AN INVESTIGATION OF TWO-YEAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS? 
 
INVOLVEMENT IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 
 
 
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this 
dissertation is my own or was done in the collaboration with my advisory committee. 
This dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________ 
Jackie R. Woods 
 
 
 
Certificate of Approval: 
 
 
 
____________________________                            __________________________ 
Margaret E. Ross James E. Witte, Chair 
Associate Professor Associate Professor 
Educational Foundations,    Educational Foundations, 
Leadership and Technology    Leadership and Technology 
 
 
 
 
______________________________ ___________________________ 
Olin L. Adams David DiRamio  
Assistant Professor     Assistant Professor 
Educational Foundations,    Educational Foundations, 
Leadership and Technology    Leadership and Technology 
 
 
   
 Joe F. Pittman 
 Interim Dean 
 Graduate School 
AN INVESTIGATION OF TWO-YEAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS? 
 
INVOLVEMENT IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jackie R. Woods 
 
 
 
 
 
A Dissertation 
 
Submitted to 
 
the Graduate Faculty of 
 
Auburn University 
 
in Partial Fulfillment of the  
 
Requirements for the 
 
Degree of  
 
Doctor of Education 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
December 17, 2007 
 
 
iii 
AN INVESTIGATION OF TWO-YEAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS? 
 
INVOLVEMENT IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 
 
 
Jackie R. Woods 
 
 
 
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its 
discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. 
The author reserves all publication rights. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
             
      Signature of Author 
 
 
 
             
      Date of Graduation 
 
iv 
VITA 
 
 
 
 Jackie Woods, son of Mrs. Annie P. Staley and Mr. Samuel W. Woods, was born 
October 12, 1952, in Andalusia, Alabama. He graduated from Woodson High School in 
1970. He graduated from Lurleen B. Wallace Junior College in 1984 with an Associate of 
Applied Science degree in Education. He then entered Athens State College and 
graduated in November, 1987, with a Bachelor of Science in Education. In June of 1996, 
he earned his Master?s degree in Trade and Industrial Education from Auburn University. 
He continued in graduate school, and in 1999 he earned a Specialist degree in Trade and 
Industrial Education at Auburn University. In March, 2001, he was accepted in the 
doctoral program in Administration of Higher Education at Auburn University. He has 
been employed as a Welding Instructor by Lurleen B. Wallace Community College since 
July, 1981, formerly MacArthur State Technical College before the merger with Lurleen 
B. Wallace Junior College on January, 23, 2003. He married Beverly Crittened on 
November 24, 1981, and they have four children. 
v 
DISSERTATION ABSTRACT 
AN INVESTIGATION OF TWO-YEAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS? 
INVOLVEMENT IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 
 
 
Jackie R. Woods 
 
Doctor of Philosophy, December 17, 2007  
(Ed.S., Auburn University, 1999) 
(M.S., Auburn University, 1996) 
(B.S., Athens State College, 1987) 
 
121 Typed Pages 
 
Directed by James E. Witte 
 
 
 
 The purpose of this study was to determine the levels of involvement in 
extracurricular activities and the relationship of involvement, persistence and academic 
accomplishment of enrolled students at a small Southern, open-admission comprehensive 
community college. The research method used in this study was the descriptive research 
design. 
 The study was limited to only those students who have freshmen and sophomore 
standing. The study was delimited to students enrolled in spring semester 2006 at Lurleen 
B. Wallace Community College.   
 Based on the findings of this study, the researcher formulated the following 
conclusions: (1) There was no statistically significant difference between the students? 
vi 
mean levels of participation in extracurricular activities by gender; (2) There was no 
statistically significant difference between the students? mean levels of participation in 
extracurricular activities by age; (3) There was statistically significant difference between 
the students? mean levels of participation in extracurricular activities by ethnicity; (4) 
There was no statistically significant difference between the students? mean levels of 
participation in extracurricular activities by marital status; (5) There was no statistically 
significant difference between the students? mean levels of participation in extracurricular 
activities by academic class standing; (6) There was a statistically significant difference 
between the students? mean levels of participation in extracurricular activities by 
cumulative grade point average; and (7) There was a statistically significant difference 
between the students? mean levels of participation in extracurricular activities by average 
employment status. 
vii 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
 I wish to acknowledge and thank my major professor and chair of my dissertation 
committee, Dr. James E. Witte, my guiding star. Without his support and expertise from 
beginning to end, this project would not have been possible, nor would the experience 
been the same. I owe much to Dr. Margaret Ross, for her guidance, and help with 
assisting me with processing and analyzing the data collected for this study. Appreciation 
goes to Dr. Olin Adams, a committee member and friend, who was supportive of me 
beginning the doctoral program and for his time spent as a member of the committee. I 
must particularly thank Dr. White for her insight and assistance as my outside reader. 
Gratitude goes to my colleagues, Mr. John Croft, and Ms. Donna Roberts for their 
support and encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank my wife, Beverly, along with 
my family and friends, for the sacrifices they made on my behalf. 
 
viii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Style manual or journal used Publication Manual of the American Psychological  
Association (5
th
 edition)          
Computer software used Microsoft Word 2003, Statistical Package for the Social  
 Sciences (SPSS) Graduate Pack, Version 11.5      
 
 
ix 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page 
 
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................... xi 
 
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 
 
 Significance of Study..................................................................................... 2 
 Statement of the Problem............................................................................... 3 
 Purpose of Study............................................................................................ 3 
 Research Questions........................................................................................ 4 
 Limitation/Delimitations of Study ................................................................. 5 
 Definition of Terms........................................................................................ 6 
 Organization of the Study .............................................................................. 7 
 
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................ 9 
 
 The Community College and Its Students ..................................................... 11 
 Extracurricular Activities and Community Colleges..................................... 20 
 Categories of Theories of College Student Change....................................... 22 
 Human Development Theories ...................................................................... 25 
 Identity Development Theories...................................................................... 29 
 Student Departure and Involvement .............................................................. 36 
 Retention Strategies/Programs....................................................................... 47 
 Summary........................................................................................................ 50 
 
III. METHODS .................................................................................................... 51 
 
 Sample Population ......................................................................................... 52 
 Research Instrument....................................................................................... 53 
 Reliability and Validity.................................................................................. 54 
 Variables ........................................................................................................ 56 
 Data-Gathering Procedures............................................................................ 57 
 Analysis of Data............................................................................................. 58 
 Summary........................................................................................................ 58 
 
x 
IV. FINDINGS..................................................................................................... 60 
 
 Data Analysis................................................................................................. 62 
 
  Gender................................................................................................ 63 
  Age..................................................................................................... 64 
  Ethnicity............................................................................................. 65 
  Academic Class Standing .................................................................. 66 
  Academic Cumulative Grade Point Average..................................... 67 
  Average Employment Status.............................................................. 69 
 
 Summary........................................................................................................ 71 
 
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND  
 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................... 73 
 
 Purpose........................................................................................................... 73 
 Findings.......................................................................................................... 74 
 Conclusions.................................................................................................... 75 
 Implications.................................................................................................... 76 
 Recommendations.......................................................................................... 77 
 
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 78 
 
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................... 86 
 
 Appendix A: Percentages of African American and Hispanic  
  Population by State, Compared with Ethnic  
  Enrollments in Two-Year Colleges ....................................... 87 
 Appendix B: Estimated Percentage of State Populations Ages 18 
  to 44 Attending Community College in Fall 1999................. 90 
 Appendix C: A Longitudinal Model of Institutional Departure.................. 93 
 Appendix D: Campus Life Involvement Survey ......................................... 95 
 Appendix E: Auburn University Institutional Review  
  Board Protocol Submission.................................................... 99 
 Appendix F: Institutional Review Board Letter of Support of  
  Research from Dr. Edward Meadows, President of  
  Lurleen B. Wallace Community College............................... 104 
 Appendix G: Institutional Review Board Letter of Approval of Research . 106 
 Appendix H: Research Survey Consent Letter............................................ 108 
 
LIST OF TABLES 
 
 
Table 1 Summary of Participation in Extracurricular  
 Activities According to Score Ranges ..................................................... 62 
 
Table 2 Participation Score in Extracurricular Activities by Gender ................... 63 
 
Table 3 Analysis of Variance for Gender Effect................................................... 64 
Table 4 Participation Score in Extracurricular Activities by Age ........................ 64 
 
Table 5 Analysis for Variance of Age Effect........................................................ 65 
 
Table 6 Students? Participation Score in Extracurricular  
 Activities by Ethnicity ............................................................................. 66 
 
Table 7 Analysis for Variance of Ethnicity Effect................................................ 66 
 
Table 8 Mean and Standard Deviation of Students? Participation Score 
 in Extracurricular Activities by Academic Class Standing...................... 67 
 
Table 9 Analysis for Variance of Academic Level Effect.................................... 67 
 
Table 10 Students? Participation Score in Extracurricular  
 Activities by Grade Point Average .......................................................... 68 
 
Table 11 Analysis for Variance of Academic Level Effect.................................... 69 
 
Table 12 Bonferroni Post Hoc for Academic Level Effect..................................... 69 
 
Table 13 Students? Participation Score in Extracurricular  
 Activities by Employment ....................................................................... 70 
 
Table 14 Analysis for Variance of Employment Effect.......................................... 70 
 
Table 15 Multiple Comparisons.............................................................................. 71 
 
xi 
1 
 
 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
 The history of higher education, particularly in the English-speaking world, 
pertains to more than college charters, courses of study, and degree requirements. It must 
take into account the student?his/her characteristics, his/her attitudes, and his/her 
organizational activities (Braubacer & Rudy 1997). Boyer (1987) stated that ?the 
effectiveness of the undergraduate experience relates to the quality of campus life. It is 
directly linked to the time students spend on campus and to the quality of their 
involvement in activities? (p. 191).  Monroe, (1972) writes: 
Most colleges regard a heavy attrition, or dropout rate, as a serious waste 
of educational resources and personal potential. Attrition rates into the 
community and senior colleges vary from 15 to 50 per cent.  At least half 
the loss occurs in the freshman year (p. 207). 
 Astin (1984) stated that the theory of student involvement stemmed from a 
longitudinal study of college dropouts (Astin, 1975) that attempted to identify factors in 
the college environment that significantly affect the students? persistence in college. 
Nearly every significant effect could be rationalized in terms of the involvement concept; 
that is ?the factors that contributed to the students remaining in college suggested 
involvement, whereas those that contributed to the students? dropping out implied a lack 
2 
 
of involvement? (p. 302). ?For many students, the opportunity to participate in student 
activities is a primary reason for attending college? (Monroe, 1972, p. 42). ?A student?s 
most important teacher is often another student. Bonds formed in college with classmates, 
hallmates, and teammates may last one semester or a lifetime? (Chickering L. Reisser, 
1993, p. 392). Students? chances of staying in college can be improved if ways can be 
found to involve them more in the life and environment of the institution. ?A number of 
mechanisms are available to most institutions to bring about greater student participation: 
academic programs, admissions, freshman orientation ... extracurricular activities and 
housing and student services? (Astin, 1975, p. 148). Astin (as cited in Roberts, 1989) 
found that ?greater degrees of involvement with the programs and activities of the 
campus influence student satisfaction with college, academic achievement, and 
persistence toward graduation? (p. 5). Peer group and the degree of students? interaction 
with that peer group have potential for influencing nearly all phases of the students? 
educational and personal development (Astin 1996). 
 
Significance of the Study 
The study provides community college administrators and faculty with 
information concerning student involvement in extracurricular activities and their 
persistence in achieving student success. The findings of this study may be used as a 
basis in evaluating information and a data-analysis framework for examining 
participation in extracurricular activities according to predetermined demographic 
variables when measured by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey. The findings of this 
3 
 
study will contribute to the theory that currently exists on college departure as well as 
impact retention status at other community colleges. 
 
Statement of the Problem 
The research problem was to examine the level of involvement in extracurricular 
activities of enrolled students at a small Southern nonresidential, public, open-door 
comprehensive community college and their relationship, if any to gender, age, ethnicity, 
martial status, current academic class standing, grade point average, and employment 
status. 
 
 Purpose of the Study 
Like larger, tuition-driven four-year colleges and universities, two-year 
institutions are desperately seeking solutions to increase their rates of program 
completions which nationally account for a third of all beginning full-time students 
(Tinto, Russo, & Kadel 1994). Community colleges are unlike the touted residential 
colleges that are described as involving colleges (Kuh, Schuh, Whitt & Associates, 
1991); most community colleges find themselves in situations where student involvement 
is quite difficult to achieve (Tinto, Russo, & Kadel 1994). According to Astin (1984), 
almost every longitudinal study of student development found that the student chances of 
dropping out are substantially higher at a two-year college than at a four-year college. 
?Community colleges are places where the involvement of both faculty and students 
seem to be minimal: most (if not all) students are commuters, and a large proportion 
4 
 
attends college on a part-time basis? (p. 302). Tinto (1987) reported that within the two-
year sector, only 29.5 percent of the entering students will continue over a two-year 
period in the institution in which they register. Nearly 13 percent will have earned their 
two-year degrees. Most of the remaining 16.7 percent who are still enrolled in the 
institution will also do so. Approximately 27 percent of the entering two-year cohort will 
complete their two-year degree program in the institution in which they first enrolled.  
Astin (1984, 1993, 1996) has been concerned with student involvement with different 
types of colleges. He focused on the involvement of the undergraduate in extracurricular 
activities and found it reflected in varying degrees of activity and commitment. The basic 
reasons for this variance were examined in this study. 
 
Research Questions 
 
The following research questions were designed to assess the type and level of 
involvement of students participating in extracurricular activities at a small Southern two-
year community college. These questions helped determine identifiable patterns in this 
study. The research questions addressed were: 
1. What gender-based (male/female) patterns are identifiable in the students? 
level of involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life 
Involvement Survey questionnaire? 
2. What age-based patterns are identifiable in the students? level of 
involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey questionnaire? 
5 
 
3. What ethnicity-based patterns are identifiable in the students? level of 
involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey questionnaire? 
4. What marital patterns are identifiable in the students? level of involvement 
in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey 
questionnaire? 
5. What academic class (freshman, sophomore) standing-based patterns are 
identifiable in the students? level of involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed 
by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey questionnaire? 
6. What grade point average (GPA) patterns are identifiable in the students? 
level of involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life 
Involvement Survey questionnaire? 
7. What employment-based patterns are identifiable in the students? level of 
involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey questionnaire? 
 
