1. Student Outcomes 1
Running head: COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENT OUTCOMES
Factors Influencing Community College Student Outcomes
Robin Garza
Texas State University-San Marcos

2. Student Outcomes 2
Factors Influencing Community College Student Outcomes
Community college student outcomes are a measurement of the success rate of the
community college in the students achieving their goals. Community college student outcomes
may be measured in several ways. Many vocational fields require the graduate to hold a license.
Determining the passing rate of a credentialing exam is one way to measure outcomes.
Calculating the rate of employment in the field of education is another. Students who are
planning on earning an associate’s degree and transferring to a university, the rate at which either
or both of these happen are another (Cohen and Brawer, 2008, p407). Institutional factors have
been identified, as well as some student factors. Determining what factors are influencing the
outcomes at each institution will enable the institution to improve the student outcomes by
making changes in either the governance of the institution, teaching methods employed, or in the
programs that assist the students.
Definitions of Terms
The community college student was defined as successful if they obtained any degree, or
transferred to a four year institution (Bailey and Calcagno, 2005). Cohen (1993) defined transfer
rate as all students entering community college in a given year with no prior college experience
and completed at least 12 college credit hours divided by the number of that group who take one
or more classes at a university within four years. Contingent faculty is defined by Jaeger (2008)
as full time tenure ineligible faculty, graduate students, post doctoral researchers, full time
administrators and part time faculty. Calcagno, Crosta, Bailey and Jenkins (2007) defined the
older student as those that enter college for the first time and are 25 years old or older. The
student-right-to-know (SRK) method of calculating graduation rates is based on first time full

3. Student Outcomes 3
time students entering at one time and finishing within 150 percent of the time they would be
expected to graduate. Nontraditional students are defined as students who hold full time jobs,
have family responsibilities, and typically do not have external financial support for their studies
(Philibert, Allen, and Elleven (2008). Stopped out is defined as students temporarily leaving
college (Calcagno, Crosta, Bailey and Jenkins, 2007).
Measurements of Outcomes
Community colleges are very different than four year colleges in that many community
college students already have university degrees. The mission of the community college is very
different than the four year university. The community college mission is broader and
encompasses career and occupational programs, developmental education, and transfer courses
for science or liberal arts (Seybert, 2002).
General Education Outcomes
These can be assessed by standardized tests, follow up surveys, student portfolios, final
projects, and capstone experiences and courses.
Transfer Outcomes
Most outcomes from transfer students from two year to four year colleges are assessed
through surveys and academic performance data. One model evaluated how community college
students did in a particular course compared to those who took the prerequisite course at a
university. The results were very similar (Quanty, Dixon, and Ridley 1998). This was called a
course based model of transfer success.
A comparison of all transfer students from community colleges in Kansas to all four year
colleges in Kansas found that there was little difference between the community college students
and the all four year university students except for a temporary drop in grade point average

4. Student Outcomes 4
(GPA). The all four year college students graduated at a higher rate than the transfer students
(Seybert, 2002).
The lateral transfer of students from one community college to another may adversely
affect the outcomes of the college from which the student transferred. The student may be
reflected as a drop out rather than transferring out and give the college a higher attrition rate
(Bahr, 2009) (Bailey et al 2006).
Career and Occupational Outcomes
Measurement of career and occupational outcomes may be done by survey of employers
and graduates. Placement in the work force and salary information determines outcome. Passing
of credentialing exams is another good way to assess outcome. Career and occupational
outcomes have had greater success in that there are more concrete ways to evaluate the student
outcomes (Seybert, 2002).
Institutional Factors
The institutional characteristics are size, number of contingent faculty, balance between
certificate and degrees awarded, student services offered, and the governance of the community
college.
Tutoring
A study conducted by Hendrikson, Yang, Love, and Hall (2005) demonstrated that
academic support services such as, one on one tutoring, study groups, computer aided instruction
and helping students develop learning strategies improved student outcomes. They compared the
tutored student to the nontutored students and found that tutored students had a higher grade
point average and retention rate. This study did not address the fact that students going to
tutoring may be more motivated to succeed than nontutored students.

