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

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

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

4. Student Outcomes 4
and the all four-year university students except for a temporary drop in grade point average
(GPA). The all four-year college students graduated at a higher rate than the transfer students
(Seybert, 2002).
The lateral transfer of students from one community college to another may adversely
affect the outcomes of the college from which the student transferred. The student may be
reflected as a drop out rather than transferring out and give the college a higher attrition rate
(Bahr, 2009; Bailey, Calcagno, Jenkins, Leinbach, & Kienzel, 2006).
Career and Occupational Outcomes
Measurement of career and occupational outcomes may be done by survey of employers
and graduates. Placement in the work force and salary information determines outcome. Passing
of credentialing exams is another good way to assess outcome. Career and occupational
outcomes have had greater success in that there are more concrete ways to evaluate the student
outcomes (Seybert, 2002).
Institutional Factors
Institutional characteristics influence the success or failure of the students. Some
institutional characteristics are tutoring, size, number of contingent faculty, balance between
certificate and degrees awarded, and the governance of the community college. Institutional
finances and how finances influenced student graduation rates was a consideration.
Tutoring
A study conducted by Hendrikson, Yang, Love, & Hall (2005) demonstrated that
academic support services such as, one on one tutoring, study groups, computer aided instruction
and helping students develop learning strategies improved student outcomes. Researchers
compared the tutored students to the nontutored students and found that tutored students had a

5. Student Outcomes 5
higher grade point average and retention rate. The researchers did not address the fact that
students going to tutoring may be more motivated to succeed than nontutored students.
Size
Past research (Bailey, et al. 2005; Bailey, et al. 2006) found that graduation rates go
down as the school size increases. Smaller institutions have the ability to personalize the college
experience for the students. Research demonstrated that community college size benefited the
traditional age student using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988.
Number of contingent faculty
There are lower graduation rates in colleges with more part-time faculty (Bailey, et al.
2005). A study conducted by Jaeger (2008) found that a student that had between 76-100% of
their first year credits taught by contingent faculty were significantly less likely to persist than
those students with less than 25% contingent faculty taught coursework. Student exposure to
contingent faculty of gatekeeper coursework had a negative effect on student persistence. In this
study, for every 10% of exposure to a contingent faculty member there was a 1% drop in
students’ likelihood to earn a bachelor’s degree. The average community college student spends
50% of their time with contingent faculty; therefore this indicates a 5% decrease in their chances
of completing an associate degree. The effect of contingent faculty on students’ likeliness to
transfer to four-year degree university doubled their chances of not transferring. Two possible
reasons were identified in this study. One reason is students who have access to their instructors
do better, and contingent faculty are not as available as full-time faculty. Another reason is lack
of institutional support for part-time faculty as in office space, computers, and technological
support.
Financial

6. Student Outcomes 6
Examining SRK data, it was determined that a greater instructional expenditure per full-
time equivalents is related to higher graduation rates (Bailey, et al. 2006). The data collected was
provided by the institutions. The method of data collection created weaknesses that were
recognized by the researchers, making it important to do further research in this area.
Corporatization
A greater emphasis on occupational training or workforce development lowers graduation
rates (Bailey, et al. 2005). Researchers indicated this was the result of a greater share of
certificates awarded to students who did not graduate with a degree.
Corporatization of community colleges results in the overuse of contingent faculty. Full-
time faculty salaries are kept low because there is a large pool of adjunct faculty to teach the
courses. The overuse of contingent faculty overloads the full-time faculty with administrative
duties. The overuse of contingent faculty is detrimental to faculty, students and the quality of
education (Jones, 2008).
Student Factors
Age
A study conducted by Calcagno, et al. (2007a), used a sample of 29,421 traditional age
students of 17-20 year olds and a sample of 5,652 older students of 25-65 year olds. The study
found that older students were more likely to complete a degree after accounting for and
controlling for cognitive mathematics ability. Prior research suggested that older students were
less likely to complete a degree. Calcagno et al. removed factors that sometimes contribute to not
completing community college, like part-time students, students with children, and stopping out.
Calcagno et al. confirmed that older students graduate less but not because they were older, but
because they needed to refresh their math skills. Researchers did not include socioeconomic

