DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The preceding chapters have laid the foundations for the final chapter,
“Discussion and Implications.” Chapter One, Introduction, explained the purpose of the study and provided the background and significance of the study. Chapter Two,
Literature Review: The community college transfer, presented a breadth of existing knowledge that pertains to the study’s research questions. Chapter Three described the methods by which the study was developed and executed. Chapter Four, Findings, is a detailed account of the researcher’s interpretations from the thematic analysis, as well as information about the study site and participants. Building upon these foundations, Chapter Five, Discussion and Implications, will first present how the study’s findings specifically connect to each of the four research questions. Then a description of the implications to both practice and future research are presented. A summary of the connections between the study’s findings and existing literature is then presented. Finally, Chapter Five will close with a discussion of final thoughts and brief summary.
This descriptive ethnographic interview study describes how a group of faculty at one small, private, comprehensive university perceive, describe and characterize
community college transfer students and the institutions the students previously attended. The research questions specifically address the student relationship with the faculty member, academic preparedness, academic success, and the perception of the community college. The aims of this research were to develop a rich description of how faculty
perceive these students and their relationships with them, as well as to develop an
understanding of how the faculty perceive the community college sector in general. This previously undiscovered story is significant because of how the findings relate to student success and the implications for practitioners and faculty at institutions like the study site.
Research Questions and Findings
This section will address each research question individually, drawing on the themes that emerged from the thematic analysis. Each of the following research questions will be connected to the study’s findings:
1. How do full-time faculty at a small, private, nonprofit, masters-level university in the Southeastern United States describe their interactions and experiences with community college transfer students?
2. How do full-time faculty at a small, private, nonprofit, masters-level university in the Southeastern United States perceive community college transfer students’ academic preparedness?
3. How do full-time faculty at a small, private, nonprofit, masters-level university in the Southeastern United States describe the community college transfer students’ overall academic success?
4. How do full-time faculty at a small, private, nonprofit, masters-level university in the southeastern United States describe the institutions from which community college transfer students transferred?
Subsidiary Research Question One: How do full-time faculty at a small, private, nonprofit, masters-level university in the Southeastern United States describe their interactions and experiences with community college transfer students?
The faculty interviewed for this study described their interactions and experiences with community college transfer students in many different ways. Interactions took place both inside and outside of the classroom and both are explained in this section. First, the faculty relationship, which emerged in the first theme described in Chapter Four, will be used to explain the faculty’s interactions and experiences. Secondly, faculty interactions and experiences with community college students are described in relation to misaligned expectations. Finally, due to the perceived isolated experiences of the community college student, the faculty description of unique or limited interactions with community college transfer students is presented. Each of these are discussed with an underpinned focus on how faculty perceive community college transfer students.
As explained in Chapter Four, faculty perceive community college transfer students as difficult. Community college transfer students were consistently viewed as “chaotic,” “messy,” “challenging” and “complicated to deal with.” This influenced the faculty’s interactions and experiences. The stories of working with community college transfer students were often examples of trying to help a student with multiple challenges and barriers, both academic and personal.
The faculty perceived the relationship in two very different ways. The first approached the student with empathy, feeling sorry for the student for having such an unfair burden and admiring him/her for overcoming the challenge of being a community college transfer student. The second approach was taken with frustration, blaming the
student for having a more complex life. In both cases the faculty saw community college transfer students as more complicated and time consuming both inside and outside the classroom to work with than other kinds of students, which influenced their interactions and experiences with them.
Some of the specific examples provided reflected the amount of time it took to help community college transfer students. This was often in relation to the commitments the students have outside of academics. Faculty provided examples of students missing class to care for a sick child, or balancing the responsibilities of working full time and taking classes. They also described helping students with transfer credits, or navigating the policies and systems.
The complexity of working with a community college transfer student influenced the faculty’s desire to teach and work with them. Many of the faculty admitted that they prefer to teach traditional undergraduates. Many others shared, while they themselves like teaching community college transfer students, their faculty colleagues prefer to teach traditional undergraduates.
The faculty also described their interactions with these students within the context of the classroom. Students were described as having “misconstrued expectations” and needing to adapt in the classroom. Detailed accounts of giving community college students exceptions for personal circumstances, counseling them on writing skills, and needing accommodations for misunderstanding expectations were given by the faculty. They also described students as lacking agency: expecting the faculty member or other students to do things for them, such as faculty providing study guides, needing very
particular step-by-step directions, or wanting the faculty member to tell them the answer so they can memorize it versus being willing to discover the answer on their own.
The faculty also reported community college transfer students not approaching faculty. Faculty saw community college students as reluctant to come to office hours and reach out to a faculty member for help. This then kept faculty from being able to develop a relationship with many community college transfer students.