 
Limitations/Delimitations of the Study 
 This study was conducted at a small Southern nonresidential, public, open-door 
comprehensive community college. The findings of this study should not be generalized 
to other geographic locations or community colleges. Any assumptions, conclusions, or 
applications outside of this study should be made with caution. 
6 
 
 This study was limited to only those students who have freshman and sophomore 
standing. The study was delimited to students currently enrolled in spring semester 2006 
at Lurleen B. Wallace Community College. The study included students who participated 
in some extracurricular activities at the particular institution. The study also included 
students who were chosen for this survey through stratified sample. 
 The study was further delimited to the data collected through the use of the 
quantitative survey questionnaire. Self reporting of grades may be considered a 
limitation. However, since there was no appreciable benefit to misreporting, data are 
accepted as presented. All other types of data collection were excluded. 
 
Definition of Terms 
 Academic class standing?enrollment based categories of freshman, and 
sophomore. 
 Academic success?the pursuance of high academic achievement and/or being 
retained by the college as a student. 
 Campus Life Involvement Survey (CLIS)?created by Coats (2003) used in this 
study consisting of eight demographic variables and 27 extracurricular activities. 
 Community?a grouping of individuals bound by common purpose, interaction, 
and/or surroundings. 
 Employment?the work in which one is engaged to make an income. 
 Extracurricular/co-curricular activities?a form of recreation in which a student 
participates outside the academic classroom. 
7 
 
 Ethnicity?self-reported category of belonging to a particular ethnic group. 
 Involvement?the amount of physical and mental energy applied to the learning 
experience [extracurricular] (Astin, 1984). 
 Martial status?the current classification of married, single, divorced, widow, or 
widower. 
 Non-Persisters?college students who enrolled for one semester in college and 
did not return for the second semester within the period of a calendar year. 
 Persisters?college students who enrolled for one semester in college and 
returned for the second semester within the period of a calendar year. 
 Non-participants?individual students who do not participate in extracurricular 
activities. 
 Participants?individual students who participate in extracurricular activities. 
 Participate?to take part in a community college sponsored organization?s 
society. 
 Recruitment?the process of attracting new members for student activities and 
organizations during a specified period of time. 
 Student?one who is currently enrolled and actively attending classes in a school, 
college, or university. 
 
Organization of Study 
 Chapter One introduces the study by presenting the problem statement, the 
research questions, the significance of the study, the limitations and delimitations of the 
8 
 
study, a listing of terms with corresponding definitions, and concludes with the 
organizational structure of the study. Chapter Two contains a review of literature 
pertaining to the historical development of campus extracurricular activities, student 
involvement in extracurricular activities, student participation, and the lack of 
participation or rather the non-participation of students in extracurricular activities. 
 Chapter Three addresses the methods that will be used to conduct the study 
including the sampling methods and the research questions. Chapter Four presents the 
results of the study and an interpretation of the data analysis of the study. Chapter Five 
provides a summary, conclusions, and implications and recommendations for future 
studies pertaining to the research topic. 
 
 
 9  
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 
 
?From the earliest beginning, American higher education has been concerned with 
more than intellectual developments. The mission of college has been education, and 
education has come in many forms outside of class as well as inside? (Chickering & 
Reisser, 1993, p. 53). ?The college must assume responsibility for the student?s total 
personality development ? physical, social, and emotional as well as intellectual. It 
should recognize that what happened outside the classroom ? living conditions, study 
habits, emotional problems ? might vitally influence classroom performance? (Brubucher 
& Rudy, 1968, p. 333). According to Monroe (1972), a quality program of student 
activities is significant for the development of student interest and for the development of 
their social skills. Student experience in planning and organizing activity programs, as 
well as participating in them, is an important form of education. Monroe (1972) warned 
that all community colleges should support a full program of student activities. Monroe 
(1972) writes: 
A critic of co-curricular activities might say that if a student is not in college 
primarily to benefit academically, then he should not be in college. Innumerable 
students poorly motivated in the academic area become motivated sufficiently to 
remain eligible for participation in athletics or some other activity. For many 
students, the co-curricular experience becomes the spring board to career. No one 
 
 10  
knows how many participants in college athletics, musical organizations, drama 
groups, student welfare clubs, and student government activities become 
enthusiastic enough to make that field their careers. (p. 43) 
In many cases new students have to make their own way through the confusing network 
of institutional life. ?Not all individuals, especially those recently removed from the 
familiar confines of the family and local high school communities, are either able or 
willing to make the needed personal contacts on their own? (Tinto, 1987, p. 99); as a 
result, according to Tinto, (1987) ?not all new students come to be incorporated into the 
life of the institution. Without external assistance, many will eventually leave the 
institution because they have been unable to establish intellectual and social membership 
in ... the college? (p. 99). Tinto (1987), however, warned that for such reasons, out-of-
class education cannot be viewed mainly as an add-on to the curriculum in carrying out 
the educational mission of the American college, but rather a necessary part of its 
educational program. Tinto (1987) writes: 
One of the primary tasks confronting officials in nonresidential and/or two-year 
colleges is the strengthening of the social and intellectual communities which may 
exist within the college. Despite the fact that students do not reside on campus 
and may, in fact, be on campus for only brief periods of time, it behooves such 
institutions to do what they can to encourage the development of on-campus 
communities whenever and wherever possible. (p. 166) 
 
 
 11  
The Community College and Its Students 
 Monroe (1972) stated the community college is defined as ?the fulfillment of the 
American promise to its citizen for universal education: its offers two years of education 
beyond high school at a comparatively low cost to the student, but not necessarily low 
cost to the public? (p. 25). This definition, according to Monroe, (1972) says nothing 
about the nature and quality of the community college educational programs. Moreover, 
the community college, more than any other segment of the educational system from 
kindergarten to university, ?has the freedom to experiment, to explore new paths of 
learning, to break with traditional methods of teaching, and become a unique and 
innovative educational agency? (p. 25). 
 Garms (1977) felt that there is no existing agreement on what the community 
college is or what its goals should be and has never been. The efforts to provide a 
definition for the institution have often concluded with statements of unclear and 
meaningless generalities. For example, in 1925 the American Association of Junior 
Colleges provided a definition of the institution it represented. Although it was an 
institution providing two years of work that compared to the first two years at college, it 
was also ?likely to develop a different type of curriculum suited to the larger and ever 
changing civic, social, religious, and vocational needs of the entire community in which it 
is located? (p. 6). However, in 1930 the definition was modified: 
A fully organized Junior college aims to meet the needs of a community in which 
it is located, including preparation for institutions of higher education, liberal arts 
education for those who are not going beyond graduation from the Junior college, 
vocational training for particular occupations usually designated as semi-
 
 12  
professional vocations, and short courses for adults with special interest (Garms, 
1977, p. 6). 
 During the 1950s and 1960s, more debate occurred over the role of the 
Community College even among its most distinguished chroniclers. According to Garm 
(1977), Bogue (1950) viewed the Community College as an autonomous institution 
serving a function independent of both high school and college, which was reiterated by 
Medsker in 1960 when he described the Junior college as serving social needs that neither 
high school nor college could serve. Moreover, Fields (1962) felt that the major 
responsibility of the community college was to be accessible by all; it was supposed to 
meet the needs of all abilities, aptitudes, and interests, while serving the individual, the 
community and society in general (p. 7). Garms (1977) concluded, ?Rather than 
articulating the unique mission of the institution and providing a rationale for its support 
and operation, the goals of the community college had become all-encompassing, and 
thus meaningless? (p. 7). 
 According to Rhoads and Valadez (1996), Dougherty in 1994 offered a 
comprehensive explanation of the community college debate in his most recent work 
entitled, ?The Contradictory College?. Dougherty examined the theoretical positions of 
the combatants and espoused that there are three general perspectives: ?Functionalism, 
instrumentalist Marxism, and institutionalism? (p. 40). 
 The Functionalists tend to advocate for the Community College by describing 
several vital social needs that are served by the institution: ?To provide college 
opportunity to train middle-level workers, and to preserve the academic excellence of 
four-year colleges and universities? (Rhoads & Valadez, 1996, p. 40). In essence, the 
 
 13  
functionalists believe that the community college facilitates college access through their 
open-door policies, vocational options, and lower prices (Rhoads & Valadez, 1996). 
 Instrumentalist Marxist critics (Dougherty, 1994) contended that ?the community 
college?s real social role is to reproduce the class inequalities of capitalist society? 
(Rhoades & Valadez, 1996, p. 41). Dougherty examined three views offered by 
instrumentalist Marxist. First, the community college will provide workers with adequate 
skills that are necessary for successful employment within a capitalist framework. 
Second, the community college will serve a significant role in preserving the integrity of 
a four-year degree for a capitalist class of students by protecting the four-year institutions 
from having to admit under-prepared students. And third, the community college is 
persistent with class inequality by channeling working class children into working class 
jobs (Rhoades & Valadez, 1996). 
 The institutionalist critique, according to Rhoades and Valadez (1996), is rooted 
in the 1989 work of Brint and Karabel:   
Institutionalists, like instrumentalist Marxists, felt that the community 
college?s serve to divert student aspirations and reproduce social 
inequality.  However, instead of placing the blame on capitalism, 
institutionalists blame the structure of U.S. higher education, whose 
hierarchical nature encourages monumental inequities in status and 
resources. Community colleges, of course, occupy the bottom rungs of 
such a hierarchy and the message of second-class status gets conveyed to 
students in a variety of ways (p. 41).  
 
 14  
According to Rhoads and Valadez (1996), Dougherty (1994) makes the point that 
there is some truth in all three positions: 
On the one hand, instrumentalist and institutionalist critics are correct when they 
point out that community colleges are ineffective in helping baccalaureate 
aspirants succeed. On the other hand, functionalist supporters may be correct 
when they argue that community colleges serve a democratizing role in that they 
allow many students to attend college who may not gain acceptance to four-year 
institutions, and they also serve students who aspire to something less than a four-
year degree. All three camps seem to be correct in pointing out that community 
colleges help to protect selective admissions policies at elite colleges and 
universities. Functionalists tend to see the latter outcome as positive because 
community colleges preserve the academic excellence of four-year colleges and 
thereby serve the larger higher education system. Institutionalists and 
instrumentalists, however, see such an outcome as inherently discriminatory (p. 
42). 
 One of the major historical roots for the establishment of public community 
colleges was the higher extension of the public high school to include college courses. 
Local school administrators? decision for additional junior college work originated from 
the local community pressures for college work for the less affluent and less able high 
school graduate (Monroe, 1972). Another pivotal historical root for the community 
college establishment was the passing of the Cominetta Act, in California in 1907. Freana 
Junior College became the first legally sanctioned public junior college under that law in 
1910 (Garm, 1977). Moreover, Garm (1977) pointed out that since that beginning in the 
 
 15  
early 1900s, there has been a significant increase in the growth of the community college. 
?By 1921?22 there were 207 junior colleges in existence, of which 69 were public; these 
public institutions enrolled almost half of the 16,000 students attending two-year colleges 
at the time? (p. 6). Monroe (1972) also found that the significant increase in community 
colleges came during the depression. The number of junior colleges increased from ?403 
in 1929 to 584 in 1945. By 1961, the Junior College Directory reported a total of 678 
colleges, 405 of which were public? (p. 13). Garm (1977) stated that in ?1971, the 
average public two-year college had 3,443 students; the average private junior college 
had only 422 students and the largest of the public community college, Dade County in 
Florida, had over 25,000 students? (p. 6). Cohens and Brawer, (1996), makes the point 
that community colleges have experienced unprecedented growth: 
Today, there are approximately 1,200 community colleges in the United States. In 
1920 there were 20 such colleges. More than 1,000 of the current number were 
built in a little more than 50 years. They enroll approximately 10.4 million 
students, nearly half of all undergraduates in postsecondary education. Enrollment 
mushroomed from just over 500,000 in 1960 to nearly 6 million in the early 
1990s. More than half of the college students in Arizona, Washington, Wyoming 
and California are in community colleges. United States community colleges 
award close to 700,000 degrees and certificates annually. (p. 82) 
 ?Community college students, on the average, are from families with lower 
incomes and less educated parents than those of students in four-year colleges? (Cohen & 
Brawer, 2003, p. 61). Typically, the community college freshmen are first-generation 
college students, whose parents have little knowledge of higher education and, in most 
 
 16  
cases, offer little psychological and financial support. However, university students have 
mentors from high school and the community to advise them. Community college 
students, in contrast, do not have the support of such advisors or mentors to help them 
facilitate maneuvering their way through the unknown higher education path (Roueche & 
Roueche, 1993). Moreover, the lower analytic skills of community college students 
means that they are less likely to have access to academically demanding lower division 
courses than are students who attend four-year colleges. The difference in social class 
suggests less interest in general educational goals and higher interest in direct 
occupational preparation among community college students than among students in 
four-year colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). The university freshmen have stronger self-
concepts and enter college with years of successful academic performance compared to 
community college students who perceive themselves less favorably because of past 
academic difficulty. As a result, university freshmen are more goal-oriented, competitive, 
and motivated to succeed. Moreover, community college freshmen, having few academic 
experiences to supply a base for developing a strong self-concept, develop a narrow view 
of obtainable goals (Stanfield, 2000). According to Cohen and Brawer (2003), the social 
economic status of dependent students attending two-year colleges generally are lower 
than that of dependent students attending four-year institutions. For example, the 
National Center for Education Statistics (1998) reports that ?of students entering public 
four-year institutions in 1995?96, 23 percent came from the bottom social economic 
quartile and 27 percent the top quartile. For those entering the public two-year colleges 
comparable ratios were 28 and 19? (p. 56). 
 
