utilized in the AtD initiative takes an extended period of academic years for possible significant impact. The data from the AtD participant group and the non-AtD population suggest that as AtD best practices become mandatory to the rest of the population, there may be significant improvement in GPA and student persistence.

It is recommended that the CCSSE include on its survey a means to identify those students who are in fact AtD participants to track the student engagement benchmarks of these students. This is currently not available to this study.

It is recommended that the future of Achieving the Dream would be to expand its efforts into high schools beginning in the sophomore year and continuing until senior graduation as community colleges institute AtD best practices. This may reduce the remedial costs of community colleges, increase student persistence and have a greater impact on GPA and completion rates.

Achieving the Dream (2013). Supplemental lab classes for gateway English and developmental math and writing, Retrieved from: http://www.achievingthedream.org/intervention/supplementary_lab_classes_for_gateway_english_and_developmental_math_and_writing

Achieving the Dream - Public Agenda (2011). Engaging adjunct and full-time faculty in student success innovation No. 1. Retrieved from: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/ATD_engaging_faculty_in_student_success.pdf.

Alexander, J.S. & Gardner, J.N. (2009). "Beyond retention: A comprehensive approach to the first college year". About Campus 14 no. 2 (May 2009): 19.

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC, 2013). Position statement on student services and library and learning resource center program support for distributed learning. Retrieved from: http://www.aacc.nche.edu/About/Positions/Pages/ps02102005.aspx

American College Testing (2013). National collegiate retention and persistence to degree rates 2000-2012. Retrieved from: http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/reports/graduation.html

Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation.

The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-924.

Astin, A. (1972). College dropouts: A national profile. (Ace Research Report 7, 1–

10). American Council on Education.

Astin, A. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

The Aspen Institute (2013) Skills for America's community college facts. Retrieved from: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-work/economic-opportunities/skills-americas- future/what-we-do/community-college-facts

Bailey, T., Calcagno, J.C., Jenkins, D., Kienzl, G., & Leinbach, T. (2005) Community college student success: What institutional characteristics make a difference? Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University; Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count, p. 2.

Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S.-W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Review, 29(2), 255–270.

Barefoot, B. O. (2002). Second national survey of first-year academic practices. Policy Center on the First Year of College.

Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In reworking the student departure puzzle, ed. J. M. Braxton, 48-61. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Birnback, L. & Friedman, W. (2009). Engaging faculty in the Achieving the Dream initiative: Principles and practices of student success. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED532375).

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

Brighton, R. & Phelps, J.M. (2012) Learning communities: More to it than just pairing courses. Diverse issues in higher education April 4, 2012. Retrieved from: http://diverseeducation.com/article/16976/

Campbell, J. P., DeBlois, P. B., & Oblinger, D. G. (2007). Academic analytics: A new tool for a new era. Educause Review, 11.

Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCSSE). (2012, para. 4). About the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). Retrieved from:

http://www.ccsse.org/aboutccsse/aboutccsse.cfm

Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE). (2013). Relationship between CCCSE and NSSE. Retrieved from: http://www.ccsse.org/center/about_cccse/relationship.cfm

Chapin, J.M. (2008). Assessing the effect of Achieving the Dream activities at Guilford Technical Community College (NC) on student engagement and success. Proquest Dissertations And Theses 2008.  Section 0138, Part 0275 235 pages; [Ph.D. dissertation].United States -- Nebraska: The University of Nebraska - Lincoln; 2008. Publication Number: AAT 3308325.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W. (1974). Commuting vs. residential students: Overcoming educational

inequities of living off campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. & Gamson Z. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, March 1987.

Chickering, A. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity. Second Edition. San Francisco:

Jossey Bass.

Cohea-Weible, S., Dawkins-Gordy, L., & Perreault, M. (2005). A Vision of excellence in the first college year at Salisbury University. Foundations of Excellence® in the First College Year: Committee Membership.

Cohen, A.M. and Brawer, F.B. The American community college (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002, p. 59.

Community colleges: Prepare the next generation of workers (2012). Achieving the Dream July 20, 2012. Retrieved from: http://www.achievingthedream.org/news/community_colleges_prepare_the_next_generatio n_of_workers

Consortium for student retention data exchange (1999). Executive summary 1998-1999 CSRDE report: The retention and graduation rates in 69 colleges and universities. Norman, OK: Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis, University of Oklahoma.

Creswell, J.W. (2007). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (3^rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Derby, D., & Smith, T. (2004). An orientation course and community college retention.

DeVoll, D. (1989). Toward a definition of student persistence at the community college.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

ED307932)

Durkheim, É. [1897] 1951. Suicide: A study in sociology. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.

Feldman, K., & Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Fairlee, R., Hoffmann, F., & Oreopoulos, P. (2011). A Community college instructor like me: Race and ethnicity interactions in the classroom. Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=0CDcQFj AAOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.research.fhda.edu%2Fdocuments%2Fccinstructor.p df&ei=gqiWUYW_EePmygGhtoHwCQ&usg=AFQjCNEWlhyUyEXXoWJVFLXLqTK2t xY2IA&sig2=N-uEZqj3k2Ek33DS4uQnXw

Gardenhire-Crooks, Alissa, Herbert Collado and Barbara Ray (2006) A Whole ‘Nother World: Students navigating community college. Oakland, CA: MDRC, July 2006. Retrieved from: http://www.mdrc.org/publications/434/full.pdf.

Gardner, J. (1981). Developing faculty as facilitators and mentors. In V. A. Harren, M. N.

Daniels, & J. N. Buck (Eds.), Facilitating students’ career development (pp. 67-

80) New Directions for Student Services, No. 14. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, J., B. O. Barefoot, & Associates, Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 275-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Glass, J. C. & Garrett, M. S. (1995) Student participation in a college orientation course, retention, and grade point average. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1995,19(2), 117-32.

Gonzalez, J. (2012). Aspen competition drives innovative ideas for community colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education January 1, 2012 (para 29). Retrieved from: http://www.joycefdn.org/assets/1/7/ChronHEd_Aspen.pdf

Higher Ed Impact (HEI) (2010, para. 1). Improving community college success. January 14, 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.academicimpressions.com/news/improving-community-college-student-success

Hrabowski III, F.A., & Suess, J. (2010). Reclaiming the lead: higher education's future and the implications for technology. Educause Review, 45(6), 60 -61.