Running Head: SCHOLARLY REFLECTION

Scholarly Reflection: Student Engagement Practices at Urban Community Colleges

With more than half of postsecondary education students enrolled in community colleges
(AACC, 2017), it is important to examine and understand the needs of these student populations.
There are several student engagement practices that higher education institutions employ,
however, community colleges require a different set of practices to support student success for
their diverse student populations. In this reflection, I discuss common student engagement
practices in urban community colleges that intend to foster and support student success.
My examination focuses on community college students attending urban institutions.
Before diving into the practices it is important to also discuss what I mean by student
engagement. Throughout this reflection, I consider Astin’s (1996) involvement theory, Kuh’s
(2009) engagement framework to define student engagement. Astin (1996) suggests that the
more time and energy put a student puts into their college experience, the more they will benefit.
Kuh (2009) expanded on this theory by putting onus on the institutions, rather than on the
students, to create engaging opportunities and spaces. Because Astin (1996) and Kuh (2009)
focused on the experiences for four-year college students, it is important to note the work done
by Saenz et al. (2011) regarding student engagement at community colleges. They found that
there is a relationship between student engagement and persistence in a community college
context; and suggested research expand on engagement within community college populations.
Broadly defined, student engagement refers to the time, energy, and amount of participation a
student gives to their educational experience.
Students attending urban community colleges may face an additional set of barriers that
limit their time spent on educational experiences. This may include transportation issues (i.e.,
long commutes, relying on public transportation), lack of affordable housing, or familial
responsibilities. Institutions are challenged with implementing student engagement practices that
cater to the needs and schedules of their student populations. Additionally, the diverse
populations of community colleges creates many different levels of engagement amongst
students. For example, part-time students or those with obligations outside of academia (i.e.
familial responsibilities, jobs) may be less likely to interact with their peers and faculty.
Non-traditionally aged students may be more intentional when choosing how to engage with
their institution. There are also differing levels of engagement for students of color, students with
disabilities, veteran students, and other underrepresented groups (Fagioli et. al, 2015).
Throughout the literature I reviewed, researchers recommend that institutions find engagement
practices that accommodate the various needs of their students.
Social media utilization as an engagement practice is gaining popularity in higher
education institutions. Fagioli et al. (2015) researched the usage of social media and its relation
to academic outcomes in community college settings. Social media as an engagement tool has
been explored before, but not within the community college context (Fagioli et al., 2015).
Utilizing social media platforms to share information on resources, ask peers and faculty for
support, or to gather data allows community college students to connect with their peers and
institutions from off-campus and on their own time. One result that I found interesting from
Fagioli et al. (2015) was that passive users–those who view content, but do not directly engage
by commenting– were found to have higher GPAs and were more likely to persist in college
(Fagioli et al., 2015). The findings of this study are an indication that social media effective as a
student engagement practice.
As found throughout several studies, interaction with faculty positively impacts students’
sense of belonging, persistence, and success (Wood & Newman, 2017; Bonet & Walters, 2016;
SCHOLARLY REFLECTION 2

Lundberg, 2014). Bonet and Walters (2016) found that students in learning communities at
Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, New York, had higher levels of engagement
with their peers, the content of courses, and faculty. As a result, students had better attendance
and higher grades. Lundberg (2014) also examined how student-faculty interactions contributed
to student learning. She specifically looked at out-of-classroom interactions, particularly of those
involved in ethnic-specific or multicultural organizations. The results found that student-faculty
interactions outside of the classroom predicted five learning outcomes: general education,
intellectual skills, science and technology, personal development, and career preparation
(Lundberg, 2014).
The results from Bonet and Walters (2011) regarding effectiveness of learning
communities were neither compelling nor strong for the practice of learning communities.
However, their findings did indicate that creating spaces and opportunities for students to interact
with peers and faculty, other than inside a formal classroom, is positively related to student
success. Bonet and Walters (2011) and Lundberg (2014) speak to Deil-Amen’s (2011) notion of
socio-academic integrative moments. These interactions are neither purely social nor purely
academic. Rather, community college students build communities and integrate college into their
social lives as they spend energy participating in these opportunities (Deil-Amen, 2011).
Wood and Newman (2017) took research a step further by examining the ​factors​ that
predict student-faculty interaction, particularly for Black men attending urban community
colleges. Their final model of student-faculty engagement determinants faculty validation to be
the most prominent factor. This finding is in line with research from Cox (2009) who found that
student success came from their “perceptions of the instructors’ attitude and classroom
environment” (p. 134). The faculty members in Cox’s study who provided constant
encouragement, positive comments, and addressed students anxieties to overcome feelings of
inadequacy contributed to students feeling comfortable in the classroom. As a result, students’
self-efficacy with coursework and college completion increased.
In contrast to the research mentioned above, Hatch and Garcia (2017) examined the
timing​ of student engagement activities. They looked at academic advising during the first three
weeks of the school year and how it related to persistence in community college students. One
noteworthy theme throughout the results was that new students attend community college to
achieve an immediate goal (i.e., gaining transferrable credits or earning a certificate) and do not
plan to return for another term. They also found that the odds of this characteristic is higher for
students who identify as Asian, Asian American, Pacific Islander, or as Black or African
American (Hatch & Garcia, 2017). This is significant to my topic as populations of people of
color are often concentrated in urban areas, and about 30% of public 2-year colleges are located
in urban areas (Wood & Newman, 2017).
When examining different types of advising, Hatch and Garcia (2017) also reported
results that may be counterintuitive to educators. For example, they found that there are higher
odds of non-persistence intentions for students who receive intensive advising, which includes
assistance with enrollment, consulting on program or career fit, and discussions about career
outcomes. Overall, their results found that the timing of engagement activities impacted students’
intentions to persist or not. Something that also played a major role in this was the level of
certainty of new students’ goals. Understanding students’ intentions and level of goal certainty
when they begin college could help inform educators on how to advise students. Earlier
interventions can help students to define clear pathways for themselves and solidify their goals.
SCHOLARLY REFLECTION 3