 17  
 Classification of students by academic ability showed increasing numbers of 
lower ability students among community college entrants. For example, university 
freshmen as a group must meet university requirements, demonstrate high analytic skills, 
and graduate in the top 10% of their class. On the other hand, community college 
freshmen enter with low or no Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, local entrance test 
scores, or a General Education Development (GED) test rather than a high school 
diploma (Phillippi & Patton, 2000). According to Cohen and Brawner (2003), various 
data sets further showed the lower academic level of the entrants. For example, The 
National Center for Education Statistics (2001) reports that 
The College Board?s Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) means for community 
colleges have been considerably lower than the norm for all college students. In 
1999?2000, the average national SAT Composite score was 839 (420 verbal, 419 
math) for students who indicated a two-year college degree as their objective; it 
was 961 (478 verbal, 483 math) for students with bachelor-degree aspirations. (p. 
44) 
 Like many other institutions of higher education, the community colleges have 
provided special benefits to attract higher-ability students by recognizing the better 
student. Honor programs are substantial evidence that the colleges do not deal 
exclusively with lower-ability students (Cohen & Brawer, 1987). For example, in 1979, 
Miami Dade Community College provided full tuition waiver to all students graduating 
in the top 10 percent of their local high school class, and in 1991 it extended that offer to 
the top 20 percent (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Moreover, the widespread existence of 
honor programs further showed that the colleges have welcomed the better-prepared 
 
 18  
students. According to Cohen and Brawer (2003), White (1975) found that 10 percent of 
225 colleges surveyed in the North-Central region had formalized honors programs and 
nearly half of the others made some provision for superior students. Twenty years later, 
Peterson?s Guide to Two-Year Colleges (1995) listed honor programs in over 25 percent 
of the institutions (Cohen & Brawer, 2003, p. 45). 
 The differences between male and female college students have long been 
documented. Historically, among students or questioned ability, fewer women than men 
attended college. Basically, if funds were limited, more male than female high-ability 
students enrolled in college. Moreover, the women who went to college relied heavily on 
their families for support. However, not until 1978 did the number of women enrolled in 
college in the United States exceed the number of men (Cohen & Brawer 2003). 
According to Cohen and Brawer (2003), the National Center for Education Statistics 
(2001b) reported that 
By 1997, women were ahead, 56 percent to 44. In 1998, the percentage of women 
students in community colleges increased even more?to 58 percent?with 64 
percent attending part-time. This compares with a part-time attendance of 60 
percent for men. Overall, in each year since 1978, more women than men have 
earned associate degrees; in 1997?98, 61 percent of the degrees went to women. 
(p. 46) 
 The community college?s energetic effort in recruiting students from segments of 
the population that had not attended college has enhanced the college attendance of 
ethnic minorities. Moreover, the National Center for Educational Statistics (2001b) 
reported that in 1997, 46 percent of ethnic minority students enrolling in American higher 
 
 19  
education were enrolled in community colleges. Minority students constituted 31 percent 
of all community college enrollment nationwide, increasing 20 percent from 1976. 
Typically, the pattern changed from state to state depending on the minority population. 
For example, California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas had the highest 
enrollment of minorities in community colleges. Minorities were also enrolled in high 
numbers in other states that have well organized community college systems. Data (see 
Appendix A) reveal that the African American ratio of community college enrollment 
exceeds the African American proportion of the population in eighteen states. Moreover, 
comparable figures for Hispanic enrollment are identified in 11 states (Cohen & Brawer, 
2003). 
 Typically, the median age for the community college student body is about 
nineteen years. The full-time day students age ranges from sixteen to over thirty 
(Monroe, 1972). During the 1970s, women thirty and older made up an increasing 
percentage of college students, while minimum change occurred with the age distribution 
of men students. Moreover, in 1981, the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1983) reported that 
fewer than half of all community college students were within two or three years of high 
school graduation, and more than one-quarter were twenty-five or older (Cohen & 
Brawer, 1985, p. 57). According to 1999 data, six percent or more of the population aged 
eighteen to forty-four in nine states enrolled in community colleges, while in ten states 
that figure was two percent or less (see Appendix B). Much depends on demography, but 
more relates to the availability of other postsecondary forms, and the accessibility of 
community colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). 
 
 
 20  
Extracurricular Activities and Community Colleges 
The history of American college life compares to the swinging of a pendulum in a 
wide arc. For example, first there was the era of the church-dominated college with its 
unity of curriculum and extracurriculum, and its self-contained life. Next came the 
changes characteristic of the years 1865 to 1908, when undergraduates developed a 
vigorous college life independent of the central intellectual concerns of American higher 
learning (Brubacher & Rudy, 1968). 
 By the time of World War 1, many leaders of higher education were considering 
the flourishing of the extra curriculum as a challenge rather than a threat. They felt that 
the danger confronting American higher education would not be in the significant 
increase of various student activities, but rather in the failure of the colleges to do 
anything constructive about them. The solution involved taking positive action to achieve 
unity between the curriculum and the extracurriculum. Classroom and campus could be 
brought together by linking student activities to the purpose of the college, making the 
curriculum, and every other aspect of college life, closely related to the student?s total 
personal development (Brubacher & Rudy 1968, p. 329). 
According to Cohen and Brawer (2003), community college student activity 
programs are not easily popularized because many students work part-time, few reside on 
campus, and many high school leaders choose to enroll at universities instead of 
community colleges. Typically, various types of extracurricular activities have been in 
place since the earliest institutions organized athletic events and student clubs. Student 
activities (Eells, 1931) in the junior colleges originated in the 1920s. During that time 
there were seventy active clubs. The most widely accepted were musical activities, 
 
 21  
athletic clubs, literary groups, and religious and moral organizations. ?Today, Pasadena 
City College involves hundreds of students in over fifty clubs including those concerned 
with community service; ... and student government and publications? (Cohen & Brawer, 
2003, p. 208).  
 Upcraft (1989) explained that if institutions want to benefit from the positive 
effects of the out-of-class environment, they must establish campus wide activities that 
enhance freshman success. Cohen and Brawer (2003) felt that low rates of student 
participation in extracurricular activities are evident in the compose level of student 
activism on community college campuses. Although student activism was prevalent on 
university campuses in the United States in the 1960s, it was never as prominent in the 
American community colleges. Basically, student activism focused on intramural 
concerns such as demands for additional financial aid or disapprovals of the designing of 
schedules. Protest against major social issues was rare. 
 Community college activism has generally consisted of students who desire to be 
free from restrictive rules on their conduct. For example, student newspapers have often 
created challenges, especially when an editor or staff writer decides to print an unpopular 
article, story, or poem. The college?s right to guide student conduct comes into opposition 
with First Amendment rules governing freedom of the press. These cases are often taken 
up by the students at large as proof of how the school administration tends to treat them 
as children. Today, no issue can embitter student, faculty, and administration 
relationships more than an administrative decision that the student editor cannot publish 
an unpopular editorial or new item (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). 
 
 22  
 According to Cohen and Brawer (2003), athletic programs are designed so that 
student athletes can enjoy the benefits for extracurricular activity along with academic 
programs. Many institutions offer intramural sports for interested students, but these 
activities have decreased as the colleges have increased their percentage of older, part-
time students. As a result, student activities have been focusing less on team sports and 
more on individual pursuits. For example, ?clubs and ad hoc groups organized to engage 
in hiking, cycling, scuba diving, backpacking, and jogging have become widespread ... 
aerobic, dancing, swimming, and weightlifting have gained in popularity? (Cohen & 
Brawer, 2003, p. 209). 
 Some commentators have called for student activities and organizations centering 
on academic departments as a way of involving more students in extracurricular 
activities. For example, a survey of faculty, staff, and students was conducted at William 
Rainey Harper College (Illinois) to review special types (Lucus & Nejman, 1993) of 
programs interesting to each group. The study found that cultural events, musical 
programs, speakers on current issues, and theatrical productions were favored. ?Such 
responses (Cohen & Brawer, 1977) parallel the interest reflected in a survey of faculty, 
who indicated that there were too few seminars, lectures, exhibitions, or concerts and 
recitals offered outside class? (Cohen & Brawer, 2003, p. 209). 
 
Categories of Theories of College Student Change 
 According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), the majority of change in post-
1990 studies in college centered on traditional age undergraduates. Similarly, the theories 
and models relating to college students that have come into view also deal primarily with 
 
 23  
adolescents and young adults. The emphasis on young adults does not mean that older 
students are of less concern in higher education or that theory of change over the full-life 
span lacks value for grasping the meaning of the effects of post-secondary education. 
Indeed, the increase in the number of older adults attending college has produced a body 
of wide-ranging theoretical literature on change in the adult years and adult development 
rather than student development. 
 One cluster, labeled developmental theories or models, directs attention to the 
structure, nature, and processes of individual human growth. These theories address the 
nature and content of individual change; the dimensions of student development; and the 
stages, phases, or other movements along a given dimension.  Pascarella and Terenzini 
(2005) write:   
This family of theories has been dominated by psychological stage 
theories, which posit one or another level of development through which 
individuals pass in a largely invariant and hierarchical sequence, although 
recent theories place less emphasis on stage progression than was the case 
earlier (p. 18). 
 The second family of models for the study of change among college students 
addresses the environmental and interindividual origins of student change, which is not 
necessarily seen as developmental. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) makes the point that 
these models tend to be best for identifying and evaluating several sets of variables 
presumed to influence one or more aspects of change:  
These sets may be student-related (such as gender, academic achievement, 
socioeconomic status, race-ethnicity), structural and organizational (such 
 
 24  
as institutional size, type of control, selectivity, curricular mission), or 
environmental (for example, the academic, cultural, social, or political 
climate created by faculty and students on a campus) (p. 18).  
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) explained that the major difference between the 
two families of theories depends on the degree of focus they give to what changes in 
college students versus how these changes come about. ?Whereas student-centered 
developmental models concentrate on the nature ... of student change (for example, 
identity formation, cognitive development), college impact models focus on the sources 
of change (such as student experiences, and interactions with students and faculty 
members)? (p. 19). 
 The increase in the number of older adults attending college has generated a large 
and wide-ranging theoretical literature on change or growth in the adult years. Cross 
(1981) specifies two significant schools of research on adult development. The first 
school of thought includes those researchers who have centered their work on the 
development stages of growth and maturity. Erikson (1968) and Loevinger (1976) are 
hierarchical stage theorists who represent this group. The second school of thought of 
adult development research is life cycle oriented with each phase of development having 
its own significant character. Basically, ?there are predictable turning points in the lives 
of adults and ... these turning points represent an internal unfolding in a sequence of 
natural growth? (p. 169).  
 
 25  
Human Development Theories 
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) explain that ?although developmental theorists 
disagree on the characteristics or features of the developmental process, most writers 
view development as a general movement toward greater differentiation, integration, and 
complexity in the ways that individuals think and behave? (p. 19). This movement is 
often viewed as a vertically hierarchical, passing from simple, immature to more complex 
levels or stages that are, to some degree, age-related. Developmental change may be due 
to biological and psychological maturation or individual and environment change. 
According to Lavelle and O?Ryan (2001), ?College student development and social 
attitudes comprise an intricate and complex interrelationship involving diverse beliefs, 
motives, and behaviors? (p. 248). Strom, Bernard, and Strom (1987) stated that the 
?major target of studying human development is to produce or become a socialized 
person? (p. 230). 
The psychosocial theory literature gives much credit to the work of Erik Erikson 
(1950, 1968). One of the elements apparent in Erikson?s work is the epigenetic principle, 
which states ?that anything that grows has a ground plan, and that out of this ground plan 
the parts arise, each part having its time of special ascendancy, until all parts have arisen 
to form a functioning whole? (p. 92). The principle implies not only age-related 
biological and psychological development but also the concept that individual interaction 
with the environment shapes the particular character and extent of the development in 
important ways. Next, according to Erikson, development occurs through a series of 
crises. For Erikson, a crisis means a time for decision requiring important choices among 
alternate courses of actions. There is not an established timetable for each crisis; 
 
 26  
individuals vary according to their respective maturation levels. According to Erickson, 
for one to further develop and grow emotionally and psychosocially, one must 
satisfactorily resolve each crisis (Erickson, 1950). 
Loevinger (1976) uses the concept of ego development to evoke the creation of a 
central core of reference through which people see themselves and their relationship with 
others. The descriptions of stages of ego development are as follows: 
Presocial Stage (I-1). The baby at birth cannot be said to have an ego. His first 
task is to learn to differentiate himself from his surroundings which become the 
?construction of reality,? the realization that there is a stable world of objects. 
Even after he has a grasp of the stability of the world of objects, the baby retains a 
symbiotic relation with his mother or whoever plays that part in his life. 
Impulsive Stage (I-2). The child?s own impulses help him to affirm his separate 
identity. Impulses are curbed at first by constraint, and then later by rewards and 
punishments. A child who remains too long at the Impulsive Stage may be called 
uncontrollable or incorrigible. He himself is likely to see his troubles as located in 
a place rather than in a situation, much less in himself; thus he will often run 
home. 
Conformist Stage (I-3). A momentous step is taken when the child starts to 
identify his own welfare with that of the group, usually his family for the small 
child and the peer group for an older child. In order for this step to take place or to 
be consolidated, there must be a strong element of trust. 
Conscientious Stage (I-4). Precisely where one first finds signs of conscience 
depends on what is called conscience. A child at the impulsive stage does more 
 
 27  
labeling of people as good or bad than do those at higher stages. At the 
conscientious stage, the major elements of an adult conscience are present. They 
include long-term, self-evaluated goals and ideals, differentiated self-criticism, 
and sense of responsibility. 
Autonomous Stage (I-5). A distinctive mark of the Autonomous Stage is capacity 
to acknowledge and to cope with inner conflict; that is, conflicting needs, 
conflicting duties, and the conflict between need and duties. Probably the 
Autonomous person does not have more conflict than others; rather he has the 
courage to acknowledge and to deal with conflict rather than ignoring it or 
projecting it onto the environment. 
Integrated Stage (I-6). The highest stage is known as Integrated, implying some 
transcending of the conflicts of the Autonomous Stage. It is the hardest stage to 
describe for several reasons. Because it is rare, one is hard put to find instances to 
study. Moreover, the psychologist trying to study this stage must acknowledge his 
own limitations as a potential hindrance to comprehension. For the most part, the 
description of the autonomous stage holds also for the integrated stage 
(Loevringer, 1976, pp. 15-26). 
 Loevinger (1976) warned that the sequence of ego development should not be 
viewed as a straight line from one lower level to another higher level. ?In some sense, 
moreover, there is no highest stage but only an opening to new possibilities? (p. 26). 
 Another school of thought among human development theorists is life cycle 
development. Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, and McKee (1978) described seasons 
of the life cycle after studying a select group of middle aged men. According to Levinson 
 
 28  
et al., making the decision to limit the study to men was a difficult one. They felt that 
studying both genders was essential in order to grasp a full understanding of adult 
development. Levinson?s 1969 study (Levinson et al., 1978) included 40 men between 
the ages of 35 to 45 years of age, equally distributed among four occupations. According 
to Levinson et al., there are ?qualitatively different ?seasons? or a series of periods within 
the life cycle ... each having its own distinctive character. Every season is different from 
those that precede and follow it, though it also has much in common with them? 
(Levinson et al., 1978, p. 6). The eras described by Levinson et al. (1978) are 
approximately 25 year overlapping cycles, so that a new one is getting underway as the 
previous one is being terminated. 
Lowenthad, Thurnher, and Chiriboga (1975), on the other hand, defined their 
research groups by social role rather than age. Their subjects were men and women at 
four life stages: high school seniors, young newlyweds, middle-aged parents, and 
retirement couples. Although the subjects were not usually in the same family, they 
shared a long residence in a particular subcommunity within an urban setting that 
epitomized mainstream Americans living in similar contexts. Lowenthad, Thurnher and 
Chiriboga (1975) felt that their findings should be helpful in answering questions of 
adaptations to more gradual types of change: ?in short, the more gradual and subtle 
processes of growing up, growing older, and, for some, becoming very old in a world 
which is in itself rapidly changing? (p. 224). One of her most important contributions lies 
in the significant differences documented for men and women. Lowenthad, Thurnher and 
Chiriboga write: 
 