5. Student Outcomes 5
Size
Bailey and Calcagno (2005) and Bailey et al (2006) found that graduation rates go down
as the school size increases.
Number of contingent faculty
There are lower graduation rates in colleges with more part time faculty (Bailey and
Calcagno, 2005). A study conducted by Jaeger (2008) found that a student that had between
76-100 percent of their first year credits taught by contingent faculty were significantly less
likely to persist than those students with less than 25 percent contingent faculty taught
coursework. Student exposure to contingent faculty of gatekeeper coursework had a negative
effect on student persistence. In this study, for every 10 percent of exposure to a contingent
faculty member there was a one percent drop in students’ likelihood to earn a bachelor’s degree.
The average community college student spends 50 percent of their time with contingent faculty;
therefore this indicates a five percent decrease in their chances of completing an associate
degree. The effect of contingent faculty on students’ likeliness to transfer to four year degree
university doubled their chances of not transferring. Two possible reasons were identified in this
study. One is students who have access to their instructors do better, and contingent faculty are
not as available as full time faculty. Another is lack of institutional support for part time faculty
as in office space, computers, and technological support.
Financial
Examining SRK data, it was determined that a greater instructional expenditure per full
time equivalents is related to higher graduation rates (Bailey, Calcagno, Jenkins, Leinbach, and
Kienzl, 2006)
Corporatization

6. Student Outcomes 6
A greater emphasis on occupational training or workforce development lowers graduation
rates (Bailey and Calcagno, 2005).
Corporatization of community colleges results in the over use of contingent faculty. Full
time faculty salaries are kept low because there is a large pool of adjunct faculty to teach the
courses. This overloads the full time faculty with administrative duties. This situation is
detrimental to faculty, students and the quality of education (Jones, 2008).
Student Factors
Age
In a study conducted by Calcagno, Crosta, Bailey and Jenkins (2007a), it was found that
older students were more likely to complete a degree after accounting for and controlling for
cognitive mathematics ability. Prior research suggested that older students were less likely to
complete a degree. This study removed factors that sometimes contribute to not completing
community college, like part time students, students with children, and stopping out. This study
confirms that older students graduate less but not because they are older, but because they need
to refresh their math skills. This study did not include socioeconomic information. Instead they
used an indicator as in those students receiving a Pell Grant.
A second paper published by Calgagno, Crosta, Bailey, and Jenkins (2007b), used a
sample of 29,421 traditional age students of 17-20 year olds and a sample of 5,652 older students
of 25-65 year olds. On entrance exams the traditional age students scored higher in math and the
older students scored higher in English. On five separate measures or milestone, younger
students completed a higher percentage of programs than the older students. Enrolling in
remedial education had more of a negative impact on younger students than it did on older
students. This study found that after controlling for ability, older students were more likely to

7. Student Outcomes 7
graduate. Traditional age students who reached the milestones of 10 or 20 credits were more
likely to achieve a degree than traditional age students who did not reach these milestones early.
Minorities
Colleges with greater numbers of minority students have lower graduation rates (Bailey
and Calcagno, 2005) (Bailey et al., 2006). A study conducted by Jenkins (2007) found that
minority students have more success at colleges that have programs targeted to making
minorities feel welcome, such as, a minority inclusive campus environment and specialized
retention services for minorities. Some respondents of the survey in this study felt that all
community college students face obstacles and special treatment should not be given to minority
students. Others interviewed felt that as long as there is a gap in the success rate between
minority and white students, special efforts are needed.
Nontraditional Students
In a study conducted by Philibert, Allen and Elleven (2008) it was found that the
nontraditional student made up 73 percent of undergraduate students. Sixty-four percent of these
nontraditional students attended community college. Only 11 of the total 311 respondents in this
survey were strictly traditional students. Age was not used as a factor in classifying the
nontraditional student for this study. The findings suggest that the number of young students
with the burdens and baggage previously associated with older students is more than expected.
Student populations differ in how they approach the requirements of the classroom. This research
suggested that institutions that tailor their requirements to the traditional student, should
reevaluate and consider the needs of the nontraditional student.
Socioeconomics

