The Difference a Cohort Makes: Understanding Developmental Learning Communities in Community Colleges

2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather D. Wathington ◽  
Joshua Pretlow ◽  
Claire Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Community Colleges ◽  
Learning Communities ◽  
Developmental Learning ◽  
The Difference

scholarly journals The Paradox of the Presidency: The Difference a President makes in Institutional Functioning at Three Community Colleges

1992 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 28-45
Author(s):  
John S. Levin
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Community Colleges ◽  
Educational Programs ◽  
The Other ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Teaching Performance ◽  
Educational Leader ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The One

Do presidents make a difference? Presidential impact on colleges and universities has been called into question for decades. Most recently, there is evidence to suggest that institutional functioning may not be affected by who presidents are or by what presidents do (Birnbaum, 1989). Such questioning fits within the mainstream of thinking on the presidency at higher education institutions. This thinking conveys a dualism of perceptions about presidents (Benezet et al., 1981). On the one hand, presidents are seen to have both power and authority to direct their institutions; on the other hand, presidents are seen as having limited control over their institutions. Twenty-four governing board members at three Canadian community colleges were interviewed to determine whether and to what extent presidents are seen to make a difference in institutional functioning. This study concludes that from the perspective of board members, presidents do make a difference in institutional functioning. Presidential impact can be seen in public and government perceptions of the college, in institutional decision-making, and in the preservation of college philosophy. Furthermore, the president is the educational leader, not as a determiner of educational programs or teaching performance, but rather as the communicator of institutional orientations and actions.

Exploring Sense of Belonging, Socioacademic Integrative Moments, and Learning Communities Related to ELs’ Persistence Based on Reenrollment Decisions in Community Colleges

2020 ◽  
pp. 009155212096487
Author(s):  
Tiberio Garza ◽  
Margarita Huerta ◽  
Hugo A. García ◽  
Jared Lau
Keyword(s):  
Community College ◽  
Community Colleges ◽  
Learning Communities ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Sense Of Belonging ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Direct Effects ◽  
Measurement Models ◽  
Positive Direct

Objective: The objective of this study was to create a model of English learners’ (ELs) persistence based on theory and empirical research. Findings from this research informs community college educators in helping ELs persist and guide future research regarding this important student population. Method: We examined ELs’ persistence using structural equation modeling (SEM) based on data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) among a U.S. national sample of 6,872 ELs. SEM was informed through the means of measurement models for latent variables. Reliability and validity were assessed through Cronbach’s alpha, principal component analysis, and fit indices. Results: Our results show that (a) sense of belonging had significant and positive direct effects on ELs’ persistence based on reenrollment decisions, (b) socioacademic integrative moments had significant and positive direct effects on ELs’ sense of belonging, and (c) learning communities had significant and positive direct effects on ELs’ socioacademic integrative moments and sense of belonging. Contributions: Community colleges offer broad access to postsecondary education for ELs, or students in the process of learning English as a second or other language. As a whole, our study contributes to a better understanding of how ELs may persist in their academic studies. We further discuss the implications of our findings in light of policy, practice, and future research.

Learning Communities for Students in Developmental Math: Impact Studies at Queensborough and Houston Community Colleges

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Weissman ◽  
Kristin F. Butcher ◽  
Emily Schneider ◽  
Jededish Teres ◽  
Herbert Collado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Community Colleges ◽  
Learning Communities ◽  
Developmental Math ◽  
Impact Studies

scholarly journals Retention, Progression and the Taking of Online Courses

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott James ◽  
Karen Swan ◽  
Cassandra Daston
Keyword(s):  
Community Colleges ◽  
Online Courses ◽  
Predictive Analytics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Pell Grant ◽  
Delivery Mode ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Media Reports ◽  
Onground Courses

Online learning continues to grow at post-secondary institutions across the United States, but many question its efficacy, especially for students most at-risk for failure. This paper engages that issue. It examines recent research on the success of community college students who take online classes and explores similar comparisons using 656,258 student records collected through the Predictive Analytics Reporting (PAR) Framework. In particular, the research investigated retention rates for students in three delivery mode groups — students taking only onground courses, students taking only online courses, and students taking some courses onground and some courses online at five primarily onground community colleges, five primarily onground four-year universities, and four primarily online institutions. Results revealed that taking some online courses did not result in lower retention rates for students enrolled in primarily onground community colleges participating in the PAR Framework. Moreover, although retention rates were lower for such students taking only online courses than for similar students taking only onground or blending their courses, much of the difference could be explained by extraneous factors. Essentially no differences in retention between delivery mode groups were found for students enrolled in primarily onground four-year universities participating in the PAR Framework, while at participating primarily online institutions, students blending their courses had slightly better odds of being retained than students taking exclusively onground or exclusively online courses. No differences between the latter groups were found at these institutions. Patterns of retention were similar regardless of gender across institutional categories, and were mostly similar regardless of Pell grant status with the exception of fully online students at traditional community colleges. Age, however, did differentially affect delivery mode effects. Older students taking only online courses were retained at higher rates than younger students taking only online courses at both primarily onground community colleges and primarily online institutions. The results suggest that, despite media reports to the contrary, taking online courses is not necessarily harmful to students’ chances of being retained, and may provide course-taking opportunities that otherwise might not be available, especially for nontraditional students.

Educational Informatics Systems

2011 ◽  
pp. 293-325
Author(s):  
Nigel Ford
Keyword(s):  
Learning Communities ◽  
Knowledge Creation ◽  
Learning Resources ◽  
Community Based ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Difference

This chapter concentrates on a number of educational informatics systems that focus explicitly on social, collaborative, and community-based aspects of learning. These aspects arguably align better with the social and knowledge creation perspectives on learning introduced in Chapter III. In some ways, the systems presented here bring into relief some of the limitations of the relatively individual-focused approaches introduced in the previous chapter. Ultimately, however, educational informatics is essentially a social collaborative enterprise, since one of its key defining features is a concern with the discovery, sharing and reuse of learning resources within and between learning communities. The difference between systems included in this and the previous chapter is relative rather than absolute, relating to the degree of emphasis on collaborative features built into the systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document