Search for: All records

Background or Context:The COVID-19 pandemic may be considered a focusing event that has drawn greater attention to the physical and mental health of community college students. Purpose, Objective, Research Question, or Focus of Study:This study examined community college students’ self-reported life stressors pre- and post-pandemic-onset to identify any reported differences, both in occurrence and in impact on course completion. Research Design:Surveys were collected after the COVID-19 pandemic onset at the City University of New York’s largest community college. The 529 students enrolled in STEM subjects were asked about potentially stressful life events experienced during spring 2020 and how strongly these impacted the time or energy they had for their studies (response rate 88.2%). Conclusions or Recommendations:Students’ reporting of the presence of life stressors, as well as their rating of the impact on their studies, were significantly predictive of subsequent course outcomes. However, stressors reported as beginning prior to the pandemic had a larger and more significant relationship with course outcomes than those reported as beginning after pandemic onset. Further, stressors were already highly prevalent prepandemic, with over three-quarters of students reporting them. Although the pandemic may have drawn attention to the existence and impact of stressors, it may simply be a focusing event that drew heightened attention to a pre-existing issue. Results from this study indicate that life stress may significantly impact the outcomes of community college students even outside of pandemic conditions, suggesting that this is a critical area for community colleges to address. 

Abstract Existing qualitative research in higher education on students’ work and family commitments already suggests that time as a resource for college is likely not distributed equitably by race/ethnicity or gender. However, the relationship between race/ethnicity, gender, and time as a resource for college has yet to be quantitatively measured in large-scale higher education research. This study explored whether gender or race/ethnicity correlated with differences in time as a resource for college; and further, the extent to which differences in time as a resource for college may be explained by other factors such as age, number of children, and access to childcare. Retrospective survey responses (n = 41,579) on self-reported time use were merged with institutional data records from students at the City University of New York (CUNY), a large diverse public university in the U.S. Women, Black, and Hispanic students were all significantly more time poor than male, White, or Asian students. Age accounted for significant portions of these differences, perhaps because it correlates with increased work and family responsibilities. Having children as well as a student’s access to childcare also explained a significant portion of inequitable distributions of time as a resource for college. 

We present a model of capital that expands existing models to introduce two new forms of capital (time and body capital) as sources of inequity in education. The aim is to (a) make visible core resources that are relevant to educational outcomes and also (often hidden) sources of inequity, (b) identify commonalities across diverse empirical and theoretical research strands, and (c) reconceptualize existing research from an asset rather than deficit framework. We explain how time and physiological resources can be conceptualized as forms of capital and link this to extant empirical and theoretical research across fields. Then, we describe how students may have different amounts and types of time and body capital, as well as different drains on capital, and how this may lead to educational inequities. We close by describing the affordances of using this theory as a lens for analyzing existing educational structures, policies and practices. 

Existing research demonstrates gender- and race/ethnicity-based inequities in college outcomes. Separately, recent research suggests a relationship between time poverty and college outcomes for student parents and online students. However, to date, no studies have empirically explored whether differential access to time as a resource for college may explain differential outcomes by gender or race/ethnicity. To address this, this study explored the relationship between time poverty, gender or race/ethnicity, and college outcomes at a large urban public university with two and four year campuses. Time poverty explained a significant proportion of differential outcomes (retention and credit accumulation) by gender and race/ethnicity. More time-poor groups also dedicated a larger proportion of their (relatively limited) discretionary time to their education, suggesting that inequitable distributions of time may contribute to other negative outcomes (e.g., reduced time for sleep, exercise, healthcare). This suggests that time poverty is a significant but understudied equity issue in higher education. 

Despite more focused attention in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, high online attrition remains both a concern and a mystery; gaps in our knowledge exist as to why students so often do not complete online courses. Pre-pandemic, and using a sample of 780 students who dropped out of fully online courses (or the same course face-to-face) from a large university system in the Northeast U.S., students were explicitly asked about their specific reasons for course withdrawal. All students enrolled in a fully online course (or a face-to-face section of the same course) at the City University of New York (CUNY) in fall 2015 were invited to take the online survey from which this study data was taken. Results indicate that there were distinct differences in the patterns of reasons given by online and face-to-face students: although the perceived quality of the instructor/instruction was deemed important to student persistence in both modalities, it seemed to be of greater importance face-to-face than online. Furthermore, issues related to time were found to be more prominent reasons for dropping for online learners than face-to-face learners. Findings from this study shed new light on the impetus for online attrition, with implications for online policy and course design in a post-pandemic era. 

This study details the prevalence of community college students’ reports of serious health events both before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020. Survey responses from a representative sample of students within the largest community college at the City University of New York highlighted serious health challenges. Findings indicated that serious health challenges (including illness/injury/disability/mental health) were a significant factor in predicting students’ outcomes during the spring 2020 term. However, health-related events that occurred prior to the onset of the pandemic had a substantially and significantly larger correlation with course outcomes than those that occurred after the onset of the pandemic. This suggests that serious health issues may be a major barrier to student progress at community colleges, even outside of the conditions of a global pandemic, and that the pandemic may have only exacerbated this significant but often overlooked preexisting issue. 

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, online learning had become a fundamental part of post-secondary education. At the same time, empirical evidence from the last decade documents higher dropout online in comparison to face-to-face courses for some students. Thus, while online learning may provide students access to post-secondary education, concerns about academic momentum and degree attainment dominate the higher education online learning landscape. Because course completion is often used as a measure of effectiveness, there is a strong need for institutions to be able to predict the potential persistence of online students to direct efforts towards ameliorating dropout. Yet currently, a widely tested and validated archetypical predictive model of retention and success does not exist for undergraduate online learning. This integrative review of the literature examines evidence gathered over the last decade, organizing and summarizing major findings, to help identify potential undergraduate student characteristics for inclusion in such a model. The body of literature collected in this review suggests ten factors for consideration. 

Student parents are among the least likely student groups to complete college. Regression models were run using 2003–2019 American Time Use Survey data to explore time poverty among college students. Results indicate that students with children under 13 years had significantly less discretionary time and free time, spent significantly less time on their education, enrolled part-time at significantly higher rates, and spent significantly more time studying while simultaneously caring for children, compared with students without children under 13 years. The strength of these relationships was strongest when children were younger. Parents with children under 6 years, and mothers of children of all age-groups, had significantly higher time poverty than other groups, yet spent significantly more time on education after controlling for discretionary time, at the cost of significantly less free time for themselves. Results suggest that improving college outcomes for student parents may require consideration of time poverty. 

In this exploratory study, we report results from interviews with 49 students at a large public urban university in the US who enrolled in at least one course online. In line with the literature, many students cited work or family reasons for enrolling in an online course. However, when asked at the end of the interview whether there were any other life events that impacted the time and energy that they had for their studies, 73% of the students cited at least one additional external stressor, and many of them cited up to three or four different categories of external stressors. These included illness/disability, death in the family, caretaking responsibilities, and housing instability, among others. One particularly striking result is that 89% of the external stressors reported by students in response to the final questions of the interview had not been volunteered by students when they were originally asked why they enrolled online or what factors impacted their course outcomes—this suggests that the prevalence of these more complex environmental factors may go underreported in studies that do not ask about them explicitly.