8. Student Outcomes 8
A study conducted by Bailey and Calcagno (2005) found that the financial resources of a
community college did not influence outcomes. Individual characteristics play a greater role in
outcomes than institutional factors. Well prepared students with economic resources are likely to
do well. Students with personal and financial responsibility challenges have a greater degree of
difficulty even in a strong college.
Remediation
According to a study by Bettinger and Long (2005), 55 percent of first year students of
traditional age in community college take remedial courses. Sixty percent of these students
enrolled in remedial math and 40 percent enrolled in remedial English. A larger percentage of the
students in remedial classes are minorities. Full time students who were in remediation complete
5.4 fewer college credits than students not in remediation. Students who were in remediation
were 15 percent more likely to have stopped out of college and not receive a two year degree.
Remedial math students were also less likely to transfer to a university and four percent less
likely to complete a four year degree. Similar findings were discovered for students that had
taken remedial English. Comparing students in remediation to students with similar precollege
test score who did not take remedial classes demonstrated a 15 percent increase in students
transferring to a university. English remediation did not show any conclusive results one way or
another.
Conclusion
Measuring outcomes of community colleges is very different than measuring outcomes of
secondary or university programs. Community colleges have a very different mission and cater
to a unique set of students. Students making lateral transfers can also make determining
outcomes difficult. A student may leave one institution and complete a program or degree at

9. Student Outcomes 9
another institution. This will result in a successful outcome only for the second institution.
Vocational programs have very measurable outcomes because the students, in most cases, need
to pass a credentialing exam. It can be a little more difficult to follow every student as they enter
the workforce. Determining the reasons for good or poor outcomes is important so that
institutions and faculty can make adjustments to improve the success rate of the students.
This literature review focused on the institutional factors and student factors that
influenced outcomes. Tutoring is an institutional factor that has a very direct impact on students.
Tutoring has shown to raise the GPA and also increase the retention rate. Many community
colleges offer free tutoring to its students or prospective students. Student that do attend tutoring
are often more motivated learners. This may influence the results of research on tutoring and
outcomes. The size of the community college seems to influence the graduation rate in that
graduation rates go down as the community college size goes up. The research reviewed did not
offer an explanation for this. There needs to be further research in this area to identify the cause
of this apparent phenomenon. The greater the number of part time faculty in an institution
adversely effects the quality of education. It is well documented in current research that the
student persistence rate and the likelihood of a student obtaining a degree decreased with an
increased number of contingent faculty. Many community colleges use a large number of part
time faculty. There needs to be more research in this area to help affect change in the governance
of community colleges, by hiring more full time faculty. Examining SRK data it was determined
that greater expenditure per full time equivalent, the higher the graduation rates. There should be
more research in this area. More financial support for community college is proposed to be
available by the federal government. Before more money is added to the community college
coffers, it is important to know what type of institutional factors will improve community college

