Research in Higher Education

, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp 433–460 | Cite as

Classifying Community Colleges Based on Students’ Patterns of Use

Article

Abstract

In this study, I draw on Bahr’s (Research in Higher Education 51:724–749, 2010; New Directions for Institutional Research S1:33–48, 2011) behavioral typology of first-time community college students to examine college-level variation in students’ patterns of use of 105 community colleges in California. I find that students’ patterns of use vary greatly across the colleges, and, further, these patterns tend to cluster in such a fashion that colleges may be classified based on dominant or disproportionate patterns of use. Using k-means cluster analysis, I identify five types of community colleges, including Community Education Intensive, Transfer Intensive, Workforce Development Intensive, High-Risk Intensive, and Mixed Use. I describe each of these community college types and then investigate whether the patterns of student use that characterize the identified types appear to be primarily a consequence of institutional policies and practices or, conversely, a product of localized community demand and the associated circumstances and choices of the students who attend a given college. The evidence, though limited, tends to support the latter: variation in patterns of student use across institutions appears to be primarily a product of localized community demand. Finally, I draw on established performance indicators to examine the implications of the identified patterns of student use for observed institutional performance. I find that institutions that differ in terms of dominant or disproportionate patterns of student use also differ significantly and systematically on a number of measures of institutional performance.

Keywords

Community college Accountability Performance Classification Type Typology Taxonomy Cluster analysis 