 29  
Self-assertion and achievement seem to be valued less by women than by men. 
There is also the suggestion that women may be more willing to recognize 
shortcomings and men more compelled to deny them. Note that both men and 
women experience a general increase in effectiveness, efficiency, overall self-
reliance, and self-control. Feelings of vulnerability decline, as does the need to 
misrepresent oneself and manipulate others, or to evoke conflict. Older persons 
develop more rewarding lives through selective disengagement from 
nonrewarding involvements. (Chickering & Havighurst, 1981, p. 16) 
 
Identity Development Theories 
 According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), probably no psychosocial theorist 
has had more effect on the research on college student development or administrative 
efforts to promote its growth than Arthur Chickering. Chickering (1969) identified seven 
vectors of development, each of which has several subcomponents. He identified his 
seven dimensional vectors ?because each seems to have direction and magnitude ? even 
though the direction may be expressed more appropriately by a spiral or by steps than by 
a straight line? (p. 8). In 1993, Chickering and Linda Reisser revised the vectors which 
first appeared in 1969. The revised model basically applies to college students of all ages, 
and Chickering and Reisser ?tried to use language that is gender free and appropriate for 
persons of diverse back grounds? (p. 44). The seven vectors are as follows. 
1. Developing competence. According to Chickering, the college years lead 
to increased competence in intellectual areas, physical and manual skills, 
and interpersonal competence. Increase in intellectual competence is 
 
 30  
particularly significant and involves acquisition of knowledge 
(Chickering, 1969), ?increased intellectual, aesthetic, and cultural 
sophistication? (Reisser, 1995 p. 506). Physical competence is 
accomplished by participating in athletic/intramural activities, artistic 
activities and attention to one?s own good health. Interpersonal 
competence is achieved through listening, asking questions, self-
disclosing, and participating in dialogues that generate insight and 
enjoyment. 
2. Managing emotions. Students at any age must recognize and contend with 
emotions that can interfere with the educational process, including anger, 
fear and anxiety, depression, shame, caring, inspiration, and optimism. 
?Development involves finding appropriate channels for releasing 
irritations before they explode, dealing with fears before they immobilize, 
counteracting pain and quilt, and controlling impulses to exploit others or 
give in to unwanted pressures? (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 86). 
3. Moving through autonomy toward interdependence. Development 
involves increased emotional freedom from the need for reassurance and 
the approval of others as well as the ability of individuals to organize their 
own affairs, solve problems, and make decisions. During this phase of 
development individuals becomes aware of their place in and loyalty to 
the welfare of the larger community. 
4. Developing mature interpersonal relationships. This vector reflects the 
view that students? interactions with peers provide quality-learning 
 
 31  
experiences and help mold the emerging sense of self. In addition, 
students learn how to choose healthy relationships that ultimately lead to 
lasting commitments based on honesty, sensitivity, and unconditional 
regard. 
5. Establishing identity. At one level of generalization, this vector is shaped 
by movement on the previous vectors, and influencing progress on 
succeeding ones shapes this vector. Identity formation also involves 
developing a sense of self-assurance in standing alone and bonding with 
others, and moving beyond intolerance toward openness and self-esteem. 
?A solid sense of self emerges, and it becomes more apparent that there is 
an I who coordinates the facets of personality, who ?owns? the house of 
self and is comfortable in all of its rooms? (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 
49). 
6. Developing purpose. Chickering and Reisser (1993) felt that expanding 
competencies, developing interpersonal relationships, and clarifying 
identity demand some degree of direction and purpose. Progress along the 
sixth vector is evident when an individual answers not only the question 
?Who am I?? but also ?Who am I going to be?? Developing purpose 
entails an increasing ability to be intentional, to assess interest and 
options, to clarify goals, to make plans, and to persist despite obstacles 
(Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 209). 
7. Developing integrity. Growth along the seventh vector entails clarification 
and rebalancing of personal beliefs and values. ?Our core values and 
 
 32  
beliefs provide the foundation for interpreting experience, guiding 
behavior, and maintaining self respect? (Chickering & Reisser, 1993, p. 
235). A strong reliance on rules yields to a relativistic consideration of 
rules and the purposes they are intended to serve as well as the interest and 
value of others. According to Chickering and Reisser (1993) meaningful 
beliefs can be based on reason, faith, or intuition, but for development to 
occur, these beliefs must contribute to the good of all as well as sustain the 
individual in time of crisis (p. 264). 
 Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) asserted that ?Although Chickering?s work has 
attracted more attention and inspired more research and administrative programming than 
other psychosocial theories or models, several other models merit attention? (p. 23). 
These include theories or models relating to gender, race-ethnicity and intellectual and 
ethical development. 
 According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), Ruthellem Jorrelson (1973, 1987, 
1996) conducted a theory of identity development among women only. Her work began 
with a number of interviews with 60 women when they were in college and later with 30 
of the women when they were in their early 30s and 40s. Jorrelson (1996) classified her 
informants in the four groups suggested by Marcia based on ?the pathway they seemed to 
be taking toward identity, a pathway of decision-making rather than one defined by 
content? (p. 12). Jorrelson explains the different manifestations of the exploration process 
and resulting personal commitments in the four areas identified in Marcia?s theory. 
Jorrelson (1996) concludes, however, that for her ?informants; social, sexual, and 
religious issues are less often the grounds on which the struggle for identity takes place 
 
 33  
than a woman?s sense of how she is effected in the world and how she is linked to others? 
(p. 179). Moreover, according to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), Jorrelson (1996) 
suggested that relationships are particularly fertile areas in engendering the crisis that 
may lead to identity formation. For Jorrelson, identity ?cannot be simply named, for it 
resides in the pattern that emerges as a woman stitches together an array of aspects of 
herself and her investments in others? (p. 9). 
 According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), William Cross (1971a, 1971b, 
1980, 1991, 1995) provides a theory of African American identity. Cross referred to 
black identity change as a ?Negro-to-Black conversion experience, a resocializing 
experience that transforms a preexisting identity (1991, p. 189-198). In its present form 
the theory is far more nuanced and fully detailed, and Cross examines its socio-historical 
and conceptual roots. Cross viewed black identity as taking shape through five 
hierarchical stages: 
Reencounter (Stage 1). The individual?s world view is frequently Euro centric, 
and being black is either not a salient factor or is seen as social stigma. Although 
some African Americans at this stage may hold actively anti-black attitudes, most 
pre-encounter blacks avoid internalizing these negative views. In any event, the 
stage is set for a possible identity-conversion experience. 
Encounter (Stage 2) involves an experience that threatens the individual?s 
understanding of the place of blacks in the world, engenders a range of emotions, 
and triggers a reinterpretation of initial views and beliefs. 
Immersion-Emersion (Stage 3). The individual is in between and searches for a 
new understanding of self as black. Immersion in the world of blackness involves 
 
 34  
a turning inward and the view that everything of value must be black. In the 
emersion phase, the individual emerges from the emotionality and dead-end 
aspects of the immersion experience, and regains control of emotions and 
intellect. It can be a time of personal growth and recognition. The individual is 
ready to move toward a new identity. 
Internalization (Stage 4). The dissonance is resolved, a new worldview emerges, 
and the individual returns to a personality more stable and calm than that in Stage 
3. The individual redefines relationships with others or different races or 
ethnicities, adopting bicultural or multicultural perspectives. 
Internalization?Commitment (Stage 5). The individual?s sense of blackness is 
translated into a course of action and commitment to deal with issues and 
problems shared with African Americans and other groups. To some extent, this 
stage represents the habituation of Stage 4. Whether the identity and commitments 
of Stage 5 are sustained over time awaits further empirical examination 
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 25-26). 
 William Perry (1970, 1981) sought to describe the development he observed 
clinically in the ?structures which the students explicitly or implicitly impute to the 
world, especially those structures in which they construe the nature and origins of 
knowledge, of value, and of responsibility? (1970, p. 1). Even though his theory is clearly 
a stage model, Perry prefers the term position ?because no assumption is made about 
duration..., the notion of position is happily appropriate to the image of point of outlook 
or position from which a person views his world? (1970, p. 48). According to Pascarella 
and Terenzini (2005), Perry (1970) identified nine positions. ?The progression is not 
 
 35  
entirely linear, however, and he identifies three deflections or temporary suspensions in 
development movement? (p. 34). The nine positions are as follows: 
Dualism (Positions 1-2). In the early positions, individuals order their worlds in 
dualistic and absolute categories. For students at these levels, classroom learning 
means catching whatever the instructor pitches. In Position 2, uncertainty about 
what is or is not true creeps in; authority might introduce a heuristic device to 
prod students to learn on their own. 
Multiplicity (Positions 3-4). In these positions, the existence of multiple 
perspectives on any given issue is recognized. In Position 4, others holding an 
opinion contrary to one?s own are no longer seen as simply wrong but rather as 
entitled to their views. 
Relativism (Positions 5-6). Recognition of multiplicity in the world leads to 
understanding that knowledge is contextual and relative (King, 1978). The shift is 
transformational. Analytical thinking skills emerge, and in critiquing their own 
ideas and those of others, students recognize that not all positions are equally 
valid. 
Commitments in Relativism (Positions 7-9). Students moving through Positions 7 
to 9 test various propositions and truth claims (King, 1978), eventually making an 
active affirmation of themselves and their responsibilities in a pluralistic world, 
establishing their identities in the process. The individual makes commitments to 
ideas, values, behaviors, and other people (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 25). 
 
 
 36  
Student Departure and Involvement 
 According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) has given 
a detailed, longitudinal, and interactional model of institutional impact that attempts to 
explain the college student withdrawal process. He theorized that students enroll in a 
college or university with different patterns of personal, family, and academic 
characteristics or skills. Moreover, their initial disposition and intentions are different 
with respect to personal goals and college attendance. Intentions and commitments are 
subsequently modified and formulated on a continuing basis through a longitudinal series 
of interactions between the individual and the structures and members of the academic 
and social system of the institutions. This theoretical model of institutional departure 
diagrammed (see Appendix C) illustrates the longitudinal process of interactions between 
the individual and the academic and social system of the college (Pascarella & Terenzini, 
2005). 
 According to Pascarella and Terenzini (2005), Tinto defined integration as the 
extent to which the individual shares the normative attitudes and values of peers and 
faculty in the community or in subgroups. Students? commitment strengthens to both 
their personal goals and to the institution through which these goals may be accomplished 
as integration increases (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). 
 Tinto (1993) pointed out that even though most students adjust, others are simply 
unable to clear the first hurdle to college completion and withdraw from further 
participation. Most of the students depart within the first six to eight weeks, prior to their 
first grading period. According to Tinto (1998), Rendon (1994) found that some students, 
particularly those in community colleges, find integration outside the classroom. These 
 
 37  
experiences outside the classroom encourage subsequent experiences in the college and, 
in turn, influence persistence. Tinto, Russo, and Kadel-Taras (1994), at the same time, 
found that the opposite occurs: classroom involvement becomes a vehicle for 
involvement beyond the classroom. ?Clearly, the academic and social systems of colleges 
overlay both classroom and college settings in such a way that experiences within and 
beyond the classroom both impact upon student persistence? (Tinto, 1998, p. 169). 
 Tinto (1987, 1993) reported that departure is a highly personal event that is 
understood only by referring to the understandings and experiences of every person who 
departs. These pertain to the character of the individual?s interactional experience within 
the institution following entry and to the external forces which sometimes affect their 
behavior within the institution. On the individual level, the two characteristics that stand 
out as primary reasons of departure are described by the terms intention and commitment. 
Moreover, on the institutional level, for individual experience that influences departure, 
Tinto used the terms adjustment, incongruence and isolation. 
 Tinto (1987, 1993) found that individual intentions are not always shaped in the 
form of specific occupations and degrees. Individuals sometimes decide to leave 
institutions of higher education prior to degree completion simply because they did not 
intend to stay until degree completion. For example, most common among these leavers 
are students who enroll in college seeking to gain additional skills or acquire an 
additional number of course credits. According to Tinto (1993), ?when individuals are 
more certain as to their futures, they are more likely to finish college. When uncertainty 
persists for several years, students are more likely to depart without completing their 
degree programs? (p. 41). 
 
 38  
 Tinto (1987, 1993) reported that student commitments, whether identified as 
drive, motivation, or effort, also play a significant role in student departure from 
institutions of higher education. Students? unwillingness to commit proves to be a major 
part in the departure process. It is clear that not all entering students have that 
commitment. There are students who are unable or unwilling to commit themselves to the 
task of college completion and the level of effort required to complete a degree program. 
Tinto makes the point that individual commitment takes two major forms, goal and 
institutional: 
Goal commitment refers to a person?s commitment to personal educational and 
occupational goals. It specifies the person?s willingness to work toward the 
attainment of those goals. Institutional commitment refers to the person?s 
commitment to the institution in which he/she is enrolled. It indicates the degree 
to which one is willing to work toward the attainment of one?s goals within a 
given higher educational institution. (Tinto, 1993, p. 43) 
Tinto (1993) pointed out that persistence in college requires individuals to adjust both 
socially and intellectually:  
The period of adjustment to new situations is often painful and sometimes 
so difficult as to cause young people, and sometimes older students, 
temporarily to give up on even strongly held goals.  For some, it is a 
question of learning how to apply previously acquired intellectual skills to 
new situations (p. 47) 
 Shady (1970) included family background in his sociological model for the 
dropout process. For example, ?most community colleges find themselves in situations 
 
 39  
where student involvement is quite difficult to achieve. A great majority of their students 
are older, employed while in college, and have multiple obligations that constrain their 
involvement in college? (Tinto & Russo, 1994, p. 16). Tinto (1987, 1993) reported that 
incongruence refers to the mismatch between the needs, preferences, and interests of the 
students and those of the institution. It springs from individual perception of not feeling 
connected with the social and intellectual fabric of institutional life. As a result, 
?individuals describe their withdrawal from college not in terms of leaving but in terms 
of a conscious decision to stop going to college? (p. 51). 
 According to Tinto, student isolation is another cause for departure, specifically 
from the absence of interaction between the student and other members of the academic 
and social communities of the institution. For such students, problems meeting people 
and making new friends can indeed lead to early withdrawal from college. 
 Astin?s (1984) theory suggested that student?s persistence in college is based on 
how involved the student is with the campus community. Basically, a highly involved 
student is one who dedicates considerable energy to studying, participates actively in 
student organizations, and interacts frequently with other students and faculty members. 
However, uninvolved students disregard studies, abstain from extracurricular activities, 
and have very little contact with faculty members or other students. According to Astin 
(1996), the factors in the college environment that encourage or discourage students? 
persistence are related to such things as involvement with academics, involvement with 
the faculty, involvement with other students, involvement with work, and other types of 
involvement. 
 
 40  
 According to Astin (1993), involvement with academics is based on human 
performance in an academic setting. For example, hours per week spent doing 
homework, conducting research, writing papers, and using a personal computer are 
positively related to nearly all academic outcomes: higher grades, retention, and 
graduating with honors. ?Academic involvement has stronger and more widespread 
positive effects than almost any other involvement measure? (p. 376). 
 Astin (1993) found that involvement between the undergraduate student and the 
faculty is considered outside the classroom. A student?s working on a professor?s 
research project, assisting faculty in teaching a class, and talking with faculty outside of 
class are some of the ways that student-faculty interaction enhances development. 
Student-faculty interaction also has a significant effect on behavioral outcomes, 
particularly on tutoring other students. Students who participate in tutoring other students 
must frequently have some additional contact with faculty. Finally, the degree to which 
an undergraduate interacts with a faculty member within any given institutional 
environment can have important positive implications for school development. Pascarella 
(1980) felt that the educational impact of non-classroom faculty contact with students 
was an important part of gaining student retention. He believed faculty members were 
informal agents of socialization during the student?s college experience.  
 Astin (1993) reported that an undergraduate?s involvement with other student 
peers is a significant phase of involvement. For example, working on group projects for 
classes, discussing course content with other students and socializing with someone from 
a different racial or ethnic background also enhances student development. In addition, 
holding a leadership position within a campus organization increases the cognitive 
 
 41  
development of the undergraduate by developing logical reasoning abilities, and 
problem-solving skills. Furthermore, campus leaders gain skills in public speaking and 
interacting with diverse student and non-student groups such as the faculty, university 
administration, and staff. 
 According to Astin (1993), working part-time or full-time off campus is 
associated with a pattern of outcomes that is uniformly negative for the undergraduate. 
The negative outcomes that are associated with working full-time include lower college 
GPA, a lesser likelihood of graduating with honors, and minimum contact with other 
students and possibly with faculty, depending on the type of work. However, working on 
campus part-time has a positive impact on the enhancement of the development of the 
undergraduate. In all likelihood, the key to understanding this distinction lies in the 
interaction of the undergraduate student worker with other students, faculty, and staff. 
?Working at a part-time job on campus also increases the student?s chances of being 
elected to a student office, tutoring other students and attending recitals or concerts? (p. 
358). 
 Cabrera, Nora and Castaneda (1993) expanded theoretical work in the area of 
student persistence through the development of an integrated model of student retention 
to explain overlap in the two major theories of college persistence, Bean?s Student 
Attrition Model and Tento?s Student Integration Model (Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & 
Hengestler, 1992). By joining the two theories into one integrated model ?a more 
comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay among individual, environmental, 
and institutional factor was achieved? (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993, p. 135). In 
addition, by using the integrated model, Nora and Cabrera (1996) acknowledge the role 
 
 42  
perceptions of prejudice and discrimination play in student persistence. Four categories 
believed to play a pivotal role in the persistence process among minorities and non-
minorities were discussed: the influential nature of academic preparedness; the degree to 
which separation from family and community facilitates a successful transition to 
college; the role of perceptions of prejudice on the adjustment to college environments 
and on college-related outcomes; and the degree to which existing models of college 
persistence are unique to non-minority students (Nora & Cabrera, 1996). The study found 
that, for both minorities and non-minorities, pre-college academic ability played a 
significant role on academic performance and had an indirect effect on persistence. 
Among both groups, parental encouragement and support were found to exert a positive 
effect on the integration of students to college, on their academic and intellectual 
development, and on their academic performance and commitment ? both in completing 
a college degree and to the institution itself (Nora & Cabrera, 1996 p. 140). 
 The perceptions of discrimination and prejudice were found among minorities and 
non-minorities in the area of negative campus climate and discriminatory attitudes held 
by faculty and staff. However, minorities reported higher perceptions of discrimination 
and prejudice than did White students. 
 The integrated model proposes that students are reflected in both a social domain, 
involving interactions with other students, and academic domain, reflecting experiences 
with faculty and academic staff (Nora & Cabrera, 1996). Interactions with student and 
faculty not only enhance affective and cognitive development but students also feel more 
committed to attaining a college degree, and are more committed to the institution. Gains 
made in the student?s academic and intellectual development are expected to exert a 
 
 43  
positive impact on three more outcomes: academic performance, commitments to the 
institution, and commitment toward college completion (Nora & Cabrera, 1996). 
 According to Upcraft, Gardners and Associates (1989), student participation in 
extracurricular activities (Upcraft 1985) such as involvement in social activities, 
involvement in cultural activities, participation in orientation programs, attendance at 
lectures and utilization of campus facilities all enhance retention. Several specific types 
of campus activities can enhance retention and personal development. Establishing close 
friends is positively related to academic success during the first month of enrollment. 
?Other than the classroom, campus activities offer the only opportunity for freshmen to 
meet other students and fulfill their need to affiliate with one another? (p. 150). It is 
worthy to note that new students beginning college are often convinced that intense 
studying should be given priority over involvement in student activities. However, many 
now believe that ?freshmen must be encouraged to do both, in proper balance, if they are 
to succeed? (p. 153). 
 If campus activities are to have a positive influence on freshman retention and 
personal development, they must: 
? Promote the relationship between participation in campus activities and 
freshman success; 
? Involve students, student organizations, the community faculty and staff; 
? Be planned and coordinated by campus-activities professionals; 
? Be based on principles of freshman developmental needs (Upcraft, Gardner & 
Associates, 1989, p. 154). 
 
 44  
 Boyer (1987) pointed out that the impact of the undergraduate experience is 
linked to the quality of campus life. Basically, students who spend more time on the 
campus and who are involved in activities have a high success rate. ?It is not an 
exaggeration to say that students who get involved stay enrolled? (p. 191). Students who 
are linked with other students and have a balanced schedule of study and play are more 
successful than those who over-emphasize the play, or choose not to participate at all. 
Student organizations and activities are important not only to get information on teachers 
and exam files, but also to increase learning outside the college classroom. Student 
leaders get exposure to campus polities and decision-making. Their positive relationship 
with faculty and students has earned them recommendations for speaking engagements, 
committee assignments, trips, awards, and scholarships. It is worthy to note that 
employers of college graduates expect students to have good grades and to have 
experience in leadership in extracurricular activities (Thornton, 1992, p. 4). 
 Cooper, Healey, and Simpson (1994) conducted a three-year study at a 
Southeastern institution with an enrollment of 12,000 students (12 percent minority, 64 
percent female). The study investigated student change patterns in relation to their 
involvement in leadership positions in student activities. According to Cooper, Healey 
and Simpson (1994), the findings showed significant differences between members of 
campus organizations and student leaders of campus organizations in comparison to 
students who had not been involved in student organizations and student leadership 
positions. Students who were members of campus organizations and student leaders of 
campus organizations showed more progress in developing purpose, career planning, 
educational involvement, lifestyle planning, life management, and cultural participation. 
 
 45  
 Belikova (2002) conducted a sociological survey on contradictions having to do 
with extracurricular activity in the institution of higher learning, and the student?s 
attitudes toward the activity. The study was conducted at Urals State Professional 
Pedagogical University (UGPPU) in February and March 1999. A total of 836 students 
were surveyed on the basis of a quota sample; 36 percent were men and 64 percent were 
women. The results of the Belikova (2002) study showed that the level of knowledge 
ability of the respondents concerning student life at UGPPU varied depending on their 
year of study and degree of active involvement in a particular organization or 
extracurricular activity. Students in the first year of study had minimal knowledge about 
life in the institution. The absolute majority of them did not have an adequate amount of 
information about many student organizations. The respondents were the most 
knowledgeable about the activities of student volunteer work groups, and the student 
trade union all of which are well known in the institution and make use of various means 
of publicizing their work. 
 Ringgenberg (1989) pointed out participation in campus activities can better 
incorporate a student into the campus community, thus making all students feel that they 
are an important part of this community. According to Astin (1996), one promising way 
to enhance student involvement in community service is to maximize the amount of 
interaction that occurs among students. Some of the significant forms of student-student 
interactions that have positive impacts on volunteer participation include ?participation in 
religious activities, involvement in campus activism, and socializing with members of 
different ethnic groups. Each of these activities constitutes another form of student 
interaction? (p. 130). However, many choose not to become a part of the community by 
 
 46  
simply just attending class and returning home. They have a difficult time integrating into 
the community because they are employed off campus, live at home, or watch television 
(Astin, 1996). 
 According to Watson, Terrell, Wright, and Associates (2002), institutions must be 
conscious of the out-of-classroom environment the minority student negotiates as a day-
to-day experience. The environment should provide a strong challenge for the student, 
but opportunities and support must be additional pieces added in this puzzle. Many 
minority students view these higher educational settings with dissatisfaction. Fleming 
(1984) pointed out that as the number of minority and non-traditional students increase 
on college campuses, student activity programming will have to adjust accordingly. 
African American students in particular expressed displeasure with the college 
environment. 
 Sutton and Kimbrough (2001) conducted a study of African American students at 
both historically Black and traditionally White institutions in seven Southern states. The 
results of the study indicate that minority student organizations remain the primary source 
among Black students. However, the involvement of minority students within traditional 
campus organizations has increased at predominately Caucasian higher-education 
institutions. In addition, Sutton and Kimbrough (2001) stated that ?minority students 
perceive that membership within multicultural organizations provide them greater 
opportunities to share their skills and talents with the African American community? (p. 
30). 
  
 
 47  
Retention Strategies/Programs 
 ?Student retention has become a challenging problem for the academic 
community; therefore, effective measures for student retention must be implemented in 
order to increase the retention of qualified students at institutions of higher learning? 
(Lau, 2003, p. 126). Students who want to experience a meaningful and rewarding first 
year in college must become active participants in a campus learning community. ?If the 
transition from high school or work to college can be negotiated successfully ? the 
likelihood of student change, educational growth, and persistence are significantly 
increased? (Townsend & Twombly, 2001, p. 274). 
 If there is a secret to the development of successful retention programs, it is 
basically understanding why some institutions have been able to successfully employ 
those programs while other institutions have not (Tinto, 1990).  Retention requires that 
individuals make the transition to college and blend into its ongoing social and 
intellectual life. In this respect, colleges are viewed as being made up of a range of 
academic and social communities whose interactional characteristics have much to do 
with the eventual leaving of many of their students. ?Student institutional departure is as 
much a reflection of the attributes of those communities, and therefore of the institution, 
as it is of the attributes of the students who enter that institution? (Tinto, 1993, p. 136).   
The point of Tinto?s retention commentary is not merely that individuals be kept in 
college but that they be retained so as to be further educated. Tinto (1993) writes:  
Through the intentions and commitments with which individuals enter 
college matter, what goes on after entry matters more.  It is the daily 
interaction of the person with other members of the college in both the 
 
 48  
formal and informal academic and social domains of the college and the 
person?s perception or evaluation of the character of those interactions, 
and of those that involve the student outside the college, that in large 
measure determine decisions as to staying or leaving (p. 136). 
 Retention efforts are successful when the commitment to serve students 
encompasses the broader faculty and staff of the institution (Tinto, 1990). Campus 
policies should be established to create proactive, hospitable environments that invite 
students to campus where they participate in collaborative academic and social programs 
and activities. The following are five recommendations designed to accomplish these 
goals: 
1. Create transitional bridge programs that begin prior to students? 
enrollment in college and extend into the first year of enrollment. 
Successful bridge programs (Upcraft 1989) should address the 
development of academic and intellectual competence, the establishment 
and maintenance of personal relationships and identity development, 
career and lifestyle exploration, and formulation of an integrated 
philosophy of life. 
2. Require students to complete an orientation program prior to their 
enrollment, during the initial weeks of their first term, or in an extended 
format during the first year. The options for scheduling a campus 
orientation are holding one during the senior year in high school, the 
summer prior to a student?s enrollment, the beginning of each term, or 
continuously throughout the academic year. 
 
 49  
3. Require first-year students to complete a four-credit freshman seminar. 
The freshman-year seminars can help first-year students familiarize 
themselves with the campus learning community and acquire the 
necessary academic and social skills needed to succeed in college. 
4. Establish mentoring programs for first-year students that create a sense of 
community and involve faculty, counselors, advisors, administrative staff, 
and student peers. In order to help first-year students (Gardner, 1996), 
especially those who are the first in their family to attend college, 
appropriate counseling and mentoring programs must be offered to help in 
managing stress and sorting out their feelings. 
5. Employ a multifaceted approach that utilizes a combination of academic 
services, student services, community resources. This program would 
include a strategic combination (Tinto et al., 1994) of new student 
orientation, a summer preparatory program, new student seminar, 
individual counseling, first-year student workshops, counseling groups, 
and academic support interventions (Townsend & Twombly, 2001, p. 276-
277). 
 There are no easy solutions to the issue of student persistence nor is there an 
appropriate substitution for the institutional commitment to students. Such commitment 
stems from the continuing commitment on the part of faculty and staff to the education of 
their students arising from and demonstrated in the everyday interactions among students, 
faculty, and staff in the formal and informal domains of institutional life (Tinto, 1987). In 
a very important sense, institutional commitment to students and students? commitment 
 
 50  
to the institution are mirror images of one another. Students are more likely to become 
committed to the institution and therefore stay when they come to understand that the 
institution is committed to them (Tinto, 1987). 
 
 
 
Summary 
 This chapter reviewed selected literature relating to the following area of 
emphasis: background of the community college and its students, extracurricular 
activities and the community college, psychosocial-development theories, intellectual-
development theory, identity-development theories, theories of student departure from 
college and theories of student involvement, studies on student involvement, student-
extracurricular activities, and retention-strategy programs. Campus activities in the 
community college have their origins in the early nineteenth century and have evolved to 
play a positive role in ensuring that students experience a meaningful and rewarding first 
year in college. Cohen and Brawner (1989) stated that ?the more students are involved in 
a full range of campus activities, the more they gain from their college experience? (p. 
185).
 
51 
III. METHODS 
 
 The purpose of this study was to determine the levels of involvement in 
extracurricular activities and the relationship of involvement, persistence and academic 
accomplishment of enrolled students at a small Southern, open-admission comprehensive 
community college. The research method used in this study was the descriptive research 
design. Moreover, this chapter describes the population, sampling procedures, research 
data collection instrument, reliability of the instrument, variables, data collection 
procedures, demographics of the sample, statistical approaches and techniques, and the 
summary. 
 To accomplish the purpose of this study, the following research questions were 
addressed: 
 1. What gender-based (male/female) patterns are identifiable in the students? 
level of involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life 
Involvement Survey questionnaire? 
 2. What age-based patterns are identifiable in the students? level of 
involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey questionnaire? 
 
52 
 3. What ethnicity-based patterns are identifiable in the students? level of 
involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey questionnaire? 
 4. What marital patterns are identifiable in the students? level of involvement 
in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey 
questionnaire? 
 5. What academic class(freshman, sophomore) standing-based patterns are 
identifiable in the students? level of involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed 
by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey questionnaire? 
 6. What grade point average (GPA) patterns are identifiable in the students? 
level of involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life 
Involvement Survey questionnaire? 
 7. What employment-based patterns are identifiable in the students? level of 
involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey questionnaire? 
 
Sample Population 
  A descriptive analysis indicated that of 142 participants in the survey at Lurleen 
B. Wallace Community College, 42.3% (n = 60) were males and 57.7% (n = 82) were 
female respondents. Forty-six of the participants (32.4%) listed their race as African-
American, 66.9% (n = 95) as Caucasian, and one (.7%) as ?other.? Ages ranged from 19 
to 23 with 77.5% (n = 110), in the age range of 19 to 20, and 22.5% (n = 32) in the age 
range of 21 to 23.  One hundred eleven (78.2%) worked less than 20 hours per week and 
 
53 
(21.8%) (n = 31) worked more than 20 hours a week. The marital status of the students 
was reported as ?single? by 82% (n = 116) ?married? by 15% (n = 21), and ?divorced? by 
five (4%). The sample for this study was a stratified convenience sample with two levels, 
freshman and sophomore, selected from classroom populations in academic-transfers and 
terminal-degree classes and random participants in student activities from organizations 
and meetings.  
 
Research Instrument 
 The information for analyses was derived through the use of a Campus-Life 
Involvement Survey. The instrument used in this study was selected after studying 
instruments discovered in the review of literature concerning similar studies. The 
Campus-Life Involvement Survey (Coats, 2003) was selected based on its 
appropriateness and its previous use to assess the mean level scores of participation of 
students at a large land grant university in extracurricular activities. The instrument 
related score content validity was established by three professional educators. Two of the 
professional educators were professors specializing in research, and the third person was 
an Auburn University student affairs administrator.  
The Campus-Life Involvement Survey used in this study assessed the mean level 
scores of participation at a small Southern, open-admission comprehensive community 
college. Students? involvement in extracurricular activities were measured by the 
following demographic variable: gender, age, racial group/ethnicity, marital status, 
current class standing, cumulative grade point average, and average employment status 
(see Appendix D). 
 
54 
 The survey questionnaire is composed of two sections: 
1. Items A-G focusing a demographic information. 
2. Questions regarding the participant?s involvement in fourteen different 
extracurricular activities. 
The first section of the instrument requests responses regarding the participant?s 
demographic information. Each participant was asked to complete eight questions and 
place an X next to the answer which best described him or her (see Appendix D). 
The second section of the survey was designed to examine differences between 
the students? levels of participation and certain demographic variables. This section was 
composed of 3-point Likert-type questions (often, never, or occasionally), and 
participants were asked to respond to one of the three choices for each extracurricular 
activity. 
 
Reliability and Validity 
Reliability and validity were important factors within this study. Borg and Gall 
(1983) stated that reliability as applied to educational measurements may be defined ?as 
the level of internal consistency of stability of the measuring device over time? (p. 281). 
According to Borg and Gall (1983), reliability is a pivotal characteristic of the test, and it 
must be considered carefully when choosing measures for research purposes. 
Borg and Gall (1983) wrote: 
The level of reliability that the research worker should expect from a test is 
determined largely by the nature of the research in which he plans to use the 
measure. If the research project is such that the research worker can expect only 
 
55 
small differences between his experimental and control groups on a variable 
measured by the test, it is necessary that a test of high reliability be used. 
Conversely, if large samples are to be used and if the mean test scores are 
expected to differ materially for the experimental and control groups, the research 
worker may select a measure of relatively low reliability and still be reasonably 
sure that the test will discriminate adequately (p. 281). 
 Borg and Gall (1983) stated that ?the validity evidence should be studied carefully 
because interpretation of the research results hinges on the validity of the measures upon 
which these results are based? (p. 210). Moreover, Borg and Gall (1989) defined 
instrument-related validity as ?the degree to which the sample of test items represents the 
content that the test is designed to measure? (p. 250). The instrument, as previously 
stated, was selected after evaluating instruments used in similar studies. The items in the 
instrument were reviewed and approved by the researcher and professional educators of 
Lurleen B. Wallace Community College. The consensus of acceptance of the instrument 
content constituted the estimate of validity. 
 This study was conducted using a group of 142 students at a small Southern, 
open-admission comprehensive community college to establish the reliability. The 
information for analysis was derived through the use of a Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey. The instrument was selected after studying instruments discovered in the review 
of literature concerning similar studies. The Campus-Life Involvement Survey was used 
to assess the mean level scores of participation of students at a large land grant university 
in extracurricular activities. Three professional educators established content validity of 
items; two of the educators were professors specializing in research, and the third person 
 
56 
was an Auburn University Student affairs administrator. The reliability coefficient of this 
instrument was estimated using Cronbach?s Alpha. The reliability analysis yielded a 
coefficient of r =.63. The instrument was selected based on its appropriateness and 
previous use. After the researcher received special permission from the author of the 
Campus-Life Involvement Survey, three professional educators of a local community 
college reviewed the categories and items in the instrument. The professional educators 
were all administrators at Lurleen B. Wallace Community College. The team of experts 
suggested revisions to items identified for extracurricular activities so that they would 
match with student activities and organizations at Lurleen B. Wallace Community 
College. After the researcher completed the revisions, the professional educators 
reviewed the instrument again and approved it for use in the study at Lurleen B. Wallace 
Community College. 
 
Variables 
 The independent variables for this study were the demographic variables from the 
survey: gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, current class standing, cumulative grade 
point average, and average employment status while enrolled. The dependent variables 
were participation in or non-participation in the extracurricular activities listed in the 
survey. 
 
 
57 
Data-Gathering Procedures 
 The procedures for data gathering and study validation supported the overall 
purpose of this study. Several groups of students were randomly chosen for this survey. 
The forum used for conducting the survey was: 
 1. Academic transfer classes and terminal degree classes. 
2. Various student activities including Interclub Council president?s meeting, 
Student Government Association meeting, Skills USA meeting, 
Ambassadors meeting, departmental clubs meetings, Christian Student 
Ministries meeting, ensemble meeting, intercollegiate athletic meeting, 
Adult Re-Entry Club meeting, honorary societies meetings, and Civitan 
Club meeting. 
Campus-Life Involvement Survey (CLIS) participants were read a letter from the 
researcher approved by the researcher?s project chairperson. This letter explained that the 
survey had been approved by the Auburn University Institutional Review Board, outlined 
the purpose of the study, and explained that participation in the study was voluntary. 
Moreover, the letter explained that no harm would be caused by participating in the 
survey. Individuals are given an opportunity to ask questions before making a choice to 
participate or not in the survey. 
 Participants were given the survey in a quiet, secure, and safe environment. The 
participants remained anonymous throughout the data collection process. Upon 
completing the survey, the participant put his/her individual survey in an envelope and 
sealed it. The envelopes were not opened until all data were collected and entered into a 
statistical software program, SPSS. 
 
58 
Analysis of Data 
According to Ferguson and Takane (1989), ?the analysis of variance is a method 
for dividing the variation observed in experimental data into different parts; each part 
attributable to a known source? (p. 250). Moreover, ?the appropriate use of variance 
involves, among others, the assumption of homogeneity of variance? (Ferguson & 
Takane, 1989, p. 264). Analysis of variance based on a one-way Anova was used to 
identify patterns within the variables in this study. Analysis of variance results in a F 
value, which if statistically significant, tells us that the means are likely to have been 
drawn from different populations? (Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 377). Moreover, according to 
Borg and Gall (1983), analysis of variance does not specify which of the three or more 
sample means differ significantly from one another. Special post hoc tests are used for 
this purpose (p. 355). Analysis of variance is applied most often in experimental research 
involving complex factorial designs. Based on the complexity of the factorial design, two 
or more F values can be generated from a single analysis of variance. ?The F values will 
tell whether sample means of the various factors represented in the experiment (e.g., 
treatments... ability levels) differ significantly from one another, and whether the various 
factors interact significantly with one another? (Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 337). The methods 
used in this study were designed to specifically address the research questions, which are 
listed in this chapter. 
 
Summary 
 The purpose of this study was to determine the mean levels of involvement in 
extracurricular activities and the relationship of involvement, persistence, and academic 
 
59 
accomplishment of enrolled students at a small Southern, open-admission comprehensive 
community college. Independent demographic variables such as gender, age, ethnicity, 
marital status, academic class standing, grade point average, were measured by the level 
of involvement in extracurricular activities as identified on the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey. The study was conducted by randomly selecting the appropriate number of 
volunteer participants from classroom populations in academic-transfer and terminal-
degree classes and random participants in student activities from organizations and 
meetings. These individuals consisted of freshmen and sophomores enrolled at Lurleen 
B. Wallace Community College. Each student participant was administered a two-part 
survey: (1) an seven-item demographic information instrument, and (2) a twelve-item 
instrument that assessed one?s level of involvement in the extracurricular items listed on 
the survey. A total of 142 respondents were used for the study. Data collected were 
analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance. 
  
 
 
60 
IV. FINDINGS 
 
 This chapter presents and discusses the statistical analysis of the data collected in 
this study. The purpose of this investigation was to determine to what level students who 
are enrolled in a community college participate in extracurricular activities when 
measured by demographic variables of gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, academic 
class standing, grade point average, and employment. The sample for this study consists 
of 142 students enrolled in day courses at Lurleen B. Wallace Community College in the 
spring of 2006. The sample consists of 59 freshmen and 83 sophomores. The instrument 
was administered to individuals in small sample groups (freshman and sophomores) at 
Lurleen B. Wallace Community College. The selected day for the survey was based on 
the availability of the participants. 
 For this study, the following research questions were addressed: 
 1. What gender-based (male/female) patterns are identifiable in the students? 
level of involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life 
Involvement Survey questionnaire? 
 2. What age-based patterns are identifiable in the students? level of 
involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey questionnaire? 
 
61 
 3. What ethnicity-based patterns are identifiable in the students? level of 
involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey questionnaire? 
 4. What marital patterns are identifiable in the students? level of involvement 
in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey 
questionnaire? 
 5. What academic class(freshman, sophomore) standing-based patterns are 
identifiable in the students? level of involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed 
by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey questionnaire? 
 6. What grade point average (GPA) patterns are identifiable in the students? 
level of involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life 
Involvement Survey questionnaire? 
 7. What employment-based patterns are identifiable in the students? level of 
involvement in extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey questionnaire? 
The instrument used in this study consisted of seven demographic variables and 
twelve questions about participating in extracurricular activities. Descriptive statistics 
were used to report the demographic variables and participation in extracurricular 
activities. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures were used to analyze the 
data collected. 
The data collected were compiled into student involvement in extracurricular 
activities composite scores with zero representing never being involved in any of the 12 
extracurricular activities that were used in this study. Composite scores of 1-10 
 
62 
represented occasional involvement in the extracurricular activities used for the purposes 
of this study, and a score of 11-27 represented often being involved in the extracurricular 
activities used for the purpose of this study. Data were scored by the researcher and 
entered into a SPSS data base. 
Table 1 presents the distributions of students? extracurricular activities 
participation and score ranges. For 66 students, 47.4%, the score range was 1-10, and for 
the 74 students, 52.1%, the score range was 11-27 (see Table 1). 
 
Table 1 
Summary of Participation in Extracurricular Activities According to Score Ranges 
Number of Students   Percentage   Score Range  
 2 1.4% 0 
 66 46.4% 1-10 
 74 52.1% 11-27 
Note. N = 142 
 
Data Analysis 
 The following data indicated whether there were statistically significant 
differences between the students? mean levels of participation in the extracurricular 
activities based on the independent demographic variables of (1) gender, (2) age, (3) 
ethnicity, (4) marital status, (5) academic class standing, (6) academic grade point 
 
63 
average, and (7) employment status when measured by the Campus-Life Involvement 
Survey. Multiple statistical procedures were conducted for multiple research questions.  
Gender 
 A descriptive analysis showed that of the 142 participants in the survey 42.3% (N 
= 60) were male respondents with a mean extracurricular score of 5.15 and a standard 
deviation of 4.387. Of the 82 participants surveyed, 57.7% were female respondents with 
a mean score of 4.21 and a standard deviation of 3.188 (see Table 2). 
 
Table 2 
Participation Score in Extracurricular Activities by Gender (N = 142) 
Gender N Mean Standard Deviation 
1 60 5.15 4.387 
 
2 82 4.21 3.188 
 Total 142 4.61 3.757 
 
The ANOVA (see Table 3) resulted in a p value of .14 which was not statistically 
significant. However, the mean participation of female respondents was higher than that 
of male respondents. There was no gender effect on students? participation in 
extracurricular activities as assessed by the Campus Life Involvement questionnaire. 
 
 
64 
Table 3 
Analysis of Variance for Gender Effect 
Source  F  df1  df2  ?2  p 
Gender  2.20  1  140  .015  .14 
 
 
Age 
 Age was analyzed with regard to participation in extracurricular activities. A 
descriptive analysis indicated that of the 142 participants, 50% (N = 71) were 19 years of 
age with a mean extracurricular score of 4.24 and a standard deviation of 3.747. Of the 39 
participant 27.5% were 20 years of age with a mean extracurricular score of 4.28 and a 
standard deviation of 3.93. For participants who were 21 and older (22.5% N = 32) the 
mean was 5.81 and the standard deviation was 3.402 (see Table 4). 
 
Table 4 
Participation Score in Extracurricular Activities by Age (N = 142) 
Age N Mean Standard Deviation 
1   71   4.24   3.747 
 
2   39   4.28   3.933 
 
3   32   5.81   3.402  
 
 Total 142 4.61 3.757 
 
 
65 
The Analysis of Variance results did not reach statistical significance (see Table 
5). It was found that students younger than 20 years old had lower mean extracurricular 
scores than those 20 years old or older.  
 
Table 5 
Analysis of Variance for Age Effect 
Source  F  df1  df2  p 
 
Age  2.17  2  139  .118 
 
Ethnicity 
 With regard to ethnicity and participation in extracurricular activities, there were 
46 African American students, (32.4%), with a mean extracurricular score of 2.76 and a 
standard deviation of 3.361. There were 95 Caucasian students (66.9%) with a mean 
extracurricular score of 5.52 and a standard deviation of 3.537. In addition, there was one 
participant who was excluded from this data analysis because the student was neither 
African American nor Caucasian. 
 
 
66 
Table 6 
Students? Participation Score in Extracurricular Activities by Ethnicity (N = 141) 
Ethnicity N % Mean Standard Deviation 
African American  46 32.4 2.76 3.361 
Caucasian  95 66.9 5.52 3.537 
 
 
 The ANOVA test yielded statistically significant results (see Table 7) indicating 
that ethnicity does affect students? participation in extracurricular activities as assessed 
by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey questionnaire. African Americans had lower 
mean scores than their Caucasian counterparts. In addition, the ANOVA resulted in a 
large effect size of .12 and a p value of .001, which was statistically significant. 
 