The findings of Hatch and Garcia’s (2017) study are significant for educators because it
challenges and questions the assumptions we have about student intentions. My general
assumptions about community college students has typically been that they attend to receive
course credits before they transfer to a four-year institution or to receive a certificate. However,
research shows that more often than not, this is not the case. By being aware of the various
intentions students have for attending community college educators can better advise and support
students to define their pathways and to reach their goals.
Another factor of student engagement is representation, or critical mass, and its influence
on academic outcomes. Critical mass refers to the “level of representation that brings comfort or
familiarity within the education environment” (Hagedorn et al., 2007). In their study, Hagedorn
et al. (2007) examined the relationship between the level of representation of Latino students and
faculty and students’ academic success at urban community colleges. They found that critical
mass is a predictor of student success and it positively impacts academic outcomes. By seeing
representation of their personal identities within the faculty, students’ sense of belonging
increases. Considering the mission of community colleges, which is to serve the community that
they are located in, these findings suggest that institutions should to recruit both students and
faculty from their local communities (Hagedorn et al., 2007).
Other than Lundberg’s (2014) study on student involvement in ethnic-specific or
multicultural student organizations, the articles I reviewed did not discuss practices that were
solely focused on social activities. Rather, student-faculty interactions, representation/critical
mass, and social media engagement are practices that contribute to the success of community
college students. These findings emphasize the importance for student affairs educators to build
relationships with faculty to better support students. Another way to look at this is that the
findings reiterate the strength of weak ties. Because faculty validation contributes to student
success and persistence (Cox, 2009; Wood & Newman, 2017), it is important for educators to
build relationships with faculty. Therefore, if a student has a problem with a class that educators
are unable to assist with, through a “weak tie” with a faculty member, they could get the student
the support they need to succeed.
Though I did not dive deeper into social media use, the study and findings from Fagioli et
al. (2015) indicate that using social media can be effective for student engagement. For students
who may not be on campus often due to other obligations, social media is a place to find
information, engage with faculty and peers, and build community. Social media practices may
not necessarily be a priority for educators as it takes a considerable amount of effort to keep up
with trends and fast-paced evolution. However, there is evidence that social media serves a very
effective tool for engagement (Fagioli et al., 2015). One issue of concern regarding social media,
however, is accessibility. Not all community college students may have access to internet or
equipment to access social media at all. This would be something educators should consider
when implementing student engagement practices.
Student engagement–the amount of energy and time one gives to their educational
experience–at urban community colleges requires educators to challenge their own assumptions
about students’ goals. It would also beneficial for educators to break down the barriers between
staff and faculty to better support students in their academic pursuits. Overall, student
engagement practices urban community colleges require careful examination of students’ goals
and diverse needs. In doing so, institutions can effectively help students to define clear pathways
for success and develop their sense of belonging within their college community.
SCHOLARLY REFLECTION 4

References

Bonet, G., & Walters, B. R. (2016). High impact practices: Student engagement and retention.
College Student Journal, 50(​ 2), 224-235. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=11619
0972&site=ehost-live&scope=site​.
Cox, R.D. (2011). ​The college fear factor: How students and professors misunderstand one
another​. Harvard University Press.
Fagioli, L.P., Rios-Aguilar, C., & Deil-Amen, R. (2015). Changing the context of student
engagement: using Facebook to increase community college student persistence and
success. ​Teachers College Record, 117​, p. 1-42.
Hagedorn, L. S., Chi, W., Cepeda, R. M., & McLain, M. (2007). AN INVESTIGATION OF
CRITICAL MASS: The role of latino representation in the success of urban community
college students.​ Research in Higher Education, 48​(1), 73-91. 10.1007/s11162-006-9024-5
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=23261
449&site=ehost-live&scope=site​.
Hatch, D. K., & Garcia, C. E. (2017). Academic advising and the persistence intentions of
community college students in their first weeks in college.​ Review of Higher Education,
40​(3), 353-390. Retrieved from
http://login.proxy.seattleu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy.seattleu.edu/doc
view/1877753269?accountid=28598​.
Lundberg, C. A. (2014). Peers and faculty as predictors of learning for community college
students.​ Community College Review, 42​(2), 79-98. Retrieved from
http://login.proxy.seattleu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.proxy.seattleu.edu/doc
view/1518507397?accountid=28598.
Saenz, V. B., Hatch, D., Bukoski, B. E., Kim, S., Lee, K., & Valdez, P. (2011). Community
college student engagement patterns: A typology revealed through exploratory cluster
analysis.​ Community College Review, 39(​ 3), 235-267. 10.1177/0091552111416643
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=67014
107&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Wood, J. L., & Newman, C. B. (2017). Predictors of Faculty–Student engagement for black men
in urban community colleges: An investigation of the community college survey of men.
Urban Education, 52(​ 9), 1057-1079. 10.1177/0042085915623343 Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com.proxy.seattleu.edu/doi/full/10.1177/0042085915623343​.