Finally, the presence of an isolated experience, as described in theme four in Chapter Four, also influenced the experiences faculty had with community college transfer students. At times, the faculty described their interactions with the students as frustrating for both the student and the faculty member. This was consistently the case when it came to advising. Due to the isolated experience in relation to advising, the faculty needed to help community college transfer students that were misadvised, lacking prerequisite courses, taking courses they do not need/want, or feeling like no one knew how to help them. This was described as frustrating for both the students and the faculty trying to help them.
Subsidiary Research Question Two: How do full-time faculty at a small, private, nonprofit, masters-level university in the Southeastern United States perceive community college transfer students’ academic preparedness?
The faculty interviewed were mixed in their descriptions of the academic preparedness of community college transfer students. Some faculty viewed students as well prepared, whereas others saw them as ill prepared; however, the one common concept through the analysis was the misalignment of faculty and student expectations. Upon the community college student’s arrival they were described as not having accurate
expectations for themselves academically. The second topic associated with this research question was the faculty’s background and its connections to the faculty’s perception of the students’ academic preparedness. Each of these will be presented in the following section.
As described in theme two and presented in Chapter Four, the faculty were quite divided on how they described the students being academically prepared for coursework. For example, Isabella viewed community college transfer students as having
underprepared critical thinking skills, lacking academic ability and being disillusioned. However, others described the students as possessing the needed skills and abilities for the coursework and prepared to complete quality work and participation in class.
What developed through the thematic analysis was an inconsistency in how the faculty defined academic preparedness. Some defined it merely as the students’ abilities and skills to complete quality work. Those who described community college transfer students as academically prepared more often used this type of definition. Meaning that if the faculty defined academic preparedness has having the right abilities and skills, the faculty member was more likely to describe community college transfer students as academically prepared. However, for those whom did not view community college students as prepared, they were more likely to discuss expectations as part of their definition of academic preparedness. For example, Emma described “understanding the level of expectation” set by the faculty member as key to a student being academically prepared and then went on to describe community college transfer student as ill prepared for her classes. Although the faculty’s descriptions of skills and abilities varied, the faculty overwhelming saw the students not having accurate academic expectations.
Therefore, to more concisely describe the faculty’s perception, they overall felt community college transfer students have misaligned academic expectations, but observed mixed levels of student skill and ability. Whether or not the faculty member stated they believed the students were academically prepared often connected to how they used these terms to define academic preparedness.
The faculty member’s definition of academic preparedness had a great deal to do with whether or not the individual generalized community college transfer students as prepared for their coursework. There was another parallel factor related to how the faculty described the students’ academic preparedness, how much contact they had with the community college sector of higher education. The faculty were asked what kinds of experiences they had with community colleges. Their replies varied from having no experience, to having worked at a community college for many years. Interestingly, the faculty members’ background often aligned with his/her perception of the students’ skills and abilities. For example, all those who worked at a community college previously described the students as having the skills and abilities needed for their classes at Queens University, whereas those with the least experience with a community college described the students lacking the proper skills or abilities to be successful. This was less true for those with some experience with the community college, like having a close family member attend, or spouse work there, but their backgrounds did align with their descriptions of students for those with the most and least amounts of experience at a
community college. Subsidiary Research Question Three: How do full-time faculty
at a small, private, nonprofit, masters-level university in the Southeastern United States describe the community college transfer students’ overall academic success?
Overall, when asked specifically about how academically successful community college transfer students are, the faculty were mixed in how they described a community college student success. Some viewed them as very successful, whereas others saw them as consistently failing out and being unsuccessful. However, across interviews there was a presence of a challenge these students needed to overcome that other students did not have. The type of challenges varied and will be discussed as factors that influence student success. Barriers to the faculty/student relationship and having a systematically disadvantaged experiences will be presented in the section as factors influencing
community college transfer student success.
As discussed in Chapter Three, the central concept of this study was student success, specifically using Tinto’s attrition theory (1993; 1975). Tinto asserts that when a student is able to build a positive relationship with a faculty member he/she is more likely to be retained and graduate (Tinto, 1993;1975). Unfortunately, based on the study’s findings, community college transfer students are not as likely to approach their faculty, understand the faculty/student relationship, or have as many institutionalized opportunities to work with faculty outside the classroom as other students. The faculty described the benefits of the faculty/student relationship going well beyond the
classroom, noting connections for the student that could best be provided by someone within the discipline, such as honors society opportunities, civic engagement within the field, building relationships for reference letters, or even student research projects. Therefore, the experiences a student has out of class can help shape their success and how they develop their academic career.