Table 7 
Analysis of Variance for Ethnicity Effect 
Source F df1 df2 ?2 p 
Ethnicity 18.66 1 139 .12 .001 
 
Academic Class Standing 
 The students in this study were divided by academic class standing into two tiers: 
freshmen and sophomores (see Table 8). 
 
 
67 
Table 8 
Mean and Standard Deviation of Students? Participation Score in Extracurricular 
Activities by Academic Class Standing (N = 142) 
Class Standing N %  Mean Standard Deviation 
Freshmen  59 41.5 3.64 3.067 
Sophomore 83 58.5 5.29 4.059 
 
The ANOVA resulted in a p value of .010, which was not significant (see Table 
9). However, it was found that the students? academic class standing and participation in 
extracurricular activities mean scores differed. The results indicated that sophomores had 
a higher level of participation in extracurricular activities than freshmen.  
 
Table 9 
Analysis of Variance for Academic Level Effect 
Source F df1 df2 ?2 p 
Academic Level 6.889 1 140 .047 .010 
 
Academic Cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA) 
 The Campus-Life Involvement Survey also measured participation in 
extracurricular activities by academic cumulative grade point average. Academic grade 
point was divided into four categories; (1) 0.00 to 1.99 (D), (2) 2.00 to 2.99 (C), (3) 3.00 
to 3.5 (B), and (4) 3.51 to 4.00 (A). Of the student participants surveyed, there were 48 
 
68 
students (33.8%) with a cumulative GPA of 0.00 to 1.99; 37 students (26.1%) with a 
cumulative GPA of 2.00 to 2.99; 30 students (21.%) with a cumulative GPA of 3.00 to 
3.5; and 27 students (19%) with a cumulative GPA of 3.51 to 4.00 (see Table 10). 
 
Table 10 
Students? Participation Score in Extracurricular Activities by Grade Point Average (N = 
142) 
Grade Point Average N % 
0.00 to 1.99 GPA 48 33.8% 
2.00 to 2.99 GPA 37 26.1% 
3.00 to 3.50 GPA 30 21% 
3.51 to 4.00 GPA 27 19% 
 
Results from the analysis yielded a large effect size of .231 and a p value of .001, 
which suggested statistically significant differences among the groups (see Table 11). 
The group with a GPA of ?A? scored the highest (mean = 6.69, SD = 3.782) on the 
Campus-Life Involvement Survey questionnaire. The group with a GPA of ?C and 
below? scored the lowest (mean = 2.54, SD = 2.797). The group with a GPA of ?B? 
scored between the other groups (mean = 5.08, SD = 3.419). A Bonferroni post hoc test 
was used to make pair wise comparisons among the three groups. The post hoc results 
suggested significant differences existed between the ?A? group and the ?B? group, as 
well as between the ?A? group and the ?C and below? group. There was no statistically 
significant difference found between the ?B? group and the ?C? group (see Table 12).  
 
69 
Table 11 
Analysis of Variance for Academic Level Effect 
Source  F df1 df2 ?2 p 
Academic Level 20.82 2 139 .231 <.001 
 
Table 12 
Bonferroni Post Hoc for Academic Level Effect 
  
GPA Mean 
Difference 
(1-J) 
Std. 
Error 
Sig. 95% 
Confidence 
Interval 
     
Lower Bond 
 
Upper Bond 
 
A B -2.54* .701 <.001 -4.24 -.84 
 
 C -4.14* .650 .001 -5.72 -2.57 
 
B C -1.61 .726 .086 -3.37 .15 
 
The mean difference is statistically significant at the .05 level. 
 
Average Employment Status 
 Average employment status was analyzed with regards to participation in 
extracurricular activities as measured by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey. A 
descriptive analysis indicated that of the 142 participants, 47.9% (N = 68) worked 0-10 
hours a week, 30.3% (N = 43) worked 11-20 hours a week, and 21.8% (N = 31) worked 
more than 20 hours a week (see Table 13). 
 
 
70 
Table 13 
Students? Participation Score in Extracurricular Activities by Employment (N = 142) 
Employment N % 
Work 0-10 hrs./weekly 59 41.5 
Work 11-20 hrs./weekly 52 36.6 
Work 21 + hrs./weekly 31 21.8 
 
Results of the ANOVA yielded a p value of .001 that was statistically significant 
at the .008 level (see Table 14). It was found that the group of students who worked 0-10 
hours a week scored lower (Mean = 2.27, SD = 2.42) than the group of students who 
worked 11 to 20 hours (Mean = 6.29, SD = 3.56) and the group of students who worked 
more than 20 hours a week (Mean = 6.23, SD = 3.90). This study found that the more a 
student works, the more likely he or she is to participate in extracurricular activities (see 
Table 15). 
 
Table 14 
Analysis of Variance for Employment Effect 
Source F df1 df2 ?2 p 
Employment 12.76 12 139 .155 .001 
 
 
71 
Table 15 
Multiple Comparisons 
Dependent Variable: EXT. SCORE 
Bonferroni 
Employment (I)hour1 (J)hour1 Mean 
Difference 
Std. 
Error 
Sig. 95% Confidence 
Interval 
 
 (I-J) 
  
 
Lower 
Bond 
 
Upper 
Bond 
 
0-10 hrs 1.00 2.00 -6.062(*) 1.134 .000 -8.81 -3.31 
  3.00 -3.742(*) .553 .000 -5.08 -2.40 
11-20 hrs 2.00 1.00 6.062(*) 1.134 .000 3.31 8.81 
  3.00 2.320 1.119 .120 -.39 5.03 
21 + hrs 3.00 1.00 3.742(*) .553 .000 2.40 5.08 
 2.00 -2.320 1.119 .120 -5.03 .39 
 
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level. 
 
Summary 
 In summary, the analysis indicated that the mean levels of students involved in 
extracurricular activities by gender was not statistically significant. However, the mean 
participation of female respondents in extracurricular activities was higher than that of 
male respondents. 
 The mean participation level of students involved in extracurricular activities was 
not statistically significantly different based on age. However, the students who were 
 
72 
older were more likely to participate in extracurricular activities than those who were 
younger based on the group means. 
 The mean participation of students in extracurricular activities was statistically 
significantly different based on ethnicity. Caucasian students participated in 
extracurricular activities more than did African American students. 
 The mean participation levels of students involved in extracurricular activities 
was not statistically significantly different based on marital status. There was not a 
statistically significant difference between student participation in extracurricular 
activities means scores with regard to academic class standing. However, sophomores 
participated more in extracurricular activities than did freshmen. 
 The mean participation scores of students by academic cumulative grade point 
average was statistically significantly different. Students who had grade point averages of 
3.51 to 4.00 participated in extracurricular activities more than students who had grade 
point averages of 3.00 to 3.50, 2.00 to 2.99, and 1.99 and below. 
 The mean participation scores of students as measured by employment status 
were statistically significant with regard to student employment. Students who were 
employed were more involved in extracurricular activities than students who were 
unemployed. The more a student worked per week, the more often the student 
participated in extracurricular activities. 
 
 
73 
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
 
 This chapter is divided into five categories. The first section is a brief summary of 
the purpose and design of the study. The second and third sections present the findings 
and conclusions drawn from the analysis of the data. The fourth and fifth sections consist 
of the implications and recommendations. 
 
Purpose 
 The purpose of the study was to determine the mean level of involvement in 
extracurricular activities of enrolled students at a small, Southern, open-admission 
comprehensive community college and its relationship, if any, to gender, age, ethnicity, 
marital status, current academic class standing, grade point average, and employment 
status. The sample size of 142 respondents was utilized for this study. The research 
method used in this study was the descriptive research design. 
 A review of the related literature revealed that individuals who had participated in 
extracurricular activities at community colleges were more satisfied with their 
experiences and developed a sense of belonging to the campus community. Individuals 
who participate in extracurricular activities were more likely to persist in college than 
students who did not participate. Furthermore, individuals had significantly positive 
attitudes toward their involvement. Finally, various research studies on participation of 
 
74 
students in extracurricular activities revealed that the impact of the undergraduate 
experience is linked to quality of campus life. Basically, students who spend more time 
on the campus and who are involved in activities have a higher success rate. 
 The sample population of this study consisted of 142 students enrolled in the 
Spring semester 2006 at Lurleen B. Wallace Community College, a small Southern, 
open-admission, comprehensive community college that has campuses located in 
Andalusia, Greenville, Opp and Luverne Alabama. The sample population was randomly 
selected from approximately 1,300 students. The Campus-Life Involvement Survey 
(CLIS) developed by the researcher was utilized to assess the differences between 
students? mean levels of participation in extracurricular activities by certain demographic 
variables. For the purpose of statistical analysis, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) 
technique was used for this study. The research questions were tested at the .05 
probability level. 
 
Findings 
 A summary of the results of data analysis is presented as follows. The mean 
extracurricular participation level of female students was greater than that of male student 
respondents. The mean extracurricular participation level of students who were younger 
than 20 years old was lower than that of student respondents who were 20 years old or 
older. Caucasian students participated in extracurricular activities more than African 
American students. 
 
75 
 Students who were single (unmarried) participated more in extracurricular 
activities than other groups of marital categories. Sophomores participated more in 
extracurricular activities than freshmen. 
 Students who had a cumulative grade point average of 3.00 to 3.50 GPA and a 
3.51 to 4.00 GPA participated in more extracurricular activities than student respondents 
with other cumulative grade point averages. 
 Students who worked participated more in extracurricular activities than students 
who did not work. This difference was significant between students who did not work or 
worked 10 hours or less per week in comparison to students who worked more than 11 
hours a week. 
 
Conclusions 
 Based on the findings of this study, the researcher formulated the following 
conclusions. 
1. Males and females have an equal participation rate in campus life 
involvement in extracurricular activities by gender when measured by the 
Campus-Life Involvement Survey. 
2. Age is not a statistically significant predictor of campus life involvement 
in campus life in extracurricular activities by age when measured by the 
Campus-Life Involvement Survey. 
3. Race/ethnicity is a statistically significant predictor of campus life 
involvement in extracurricular activities by ethnicity when measured by 
the Campus-Life Involvement Survey. 
 
76 
4. Marriage is not a statistically significant predictor of campus life 
involvement in extracurricular activities by marital status when measured 
by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey. 
5. Academic standing is not a statistically significant predictor of campus life 
involvement in extracurricular activities by academic class standing when 
measured by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey. 
6. Grade Point Average is a statistically statistical significant predictor of 
campus life involvement in extracurricular activities by cumulative grade 
point average when measured by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey. 
7. Employment status is a statistically significant predictor of campus life 
involvement in extracurricular activities by average employment status 
when measured by the Campus-Life Involvement Survey. 
 
Implications 
 The results of this study were expected to provide significant data for student 
affairs and community college administrators and academicians with information and 
insight regarding the extent of student involvement in extracurricular activities and their 
persistence in attaining academic success. The findings of this study may be used as a 
basis in evaluating community college extracurricular activities. The study provides a 
data analysis framework for examining participation in extracurricular activities 
according to predetermined demographic variables when measured by the Campus-Life 
Involvement Survey. The findings and conclusions may not be used to make generalized 
 
77 
statements about other community colleges since their extracurricular activities may 
differ from Lurleen B. Wallace Community College. 
 
Recommendations 
 The following recommendations are made with regard to this study: 
1. It is recommended that additional research be conducted using a larger 
sample size and include other community colleges. 
2. It is recommended that more research be conducted to develop an 
instrument that could be used generically at any community college. 
3. It is recommended that Lurleen B. Wallace Community College find a 
way to attract greater participation from ethnic groups other than 
Caucasian and African American student groups. 
4. It is recommended that two-year community colleges find ways to attract 
participation from more married, divorced, and widowed students in 
extracurricular activities. 
5. It is recommended that two-year community colleges find ways to attract 
more students who work less than 10 hours a week to participate in 
extracurricular activities. 
 
78 
REFERENCES 
 
Arnold, R. E. (2004). Demographics and issues of retention. Black Issues in Higher 
Education, 21(18), 47. 
Astin, A. W. (1997). How ?good? is your retention rate? Research in Higher Education, 
38(6), 647-658. 
Astin, W. A. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal 
of College Student Development, 37(2), 123-134. 
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. 
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308. 
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Belikova, L. F. (2002). Students? attitudes toward extracurricular activity in an institution 
of higher learning. Russian Education and Society, 44(2), 73-85. 
Bers, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students: The 
influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in 
Higher Education, 32(5), 539-556. 
Bohr, L., & Pascarella, E. (1994). Cognitive effects of two-year and four-year 
institutions: A preliminary study. Community College Review, 22(1), 4, 8. 
 
79 
Bonham, L. A., & Luckie, J. I. (1993). Community college retention: Differentiating 
among stopouts, dropouts, and optouts. Community College Journal of Research 
and Practice, 17, 543-554. 
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Education research: An introduction (5
th
 ed.). New 
York: Longman. 
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1983). Education research: An introduction (4
th
 ed.). New 
York: Longman. 
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: 
Harper and Row. 
Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1968). Higher education in transition: A history of 
American colleges and universities, 1636-1968. New York: Harper & Row. 
Brubacker, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of 
American colleges and universities (4
th
 ed.). London: Transaction. 
Burr, P. L., Burr R., & Novak, L. F. (1999). Student retention is more complicated than 
merely keeping the students your have today: Toward a ?seamless retention 
theory.? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 
l(3), 239-253. 
Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. S.(1992). The convergence 
between two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 63, 
143-164. 
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Casta?eda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural 
equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of 
Higher Education, 64(2), 123-139. 
 
80 
Chickering, A. W (1974). Commuting versus resident students. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass. 
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Chickering, A. W., & Associates. (1981). The modern American college. San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass. 
Coats, J. H., (2003). An investigation of factors contributing to student involvement in 
extracurricular activities. Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University. Dissertation 
Abstracts Internationals, 64(11), 396 RA. 
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college. San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass. 
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1987). The collegiate function of community colleges: 
Fostering higher learning through curriculum and student transfer. San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Cooper, D. L., Healy, M. A., & Simpson, J. (1994) Student development through 
involvement: Specific changes over time. Journal of College Student 
Development, (35), 98-103. 
Cross, P. (1981). Adults as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Dougherty, K. J. (1992). Community colleges and baccalaureate attainment. The Journal 
of Higher Education, 63(2), 188-214. 
Downie, N. M., & Starry, A. R. (1977). Descriptive and inferential statistics. New York: 
Harper & Row. 
Erikson, E. H. (1978). Adulthood. New York: Norton. 
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. 
 