7. Student Outcomes 7
information. Instead, the researchers used an indicator as in those students who received a Pell
Grant.
Calcagno, Crosta, Bailey, & Jenkins (2007b) conducted additional research using the
same data. On entrance exams the traditional age students scored higher in math and the older
students scored higher in English. On five separate measures or milestone, younger students
completed a higher percentage of programs than the older students. Enrolling in remedial
education had more of a negative impact on younger students than it did on older students. The
researchers found that after controlling for ability, older students were more likely to graduate.
Traditional age students who reached the milestones of 10 or 20 credits were more likely to
achieve a degree than traditional age students who did not reach these milestones early.
Minorities
Colleges with greater numbers of minority students have lower graduation rates (Bailey,
et al. 2005, 2006). A study conducted by Jenkins (2007) found that minority students have more
success at colleges that have programs targeted to making minorities feel welcome, such as, a
minority inclusive campus environment and specialized retention services for minorities. Some
respondents of the survey in this study felt that all community college students face obstacles and
special treatment should not be given to minority students. Others interviewed felt that as long as
there is a gap in the success rate between minority and white students, special efforts are needed.
Nontraditional Students
In a study conducted by Philibert, Allen & Elleven (2008) it was found that the
nontraditional student made up 73% of undergraduate students. Sixty-four percent of these
nontraditional students attended community college. Only 11 of the total 311 respondents in this
survey were strictly traditional students. Age was not used as a factor in classifying the

8. Student Outcomes 8
nontraditional student by these researchers. The findings suggest that the number of young
students with the burdens and baggage previously associated with older students is more than
expected. Student populations differ in how they approach the requirements of the classroom.
This research suggested that institutions that tailor their requirements to the traditional student
should reevaluate and consider the needs of the nontraditional student.
Socioeconomics
A study conducted by Bailey, et al. (2005) found that the financial resources of a
community college did not influence outcomes. Individual characteristics play a greater role in
outcomes than institutional factors. Well prepared students with economic resources are likely to
do well. Students with personal and financial responsibility challenges have a greater degree of
difficulty even in a strong college.
Remediation
According to a study by Bettinger and Long (2005), 55% of first year students of
traditional age in community college take remedial courses. Sixty percent of these students
enrolled in remedial math and 40% enrolled in remedial English. A larger percentage of the
students in remedial classes are minorities. Full-time students who were in remediation complete
5.4 fewer college credits than students not in remediation. Students who were in remediation
were 15% more likely to have stopped out of college and not receive a two-year degree.
Remedial math students were also less likely to transfer to a university and 4% less likely to
complete a four-year degree. Similar findings were discovered for students that had taken
remedial English. Comparing students in remediation to students with similar precollege test
score who did not take remedial classes demonstrated a 15% increase in students transferring to a
university. English remediation did not show any conclusive results one way or another.

9. Student Outcomes 9
Conclusion
Measuring outcomes of community colleges is different than measuring outcomes of
secondary or university programs. Community colleges have a different mission and cater to a
unique set of students. Students making lateral transfers can also make determining outcomes
difficult. A student may leave one institution and complete a program or degree at another
institution. This will result in a successful outcome only for the second institution. Vocational
programs have very measurable outcomes because the students, in most cases, need to pass a
credentialing exam. It can be a little more difficult to follow every student as they enter the
workforce. Determining the reasons for good or poor outcomes is important so that institutions
and faculty can make adjustments to improve the success rate of the students.
This literature review focused on the institutional factors and student factors that
influenced outcomes. Tutoring is an institutional factor that has a direct impact on students.
Tutoring has shown to raise students GPA and also increase their retention rates; however, many
community colleges offer free tutoring to its students or prospective students. Students that do
attend tutoring are often more motivated learners. Motivated students may influence the results
of research on tutoring and outcomes. The size of the community college seems to influence the
graduation rate in that graduation rates go down as the community college size goes up. The
research reviewed did not offer an explanation for this. There needs to be further research to
identify the causes of the affect of community college size on graduation rates. The greater the
number of part-time faculty in an institution adversely affects the quality of education. It is well
documented in current research that the student persistence rate and the likelihood of a student
obtaining a degree decreased with an increased number of contingent faculty. Many community
colleges use a large number of part-time faculty. There needs to be more research in this area to

10. Student Outcomes 10
help affect change in the governance of community colleges, by hiring more full-time faculty.
Examining SRK data it was determined that greater expenditure per full-time equivalent, the
higher the graduation rates. There should be more research in this area. More financial support
for community college is proposed to be available by the federal government. Before more
money is added to the community college coffers, it is important to know what type of
institutional factors will improve community college student outcomes. Many community
colleges are training workers for the community. Many of these programs use part-time faculty.
Part-time faculty often, also work in local companies part-time while they teach. They are paid
less than full-time faculty and they don't receive benefits. Community colleges that have a
greater emphasis on workforce education are shown to have lower graduation rates, possibly
because of the greater number of part-time faculty. More research in this area should be
conducted to determine the reason for the lower graduation rates of these community colleges.
Research suggests that older students were less likely to complete a degree, however,
research that eliminated factors that contribute to not completing a degree found that older
students are more likely to complete a degree. Factors that contribute to a student not completing
a degree are financial responsibilities, family responsibilities, and working and going to school.
These are all things more commonly affecting the older student, but Philibert, Allen, and Elleven
(2008) found that more and more younger students are affected by these issues also. Research
also shows that older students returning to school have weak math skills. This is speculated to be
because of the student being rusty in math because they have not used math as much as they use
English skills in their day to day life. A possible result of this research is for community colleges
to offer math refresher courses or workshops instead of a whole semester of remedial education.
Research shows that traditional aged students who require remedial English have less of a chance