10. Student Outcomes 10
student outcomes. Many community colleges are training workers for the community. Many of
these programs use part time faculty. This may be because the faculty are still working in the
local companies. They are paid less than full time faculty and they don't receive benefits.
Community colleges that have a greater emphasis on workforce education are shown to have
lower graduation rates. This may be because of the greater number of part time faculty. More
research in this area should be conducted to determine the reason for the lower graduation rates
of these community colleges.
Research suggest that older students were less likely to complete a degree, however,
research that eliminated factors that contribute to not completing a degree found that older
students are more likely to complete a degree. Factors that contribute to a student not completing
a degree are financial responsibilities, family responsibilities, and working and going to school.
These are all things more commonly affecting the older student, but Philibert, Allen, and Elleven
(2008) found that more and more younger students are affected by these issues also. Research
also shows that older students returning to school have weak math skills. This is speculated to be
because of the student being rusty in math because they have not used math as much as they use
English skills in their day to day life. A possible result of this research is for community colleges
to offer math refresher courses or workshops instead of a whole semester of remedial education.
Research shows that traditional aged students who require remedial English have less of a chance
of completing a degree. It was suggested that high schools should do a better job in preparing
these students for college. It is not clear whether the students who need remedial education are
less likely to complete a degree because of time constraints or because of lack of ability. More
research should be done in this area. More focused and of shorter duration type of remedial
classes may be more helpful. Community colleges with greater numbers of minority students

11. Student Outcomes 11
have a lower graduation rate. It is not entirely clear as to the cause of this. One community
college had targeted programs to make the minority feel more welcome. They also had
specialized retention services geared toward minority students. This improved the graduation
rates at these community colleges for minority students. More research should be conducted in
this area to determine the cause of the difficulties that minority students have in community
college. In the mean time, more community colleges should make efforts to have programs that
are more inclusive of minority students.
While institutional factors are important, the greater role in outcomes comes from the
individual students. The well prepared students with economic resources and have parents that
also attended college are most likely to complete their goals.

12. Student Outcomes 12
References
Bahr, P. R. (2009). College hopping: Exploring the occurrence, frequency, and consequences of
lateral transfer. The Community College Review, 36(4),271-298.
Bailey, T. Calcagno, J. C., Jenkins, D., Kienzel, G. & Leinbach, T. (2005, October). Community
college student success: What institutional characteristics make a difference? Community
College Research Center Working Paper No. 3, Teachers College, Columbia University,
New York, NY.
Bailey, T. Calcagno, J. C., Jenkins, D., Leinbach, T., & Kienzl, G. (2006). Is student right to
know all you should know? An analysis of community college graduation rates.
Research in Higher Education, 47(5), 491-519.
Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2005, Spring). Remediation at the community college: Student
participation and outcomes. New Directions for Community Colleges, 129.
Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T., & Jenkins, D. (2007a). Does age of entrance affect
community college completion probabilities? Evidence from a discrete time hazard
model. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(3), 218-236.
Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T., & Jenkins, D. (2007b). Stepping stones to a degree: The
impact of enrollment pathways and milestones on community college student outcomes.
Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 775-801.
Cohen, A. M. (1993, April). Analyzing community college student transfer rates. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

13. Student Outcomes 13
Hendrikson, S. I., Yang, L., Love, B., & Hall, M. C. (2005). Assessing academic support: The
effects of tutoring on student learning outcomes. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 35(2), 56-65.
Jaeger, A. J. (2008). Contingent faculty and student outcomes. Academe, 94(6), 42-43.
Jenkins, D. (2007). Institutional effectiveness and student success: A study of high and low
impact community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31,
945-962.
Jones, J. A. (2008). Foundations of corporatization: Lessons from the community college. The
History Teacher, 41(2), 213-217.
McPhee, S. (2006). En route to the baccalaureate: Community college student outcomes.
American Association of Colleges, RB-06, 1-12.
Philibert, N., Allen, J., & Elleven, R. (2008). Nontraditional students in community colleges and
the model of college outcomes for adults. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 32, 582-596.
Quanty, M., Dixon, R., & Ridley, D. (1998). A new paradigm for evaluating transfer success.
Assessment Update, 10(2), 12-13.
Seybert, J. A. (2002, Spring). Assessing student learning outcomes. New Directions for
Community Colleges. 117.
Syed, S., & Mojock, C. R. (2008). Assessing community college student learning outcomes:
Where are we? What's next? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32,
843-856.