81 
Feldman, K. A. (1971). Some methods for assessing college impacts. Sociology of 
Education, 44(2), 133-150. 
Ferguson, G. A., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education 
(6
th
 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Furr, S. R., & Elling, T. W. (2000). The influence of work on college student 
development. NASPA Journal, 37(2), 454-470. 
Gardner, J. N. (1989). College is only the beginning: A student guide to higher education 
(2
nd
 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 
Garms, I. W. (1977). Financing Community Colleges. Teachers College, Columbia 
University. 
Grimes, S. K. (1997). Underprepared community college students: Characteristics, 
persistence, and academic success. Community College Journal of Research & 
Practice, 21(1), 47-57. 
Grosset, J. M. (1993). A profile of community college stop-outs. Community College 
Review, 20(4), 51-59. 
Hand, H. C. (1938). Campus activities. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Karabel, J. (1972). Community college and social stratification. Harvard Review, 42, 
521-562. 
Kruger, M. (1999). A new world; the evolving role of community college and the 
community college professional. Campus Activities Programming, 32(3), 80-85. 
Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 124(1), 
126-136. 
 
82 
Lavelle, E., & O?Ryan, L. W. (2001). Predicting the social commitments of college 
students. NASPA Journal, 38(2), 238-253. 
Levinson, D., Darrow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & McKee, B. (1978). The seasons of 
a man?s life. New York: Knopf. 
Loevinger, J. L. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass. 
Lowenthad, M. F., Thurnher, M., & Chiriboga, D. (1975). Four stages of life. San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Lucus, J., Nejman, M. (1993). Evaluation of student activities through surveys of Harper 
students and employees. Office of Planning & Research, 21(6), 289-364. 
Monroe, C. R. (1972). Profile of the community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F.(1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination 
on the adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of Higher Education, 
67(2), 118-148. 
Ortiz, A. M. (1995). Enhancing student development in community colleges. Community 
College Review, 22(4), 63-70. 
Owen, T. R. (2003). Retention implications of a relationship between age and GPA. 
College Student Journal, 37(2), 181-189. 
Parker, L. B. (1992). Managing the college system. Black Collegian, 23(1), 1-6. 
Pascarella, E. T. (1997). It?s time we started paying attention to community college 
students. About Campus, 14-17. 
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review 
of Educational Research, 50, 545-595. 
 
83 
Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences on students? openness 
to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. The Journal of Higher 
Education, 67(2), 174-203. 
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-
generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and 
outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(3), 249-283. 
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. San Francisco: 
Jossey-Bass. 
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and 
voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher 
Education, 51(1), 60-75. 
Phillippe, K. A., & Patton, M. (Eds.). (2000). National profile of community colleges: 
Trends & statistics (3
rd
 ed.). Washington, DC: Community College Press, 
American Association of Community Colleges. 
Riggenberg, L. T. (1989). Expanding participation of student subgroups in campus 
activities. In D. C. Roberts (Ed.), Designing campus activities to foster a sense of 
community (pp. 5-15). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Roads, R. A., & Valadez, J. R. (1996). Democracy, multiculturalism, and the community 
college: A critical perspective. New York: Garland. 
Roueche, J. E., & Roueche, S. D. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place. Washington, 
DC: The American Association of Community Colleges. 
Strom, R. D., Bernard, H. W., & Strom, S. K. (1987). Human development and learning. 
New York: Human Sciences Press. 
 
84 
Sutton, E. M., & Kimbrough, W. M. (2001). Trends in black student involvement. 
NASPA Journal, 38(1), 30-40. 
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence 
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177. 
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of 
student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623. 
Tinto, V. (1996). Reconstructing the first year of college. Planning for Higher Education, 
25(1), 1-6. 
Tinto, V. (1990). Principles of effective retention. Journal of the Freshman Year 
Experience, 2(1), 35-48. 
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. 
Chicago: University of Chicago. 
Tinto, V., & Goodsell, A. (1993). Freshman interest groups and first-year experience: 
Constructing student communities in a large university. Journal of the Freshman 
Year Experience, 6(1), 7-28. 
Tinto, V., Goodsell-Love, A., & Russo, P. (1993). Building community. Liberal 
Education, 79(4), 16-21. 
Tinto, V., Russo, P., & Kadel, S. (1994). Constructing educational communities: 
Increasing retention in challenging circumstances. Community, Technical, and 
Junior College Journal, 64(4), 26-29. 
Townsend, B. K., & Twombly, S. B. (2001). Community college: Policy in the future. 
Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing. 
 
85 
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Associates. (1989). The freshman year experience: 
Helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Vaughan, G. W. (1995). The community college story. A tale of American innovation. 
Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges. 
Watson, L. W., Terrell, M. C., & Wright, D. J. (2002). How minority students experience 
college. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC. 
Webb, M. (1989). A theoretical model of community college student degree persistence. 
Community College Review, 16(4), 42-49. 
Wieckowski, T. J. (1992). Student community service programs: The academic 
connection. NASPA Journal, 29(3), 207-212. 
Winter, D. G., McClelland, D. C., & Stewart, A. J. (1981). A new case for the liberal 
arts. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Zimmerman, C. (2002). To motivate others, you must be a L.E.A.D.E.R. Campus 
Activities Programming, 35(3), 44-47. 
 
 
 
 
 86 
APPENDICES 
 
 
 
 87 
APPENDIX A 
 
PERCENTAGES OF AFRICAN AMERICAN AND HISPANIC POPULATION 
 
BY STATE, COMPARED WITH ETHNIC ENROLLMENTS 
 
IN TWO-YEAR COLLEGES 
 
 
 88 
 
Percentages of African American and Hispanic Population by State, Compared with 
Ethnic Enrollments in Two-Year Colleges 
 
African American Hispanic 
 
State 
Population 
Two-Year 
College 
Enrollment 
 
State 
Population 
Two-Year 
College 
Enrollment 
Alabama 26.1% 20.3% 1.0% 1.8% 
Alaska 3.9 0.3 4.0 1.3 
Arizona 3.7 3.6 22.7 18.5 
Arkansas 16.1 16.1 2.1 1.6 
California 7.5 8.8 31.6 23.8 
Colorado 4.3 4.1 14.6 14.2 
Connecticut 9.4 12.7 8.5 8.7 
Delaware 19.8 17.3 3.7 2.9 
Florida 15.4 13.8 15.4 16.2 
Georgia 28.7 29.0 3.1 1.8 
Hawaii 2.8 1.1 8.1 2.0 
Idaho 0.6 0.3 7.4 3.3 
Illinois 15.3 14.4 10.5 12.8 
Indiana 8.4 8.6 2.6 1.9 
Iowa 2.0 2.7 2.1 1.7 
Kansas 5.9 6.2 5.6 7.0 
Kentucky 7.3 7.7 0.9 1.0 
Louisiana 32.4 31.3 2.7 3.1 
Maine 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 
Maryland 28.1 25.5 3.9 2.9 
Massachusetts 6.6 9.1 6.3 7.8 
Michigan 14.3 11.3 2.8 2.3 
Minnesota 3.1 3.6 1.9 1.5 
Mississippi 36.5 30.5 0.9 0.5 
Missouri 11.3 11.4 1.7 1.5 
Montana 0.4 0.1 1.8 1.3 
Nebraska 4.1 3.9 4.6 2.5 
Nevada 7.7 6.2 16.8 11.4 
New Hampshire 0.8 1.8 1.6 2.2 
New Jersey 14.7 14.1 12.6 12.0 
New Mexico 2.6 2.5 40.7 36.9 
New York 17.7 14.7 14.6 12.3 
North Carolina 22.0 21.8 2.3 1.5 
North Dakota 0.6 1.0 1.1 0.6 
(table continues)
 
 89 
 Percentages of African American and Hispanic Population by State, Compared with 
Ethnic Enrollments in Two-Year Colleges (continued) 
 
African American Hispanic 
 
State 
Population 
Two-Year 
College 
Enrollment 
 
State 
Population 
Two-Year 
College 
Enrollment 
Ohio 11.6 11.8 1.6 1.8 
Oklahoma 7.8 7.5 4.1 2.7 
Oregon 1.9 1.8 6.4 3.9 
Pennsylvania 9.8 13.2 2.7 2.5 
Rhode Island 5.1 5.7 6.9 7.0 
South Carolina 29.8 27.6 1.4 1.2 
South Dakota 0.7 0.3 1.2 0.3 
Tennessee 16.6 15.0 1.2 0.8 
Texas 12.3 11.2 30.2 26.7 
Utah 0.9 0.7 7.1 4.1 
Vermont 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.7 
Virginia 20.1 16.3 3.9 3.1 
Washington 3.5 4.8 6.5 4.5 
West Virginia 3.1 2.9 0.6 0.6 
Wisconsin 5.6 6.0 2.7 2.5 
Wyoming 0.9 0.8 6.1 3.6 
 
Sources: National Center for Education Statistics, 1999a; U.S. Census Bureau, 1999 
 
 
 90 
APPENDIX B 
 
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF STATE POPULATIONS AGES 18 TO 44 
ATTENDING COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN FALL 1999 
 
 
 
 91 
 
 
Estimated Percentage of State Populations Ages 18 to 44 Attending Community College 
in Fall 1999. 
 
State 
 
Estimated Percentage 
Alabama 3.9 
Alaska 0.3 
Arizona 8.5 
Arkansas 3.4 
California 8.2 
Colorado 4.4 
Connecticut 3.1 
Delaware 4.0 
Florida 5.3 
Georgia 2.0 
Hawaii 5.3 
Idaho 1.9 
Illinois 6.8 
Indiana 1.8 
Iowa 5.9 
Kansas 6.6 
Kentucky 2.6 
Louisiana 2.3 
Maine 1.7 
Maryland 4.9 
Massachusetts 3.1 
Michigan 4.9 
Minnesota 4.8 
Mississippi 5.3 
Missouri 3.6 
Montana 2.0 
Nebraska 5.4 
Nevada 6.0 
New Hampshire 2.0 
New Jersey 3.7 
New Mexico 7.6 
New York 3.1 
North Carolina 4.8 
North Dakota 3.5 
Ohio 
Oklahoma 4.5 
Oregon 6.0 
(table continues) 
 
 
 92 
 
 
State 
 
Estimated Percentage 
Pennsylvania 2.2 
Rhode Island 3.7 
South Carolina 4.2 
South Dakota 2.0 
Tennessee 3.3 
Texas 5.1 
Utah 3.5 
Vermont 2.0 
Virginia 4.7 
Washington 7.2 
West Virginia 0.9 
Wisconsin 4.9 
Wyoming 9.0 
U.S. Overall 4.8 
 
Sources: National Center for Education Statistics, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 
 
 
 93 
APPENDIX C 
 
A LONGITUDINAL MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL DEPARTURE 
 
 
 
 Formal 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Informal 
Academic 
Performance 
Faculty/Staff 
Interactions 
Formal 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Informal
Extracurricular 
Activities 
Extracurricular 
Activities 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Intentions 
Performance 
Goal and 
Institutional 
Commitment 
Academic 
Integration 
Social 
Integration 
External 
Commitments 
Departure 
Decision 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Intentions 
Performance 
Goal and 
Institutional 
Commitments 
External 
Commitments 
Family 
Background 
Skills 
and 
Abilities 
Prior 
Schooling 
Social System 
External Community 
 
 
  A Longitudinal Model of Institutional Departure 
 
  Pre-Entry    Goals/   Institutional        Goals/   
  Attributes   Commitments   Experiences   Integration   Commitments   Outcome 
 
     Academic System  
95 
 
 
 
 
 
 95 
APPENDIX D 
 
CAMPUS LIFE INVOLVEMENT SURVEY 
 
 
 
 96 
Campus-Life Involvement Survey 
 
 
Directions: This survey contains two sections: section one, demographic information; and 
section two, extracurricular activities. Please respond to all questions by marking (X) in 
the appropriate space. 
 
Section I - Demographic Information 
 
A.  What is your gender? 
 
1)____Male 
2)____Female 
 
B.  What is your age? 
 
1)____18 years old 
2)____19 years old 
3)____20 years old 
4)____21 years old 
5)____22 years old 
6)____23 years old or older 
 
C. With which racial/ethnic group do you identify? (If you are of multi-racial/ 
multi-ethnic background, please select one group with which you primarily 
identify.) 
 
  1)____African-American 
2)____Asian-American 
  3)____Caucasian 
4)____Hispanic 
  5)____Native-American 
6)____Other ethnicity 
 
D. What is your marital status? 
 
  1)____Single 
  2)____Married 
  3)____Separated 
  4)____Divorced 
  5)____Widowed  
 
 
 
 
 97 
 Section I - Demographic Information continued... 
 
E. What is your current class standing? 
 
1)____Freshman 
2)____Sophomore 
 
F. Cumulative Grade Point Average (Current): 
 
1)____00.00 to 1.99 GPA 
2)____2.0 to 2.50 GPA 
3)____2.51 to 3.0 GPA 
4)____3.01 to 3.5 GPA 
5)____3.51 to 4.0 GPA 
 
 G. What is your average employment status while enrolled? 
 
  1)____Not employed 
  2)____Work 1 to 10 hours 
  3)____Work 11 to 20 hours per week 
  4)____Work more than 20 hours per week 
 
 
 
Directions: Please respond to by marking (X) in the space provided, indicating your level 
of participation (often, never, occasionally) in extracurricular activities listed below.  
 
Section II  
 
Extracurricular Activities 
 Never Occasionally Often 
Do you participate in the following? 
 
Student Activity Projects 
 
Adult Re-Entry Club ____  ____  ____ 
 
Civitan Club  ____ ____  ____ 
 
Skills USA ____  ____  ____ 
 
Student Government Association  ____  ____  ____ 
 
 
 98 
Religious Organizations 
 
Christian Student Ministries ____  ____  ____ 
 
Ethnic Student Organization ____  ____  ____ 
 (not otherwise listed) 
 
 
Other Organizations
 
Ambassadors ____  ____  ____ 
 
Departmental Clubs ____  ____  ____ 
 
Ensemble ____  ____  ____ 
 
Honorary Societies ____  ____  ____ 
 
Interclub Council ____  ____  ____ 
 
Intercollegiate Athletics ____  ____  ____ 
 
 
 
 
 
 99 
APPENDIX E 
 
AUBURN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD  
 
PROTOCOL SUBMISSION 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 101 
 
 
 
 102 
 
 
 
 103 
 
 
 
 104 
APPENDIX F 
 
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD LETTER OF SUPPORT OF RESEARCH FROM 
THE PRESIDENT OF LURLEEN B. WALLACE COMMUNITY COLLEGE 
 
 
 
 105 
 
 
 
 106 
APPENDIX G 
 
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD LETTER OF APPROVAL OF RESEARCH 
 
 
 107 
 
 
 
 
 
 108 
APPENDIX H 
 
RESEARCH SURVEY CONSENT LETTER 
 
 
 109 
 
 
 
 110