11. Student Outcomes 11
of completing a degree. Researchers suggested that high schools should do a better job in
preparing these students for college. It is not clear whether the students who need remedial
education are less likely to complete a degree because of time constraints or because of lack of
ability. More research should be done in this area. More focused and of shorter duration type of
remedial classes may be more helpful. Community colleges with greater numbers of minority
students have a lower graduation rate. Research did not clearly identify the cause of this. One
community college had targeted programs to make the minority feel more welcome. The colleges
also had specialized retention services geared toward minority students improving the graduation
rates at these community colleges for minority students. More research should be conducted in
this area to determine the cause of the difficulties that minority students have in community
college. In the mean time, more community colleges should make efforts to have programs that
are more inclusive of minority students.
While institutional factors are important, the greater role in outcomes comes from the
individual students. The well prepared students with economic resources and have parents that
also attended college are most likely to complete their goals.

12. Student Outcomes 12
References
Bahr, P. R. (2009). College hopping: Exploring the occurrence, frequency, and consequences of
lateral transfer. The Community College Review, 36, 271-298. Retrieved July 13, 2009,
from ERIC from Ebsco database.
Bailey, T. Calcagno, J. C., Jenkins, D., Kienzel, G. & Leinbach, T. (2005, October). Community
college student success: What institutional characteristics make a difference? Community
College Research Center (Working Paper No. 3). Columbia University, New York,
Teachers College. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from ERIC from Ebsco database.
Bailey, T. Calcagno, J. C., Jenkins, D., Leinbach, T., & Kienzel, G. (2006). Is student right to
know all you should know? An analysis of community college graduation rates.
Research in Higher Education, 47, 491-519. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from ERIC from
Ebsco database.
Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2005, April). Remediation at the community college: Student
participation and outcomes. In C. A. Kozeracki (Ed.), New Directions for Community
Colleges, no. 129: Responding to the challenges of developmental education (pp. 17-26).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from ERIC from Ebsco database.
Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T., & Jenkins, D. (2007a). Does age of entrance affect
community college completion probabilities? Evidence from a discrete time hazard
model. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 218-236. Retrieved July 13, 2009,
from ERIC from Ebsco database.
Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T., & Jenkins, D. (2007b). Stepping stones to a degree: The
impact of enrollment pathways and milestones on community college student outcomes.

13. Student Outcomes 13
Research in Higher Education, 48, 775-801. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from ERIC from
Ebsco database.
Cohen, A. M. (1993, April). Analyzing community college student transfer rates. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Retrieved July 13, 2009, from ERIC from Ebsco database.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hendrikson, S. I., Yang, L., Love, B., & Hall, M. C. (2005). Assessing academic support: The
effects of tutoring on student learning outcomes. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 35(2), 56-65. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from ERIC from Ebsco database.
Jaeger, A. J. (2008). Contingent faculty and student outcomes. Academe, 94(6), 42-43. Retrieved
July 13, 2009, from ERIC from Ebsco database.
Jenkins, D. (2007). Institutional effectiveness and student success: A study of high and low
impact community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31,
945-962. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from ERIC from Ebsco database.
Jones, J. A. (2008). Foundations of corporatization: Lessons from the community college. The
History Teacher, 41, 213-217. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from ERIC from Ebsco database.
Philibert, N., Allen, J., & Elleven, R. (2008). Nontraditional students in community colleges and
the model of college outcomes for adults. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 32, 582-596. Retrieved July 13, 2009, from ERIC from Ebsco database.
Quanty, M., Dixon, R., & Ridley, D. (1998). A new paradigm for evaluating transfer success.
Assessment Update, 10(2), 12-13.

14. Student Outcomes 14
Seybert, J. A. (2002, May). Assessing student learning outcomes. In T. H. Bers & H. D. Calhoun
(Eds.), New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 117: Next steps for the community
college (pp. 55-65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Retrieved July 13, 2009, from ERIC
from Ebsco database.