Objective/Research Question: This study explores how trauma exposure impacts academic performance among community college students, specifically examining whether mental health wellbeing and resilience mediate this relationship. The study was guided by the following research question: How do mental health wellbeing and resilience mediate the relationship between trauma and academic outcomes?Methods: Using a cross-sectional survey design, we collected data from 674 students across four community colleges. The survey measured Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), College Trauma Exposure (CTE), mental health wellbeing, resilience, and self-reported GPA. Two serial mediation models were tested using hierarchical regression and Sobel tests.Results: Both ACEs and CTEs predicted lower GPA through indirect pathways. In the ACE model, the relationship with GPA was fully mediated by mental health and resilience. In contrast, the CTE model showed both direct and indirect effects on GPA. Additionally, ACEs significantly predicted CTEs, supporting a developmental cascade. Across models, mental health was a strong predictor of resilience, emphasizing that resilience is not a static trait but a developmental process influenced by psychological wellbeing.Conclusions/Contributions: Findings underscore the need for trauma-informed practices in community colleges, shifting to institutional responsibility for supporting mental health and fostering resilience. This study contributes a novel mediation model to the literature and calls for systemic strategies that recognize resilience as an outcome of supportive, psychologically safe educational environments. Future research should use longitudinal methods and explore moderating effects of identity and institutional context.
Objective: This study investigates the perspectives of faculty, administrators, and counselors on a mathematics reform that eliminated most remedial mathematics classes at a Hispanic-serving community college in California.Methods: This study uses qualitative analytical methods to examine interviews with nine mathematics faculty and 10 administrators, counselors, and professional development leaders at the college. Institutional statistics showed that overall mathematics enrollment fell, and course failure rates remained consistent before and after the reform. Interviews were analyzed using an iterative qualitative method to generate themes organized by participants' institutional roles.Results: The stakeholders' experience of the reform differed by role. Non-instructional staff highlighted the reform's success, focusing on the metric of throughput. Instructional faculty expressed frustration with the reform and primarily focused on course pass rates and students' level of preparation. Throughput, a metric the state used to assess the reform, improved.Conclusion/Contribution: We discuss implications in relation to how the reform effort shifted the institutional mission, and how this Hispanic-serving community college serves its students.
Objective: This study examines whether New Jersey’s state-funded merit-aid program, which was designed to benefit community college students, including first-time full-time student enrollment, associate degree completion, and transferring out. We compared STARS to programs in other states by applying a typology that categorizes state-funded merit-aid programs by whether they are designed to be inclusive of community college students. Methods: Using institution-level data between 2001 and 2021, we used propensity score matching to select comparable community colleges to be included in the untreated group, as well as difference-in-differences and event study approaches to test our hypotheses about the relationship between STARS program adoption and community college outcomes. Results: We found that New Jersey’s STARS programs increased White students’ enrollment and associate degree completion in community colleges relative to community colleges in states with merit-aid programs that disproportionately favor 4-year students. However, we did not find the same relationship for non-White students. It was unlikely that the enrollment increase was the result of community colleges siphoning off enrollments from other higher education sectors. Additionally, we did not find any evidence that STARS reduced students transferring out before completing credentials. Conclusions/Contributions: By examining a unique merit-aid program focused on community college students, we discuss implications to adopt and design more equitable financial aid policies to support community college enrollment, completion, and transfer. Our results help advance current scholarship by considering tensions among access, social mobility, and merit, while studying whether merit-aid programs can serve as an equitable mechanism for improving community college outcomes.
Objective/Research Question: The purpose of this study was to measure the relationship between High-Impact Practices (HIPs) and engagement at community colleges. The research question guiding this study was: Accounting for student background and institutional characteristics, how do student-level individual participation and institution-level average participation in HIPs relate to engagement measures of institutional practices and student behaviors at community colleges?Methods: Using data from 79,755 respondents to the Community College Survey of Student Engagement from 455 institutions, the relationship between HIP participation and engagement was tested via hierarchical linear modeling. This analysis measured the relationship for both student participation (student-level) and institutional average (institution-level) with three measures of engagement: academic challenge, support for learners, and student-faculty interaction.Results: Almost all student-level HIPs were statistically, significantly, and positively related to these measures; however, the magnitude of specific practices such as class attendance, tutoring, and service-learning held the highest practical significance. Institution-level measures held similar, positive relationships with engagement; however, these relationships were not as wide-spread across all HIPs.Contributions: For the last decade, researchers have related participation in high-impact practices (HIPs) to engagement among students at 4-year institutions. The same fundamental understanding for community colleges was not addressed in the literature until this research. From these results, the student-level relationships advance a fundamental understanding between HIP participation and engagement, whereas the institutional-level relationships highlight specific experiences to guide community college policy and practice. Equity concerns of underrepresented students' participation are also presented.
Research Questions: Using a sample of 56,807 community college students and 10,343 faculty from 105 community colleges, this study asked which faculty behaviors were associated with student learning, and if there were differences in those behaviors based on faculty type.Methods: Our two-stage analysis used data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) and the Community College Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (CCFSSE). We used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to identify faculty practices that predict student learning, with a random-effects ANOVA model and a means-as-outcomes model. After identifying the faculty practices that most strongly predicted learning, we identified differences in frequency of their use based on faculty type.Results: Three of the four strongest indicators of student learning were an emphasis on (a) support to help students succeed, (b) contact among students from different backgrounds, and (c) amount of study time. Talking about career plans with an instructor or advisor predicted career learning, academic learning, and personal development. Full-time faculty, faculty teaching career and technical education, developmental faculty, and faculty who had taught a course more than 20 times used these effective practices more than other faculty.Conclusions: Introducing students to institutional support for their success was the strongest predictor in the model, but part-time faculty, faculty teaching only college-level courses, and faculty with less experience in a course engaged in this behavior less often than their peers. Part-time faculty may need more information about support available to students, and college-level faculty could benefit by emphasizing support services.