References

  1. Adelman, C. (1992). The way we are: The American community college as thermometer. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED338269. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Google Scholar
  2. Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into townand moving on: The community college in the lives of traditional-age students. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/comcollege/movingintotown.pdf
  3. Alexander, F. E. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 411–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bahr, P. R. (2009). College hopping: Exploring the occurrence, frequency, and consequences of lateral transfer. Community College Review, 36, 271–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahr, P. R. (2010). The bird’s eye view of community colleges: A behavioral typology of first-time students based on cluster analytic classification. Research in Higher Education, 51, 724–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bahr, P. R. (2011). A typology of students’ use of the community college. New Directions for Institutional Research, S1, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bahr, P. R. (2012). Student flow between community colleges: Investigating lateral transfer. Research in Higher Education, 53, 94–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bahr, P. R. (2013). The deconstructive approach to understanding community college students’ pathways and outcomes. Community College Review, 41, in press.Google Scholar
  9. Bahr, P. R., Bielby, R., & House, E. (2011). The use of cluster analysis in typological research on community college students. New Directions for Institutional Research, S1, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bahr, P. R., Gross, J. L., Slay, K. E., & Christensen, R. D. (2012). First in line: Student registration priority in community colleges. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  11. Bahr, P. R., Hom, W., & Perry, P. (2004). Student readiness for postsecondary coursework: Developing a college-level measure of student average academic preparation. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 12, 7–16.Google Scholar
  12. Bahr, P. R., Hom, W., & Perry, P. (2005). College transfer performance: A methodology for equitable measurement and comparison. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 13, 73–87.Google Scholar
  13. Bailey, T. (2003). A researcher’s perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 122, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bailey, T., Calcagno, J. C., Jenkins, D., Leinbach, T., & Kienzl, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., & Leinbach, T. (2005). Community college research center brief, no. 28: Graduation rates, student goals, and measuring community college effectiveness. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  16. Bers, T. H. (2006). Limitations of community college benchmarking and benchmarks. New Directions for Community Colleges, 134, 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Borden, V. M. H. (2005). Identifying and analyzing group differences. In M. A. Coughlin (Ed.), Intermediate/advanced statistics in institutional research (pp. 132–168). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research.Google Scholar
  18. Bragg, D. D. (2001). Community college access, mission, and outcomes: Considering intriguing intersections and challenges. Peabody Journal of Education, 76, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bragg, D. D. (2002). Contemporary vocational models and programs: What the research tells us. New Directions for Community Colleges, 117, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges. (2006, September 21). Noncredit at a glance. Sacramento, CA: Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/AA/Noncredit/n_guide_5e.pdf
  21. Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges. (2009, March 31). Focus on results: Accountability reporting for the California Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/TRIS/research/ARCC/arcc_2009_final.pdf
  22. Cohen, A. M. (2003). College size as the discriminator. New Directions for Community Colleges, 122, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cormack, R. M. (1971). A review of classification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 134, 321–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dellow, D. A., & Romano, R. M. (2002). Editor’s choice: Measuring outcomes: Is the first-time, full-time cohort appropriate for the community college? Community College Review, 30, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dougherty, K. J., & Hong, E. (2006). Performance accountability as imperfect panacea: The community college experience. In T. Bailey & V. S. Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college equity agenda (pp. 51–86). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Dougherty, K. J., & Townsend, B. K. (2006). Community college missions: A theoretical and historical perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 136, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission of the community college. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586, 92–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dowd, A. C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond the access ‘saga’ toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77, 407–419.Google Scholar
  29. Dowd, A. C., & Tong, V. P. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the scholarship of “best practice”. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 22, pp. 57–119). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ehrenberg, R. G., & Smith, C. L. (2004). Analyzing the success of student transitions from 2- to 4-year institutions within a state. Economics of Education Review, 23, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Everitt, B., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Foundation for California Community Colleges. (2012). About the colleges: California community colleges facts and figures. Sacramento, CA: Foundation for California Community Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.foundationccc.org/AbouttheColleges/FactsandFigures/tabid/636/Default.aspx
  33. Gill, A. M., & Leigh, D. E. (2004). Evaluating academic programs in California’s community colleges. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_804AGR.pdf
  34. Gill, A. M., & Leigh, D. E. (2009). Differences in community colleges’ missions: Evidence from California. Economics of Education Review, 28, 74–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldberger, S. (2007). Power tools: Designing state community college data and performance measurement systems to increase student success. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future. Retrieved from http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/PowerTools.pdf
  36. Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college student success. Review of Educational Research, 80, 437–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hagedorn, L. S. (2010). The pursuit of student success: The directions and challenges facing community colleges. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 25, pp. 181–218). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hagedorn, L. S., & Prather, G. (2005). The community college solar system: If university students are from Venus community college students must be from Mars. Paper presented at the 2005 Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  39. Harbour, C. P. (2003). An institutional accountability model for community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27, 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harbour, C. P., & Day, M. (2009). Negotiating the community college institutional accountability environment: A Deweyan perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 148, 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hardy, D. E., & Katsinas, S. G. (2006). Using community college classifications in research: From conceptual model to useful tool. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hardy, D. E., & Katsinas, S. G. (2007). Classifying community colleges: How rural community colleges fit. New Directions for Community Colleges, 137, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hom, W. C. (2009). The denominator as the “target”. Community College Review, 37, 136–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hurley, R. G. (2002). Identification and assessment of community college peer institution selection systems. Community College Review, 29, 1–27.Google Scholar
  45. Katsinas, S. G. (1993). Toward a classification system for community colleges. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Council of Universities and Colleges, Portland, OR. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED377925.Google Scholar
  46. Katsinas, S. G. (2003). Two-year college classifications based on institutional control, geography, governance, and size. New Directions for Community Colleges, 122, 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lane, J. E. (2003). Studying community colleges and their students: Context and research issues. New Directions for Institutional Research, 118, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Layzell, D. T. (1999). Linking performance to funding outcomes at the state level for public institutions of higher education: Past, present, and future. Research in Higher Education, 40, 233–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Little Hoover Commission. (2012). Serving students, serving California: Updating the California Community Colleges to meet evolving demands. Sacramento, CA: Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy.Google Scholar
  50. Marti, C. N. (2008). Latent postsecondary persistence pathways: Educational pathways in American two-year colleges. Research in Higher Education, 49, 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. McCormick, A. C., & Cox, R. D. (2003). Classifying two-year colleges: Purposes, possibilities, and pitfalls. New Directions for Community Colleges, 122, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McMillan, V. K., & Parke, S. J. (1994). Transfer rates: Examining two national models in Illinois. Community College Review, 22, 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Merisotis, J. P., & Shedd, J. M. (2003). Using IPEDS to develop a classification scheme for two-year postsecondary institutions. New Directions for Community Colleges, 122, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Milligan, G. W. (1980). An examination of the effect of six types of error perturbation on fifteen clustering algorithms. Psychometrika, 45, 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Murphy, P. J. (2004). Financing California’s community colleges. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_104PMR.pdf
  56. Palmer, J. C. (1999). A statistical portrait of the non-liberal arts curriculum. New Directions for Community Colleges, 108, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Palmer, J. C. (2000). Demographics, state education reform policies, and the enduring community college role as an extension of schools. New Directions for Community Colleges, 111, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Roksa, J. (2006). Does the vocational focus of community colleges hinder students’ educational attainment? Review of Higher Education, 29, 499–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schuetz, P. (2005). UCLA community college review: Campus environment: A missing link in studies of community college attrition. Community College Review, 32, 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schuyler, G. (2003). A curriculum-based classification system for community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 122, 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scott-Clayton, J. (2011). The shapeless river: Does a lack of structure inhibit students’ progress at community colleges? Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=839
  62. Shaffer, D. F. (2008). The states and their community colleges. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.Google Scholar
  63. Shaw, K. M., & Jacobs, J. A. (2003). Community colleges: New environments, new directions. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586, 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smart, J. C., Kuh, G. D., & Tierney, W. G. (1997). The roles of institutional cultures and decision approaches in promoting organization effectiveness in two-year colleges. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 256–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stange, K. (2012). Ability sorting and the importance of college quality to student achievement: Evidence from community colleges. Education Finance and Policy, 7, 74–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steinley, D. (2006). K-means clustering: A half-century synthesis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 59, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang, W. (2004). UCLA community college review: Community education in the community college. Community College Review, 32, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Willett, T., & Hom, W. (2007). Student flow analysis for a community college. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 15, 17–27.Google Scholar
  69. Zarkesh, M., & Beas, A. M. (2004). UCLA community college review: Performance indicators and performance-based funding in community colleges. Community College Review, 31, 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education, School of EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations