Abstract
For first-year students who carry traditionally marginalized identities, comprehensive college transition programs (CCTPs) can offer key wraparound services to help address some of the major academic, social, and financial barriers they may encounter. This article looks at one such CCTP implemented at three public college campuses serving a range of students, including those from low-income, first-generation, and racial/ethnic minority backgrounds. More specifically, this study uses regression analyses to look at two cohorts of first-year students’ experiences related to sense of belonging and mattering to their CCTP. The findings suggest that when considering students’ experiences in the CCTP, staff care and support and perceptions of grade check meetings were experiences that were significantly related to both sense of belonging and mattering.
Gaps in persistence and college completion remain for students from historically marginalized backgrounds based on factors such as income, race/ethnicity, and first-generation status (Aud, Fox, & Kewal Ramani, 2010; DeAngelo, Franke, Hurtado, Pryor, & Tran, 2011; Seidman, 2005). Their barriers to earning a college degree are often manifold and therefore need to be met by programmatic supports that acknowledge the complexity of the challenges students face relating to financial, social, and academic roadblocks. The transition into college for the first-year students can often exacerbate these difficulties (Goodman & Pascarella, 2006). The fear of dropping or stopping out is particularly concerning for students given the financial and social pressures that accompany such difficult decisions and experiences.
For these reasons, comprehensive college transition programs (CCTPs) are of particular interest to colleges and universities in search of more equitable outcomes as they offer wraparound supports typically targeted at first-year students. Studies have started to unearth the ways in which multipronged initiatives can benefit traditionally underserved student populations through more comprehensive approaches (Maton, Domingo, Stolle-McAllister, Zimmerman, & Hrabowski, 2009; Maton, Hrabowski, & Schmitt, 2000; Perna & Jones, 2013). Extant higher education literature has explored the importance of psychosocial outcomes such as sense of belonging and mattering to inform the experiences through which students find connection and support in college to aid in their success (Freeman, Anderman, & Jensen, 2007; Schieferecke & Card, 2013). This study, as one part of a larger longitudinal project, contributes to this literature by analyzing the first-year experiences of two cohorts of students enrolled in a CCTP specifically as it relates to students’ sense of belonging and mattering. We operationalize the first-year college experience to refer to students’ collective academic, social, and personal reflections and assessments based on their self-reported survey responses at various time points throughout their first academic year of college. This article begins with a review of the pertinent literature, which serves as the study’s conceptual framework. This section is followed by a description of the quantitative methods, analyses, and results and ends with a discussion and concluding statement on the significance of this research.
Literature Review
There has been extensive research conducted about students’ sense of belonging on college campuses (Freeman et al., 2007; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Strayhorn, 2012). Researchers, for instance, have examined students’ sense of belonging as the cohesion among diverse students or peers (Hurtado & Carter, 1997) as well as belonging to a place (i.e., classroom; Freeman et al., 2007) and belonging to a campus milieu (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Strayhorn, 2012). However, less is known about the intricate relationship between students’ sense of belonging on one hand and mattering on the other. In fact, our analysis seeks to illustrate the importance of mattering as a distinct construct separate from sense of belonging among two cohorts of CCTP students. The following sections summarize the research and remaining gaps that this study aims to fill related to CCTPs, sense of belonging, and mattering.
Comprehensive College Transition Programs
CCTPs are multipronged programs that aim to provide support in various areas to address the complex needs of students, especially those with marginalized identities. These transition programs can link available resources at a college and even establish systems of support for targeted student groups. CCTPs often require collaboration across administrators, faculty, and campus offices. They may also integrate external stakeholders into a mix of collaborators depending on the given program’s funding and governance structure.
The first year of college, in particular, is referenced as students’ most difficult, given students’ academic and social transition from high school to college (Hurtado et al., 2007), its correlation to increased persistence (Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2005), and retention (Tinto, 1999), as well as what it means to be away from home for the first time (Clark, 2005). A closer examination of how students’ first-year CCTP experiences influence their sense of belonging to the program and mattering on campus suggests that key elements of the CCTP have positive and significant associations that contribute to sense of belonging and mattering (see Figure 1).
CCTP program components.
Sense of Belonging
Nearly 80 years ago, Maslow (1954) identified “belonging” as a basic human need, but it has been over the past two decades that sense of belonging has become increasingly relevant to understanding how to improve college student success. Sense of belonging derives from the theory of perceived social cohesion and is uniquely defined as a “sense of personal involvement in a social system so that persons feel themselves to be an indispensable and integral part of the system” (Anant, 1966, p. 21; see also Bollen & Hoyle, 1990). Scholars have identified a number of important factors related to sense of belonging as an outcome measure. Frequently applied factors include (1) college transition (Johnson et al., 2007), (2) campus climate (Hurtado & Carter, 1997), (3) first-year student experiences (Johnson et al., 2007), and (4) college persistence (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). Interestingly, Tinto’s (1987, 1993) formation of student departure theory has framed much of the empirical studies conducted on college transition and persistence. However, in light of widespread criticism and critical gaps in the literature (see, e.g., Braxton, 2000; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Tierney, 1992), much of the subsequent research focused on historically marginalized student groups have shifted away from Tinto’s student departure theory as an exclusive theoretical lens to include sense of belonging.
Most studies have found that students of color, in particular, report a lower sense of belonging in comparison with their White counterparts due to negative or challenging cultural and social experiences (Johnson et al., 2007; Museus & Maramba, 2011). Though sense of belonging provides a major contribution to how we understand this concept through elements such as environmental perceptions, involvement, and relationships (Vaccaro & Newman, 2016), it does not account for the importance of personal recognition and attention that students may require, especially in their first year of college. Though a related concept, mattering addresses these concerns through its focus on the extent to which a student feels that they matter to an individual, group, and/or community (Schieferecke & Card, 2013).
Mattering
“Higher education practitioners and researchers alike consistently espouse the value and impact of the concept of mattering on college students” (Tovar, Simon, & Lee, 2009, p. 154). According to Tovar et al. (2009), however, few studies in higher education use mattering in part because one of the most popular and well-constructed instruments (i.e., the mattering inventory) “focused on parental and friend-based relationships rather than on connections within the educational settings” (p. 156). Yet mattering applies to nearly all populations and contexts. Therefore, it has been used in psychology to examine self-esteem, depression, and relationships with loved ones (Elliott, Cunningham, Colangelo, & Gelles, 2011; Marshall, 2001). Schlossberg’s (1989) introduction to marginality and mattering as a developmental construct in higher education proposes that all students begin their college experience with a feeling of being marginal. However, Rosenberg and McCullough (1981) argue that “mattering is a motive: the feeling that others depend on us, are interested in us, are concerned with our fate, or experience us as an ego-extension exercises a powerful influence on our actions” (p. 165). Despite Schlossberg’s intention to apply mattering to a diverse set of populations, little empirical work using mattering as a construct exists on students of color, low-income, and first-generation college students. Such little empirical work on mattering is due to its initial introduction alongside marginality. While mattering can function as an independent construct, it is almost always framed in reference to marginality, particularly as it relates to students of color (Cooper, 1997; Huerta & Fishman, 2014; Kodama, 2002). Our analysis seeks to illustrate the importance of mattering for marginalized student populations as well as to better understand sense of belonging and its relationship to the first-year experiences for two cohorts of CCTP students.
Method
The CCTP in this study spans across three public colleges in a large, Midwestern state university system. As alluded to in the introduction, this program mostly serves historically marginalized student populations including racial and ethnic minorities, low-income students, and those who are the first generation in their families to attend college. Unlike other CCTPs that focus on first-year students, this CCTP offers targeted supports during their students’ first and second years in college as well as continued guidance if students want to remain engaged. This quantitative study uses a subset of data from the broader, longitudinal, mixed-methods study to look specifically at the first-year experiences of two cohorts of students attending each of the three campuses.
The project from which the current study is taken is a 6-year grant-funded project that employs a concurrent (parallel) mixed-methods design with an embedded sequential explanatory model implemented in July 2015 and ending in June 2020. This design capitalizes on collecting quantitative data about outcomes that are deeper and richer than in past studies of CCTPs, while simultaneously collecting qualitative data focused on the CCTP programs via case study and other robust methodological approaches.
Students participating in CCTPs exist on three different campuses within the same state (University A [UA], University B [UB], and University J [UJ]), and although each has the same goal—promoting student success—their implementations vary. It should be noted, however, that while program implementation differed in the specific type of social activities planned for students, in the residence halls, and other contexts specific to the campus (i.e., study space devoted to CCTP, available tutoring space/cafe, etc.), there were no statistically significant difference in mean scores by campus across key program components with the exception of midsemester grade checks (i.e., average means for both items at UA and UB were statistically higher than those at UJ), engagement in first-year seminar experiences (i.e., average means for UA were statistically lower than those for UB and UJ), and faculty course-related interactions (i.e., average mean for UA was statistically lower than that for UB and UJ).
Our specific outcomes of interest include retention, progression, and completion. Of interest to our project is the role of cognitive and affective variables, such as sense of belonging and mattering. The focus of this study herein is on students’ sense of belonging and mattering for two cohorts beginning in Fall 2015 and Fall 2016, respectively.
Instrument, Data Sample, and Variables
The main purpose of the longitudinal survey was to draw connections between student characteristics, traits, attitudes, and behaviors; participation in the CCTP; and psychosocial outcomes (see Tables 1 and 2). Two cohorts of students participating in CCTPs were surveyed in the fall (T1 baseline; Fall 2015 and 2016) and spring of their first year (T2 follow-up; Spring 2016 and 2017). The baseline survey (T1) was designed to measure students’ past experiences and outcomes as they enter a CCTP at their respective institutions. The follow-up survey (T2) was designed to collect interim measures of growth on key outcomes and capture data on student engagement with CCTP programs and activities believed to be related to that growth.
Descriptive Statistics for Cohort 2015.
Note. EFC = expected family contribution; GPA = grade point average; FYS = first-year seminar course; SAC = shared academic courses; CCTP = comprehensive college transition programs.
Descriptive Statistics for Cohort 2016.
Note. GPA = grade point average; EFC = expected family contribution; FYS = first-year seminar course; SAC = shared academic courses; CCTP = comprehensive college transition programs.
The longitudinal data from which this study was taken focuses specifically on students who completed both the baseline and follow-up survey collected among students entering college and participating in one of the three CCTPs in the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 academic years. Of the total population of roughly 1,200 first-year students entering the three CCTPs, we had an 83.9% response rate for both baseline and follow-up for 2015 (UA = 93.2%; UB = 88.3%; and UJ = 70.3%) and 77.5% for 2016 (UA = 81.1%; UB = 76.4%; and UJ = 74.9%). The Fall 2015 cohort had 337 students, and the Fall 2016 cohort had 298 students who completed both the baseline and follow-up surveys. Of the 337 students in cohort 2015, 108 identified as male and 158 as a student of color. Of the 298 students in cohort 2016, there are 134 students of color and 197 male students.
To measure the latent construct of sense of belonging, we used six items (Cronbach’s α = .86) measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (i.e., strongly agree to strongly disagree), which included the following questions: “I feel like an outsider,” “I make friends easily,” “I feel like I belong,” “I feel awkward and out of place,” “I feel lonely,” and “I know other students will like me” (see Table 3). These sense of belonging items were taken from Programme for International Student Assessment, referenced in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013), which was “a unique opportunity to study student engagement across several countries as students approach the end of compulsory schooling” (p. 3). Similarly, mattering, also a latent construct, was constructed with six items (Cronbach’s α = .89) measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale (i.e., strongly agree, agree, slightly agree to strongly disagree; see Table 3). These six items, selected from a set of 8, measure “general college mattering” as defined by Tovar et al. (2009). According to Tovar et al. (2009), “general college mattering” is one of six mattering constructs. The other five constructs discussed by Tovar et al. (2009) are more specific in nature and include “Mattering Versus Marginality,” “Mattering to Counselors,” “Mattering to Instructors,” “Mattering to Students,” and “Perception of Value.” We chose the general college mattering because this construct provided the most comprehensive framing for examining the extent to which CCTP students perceive that they matter to the larger campus environment.
Description of Latent Constructs, Factor Loading, and Alphas for Independent and Outcome Variables.
Note. FYS = first-year seminar course; SAC = shared academic courses; CCTP = comprehensive college transition programs.
Additional data collected on the survey included students’ background characteristics and college experiences. Additionally, given the importance of how students use their time outside of the classroom, “time use” was added to the college experiences, which asks how students use their time outside of class (i.e., helping family, working for pay, community improvement, video games, social networking, socializing in person, and exercising). The remaining college experiences related to students’ interactions with their peers and faculty and a self-rating of their sense of belonging and mattering to their institutions.
Analysis
Descriptive statistics (Tables 1 and 2), factor analysis (Table 3), Cronbach’s alpha, and multivariate regressions were used to examine the research question outlined in this study. We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and item-response theory (IRT) to evaluate the construct validity and reliability evidence. Items with CFA loadings that were 0.70 and above were considered good, but .40 was acceptable. Acceptable item discrimination parameters for IRT were 1.70 and above. Using rescaled factor scores (i.e., after adding items within a factor construct, the factor construct was recoded back into the original scale), the results of the CFA were used to evaluate the unidimensionality of the construct within our sample of participants, to identify well and poorly performing items, and to evaluate differential item functioning across each of the programs. IRT was used as a way to measure item discrimination. Cronbach’s alpha was also conducted for each of the following constructs and all scales had alphas of about .75 or higher: (1) college knowledge (3 items, α = .89), (2) pretest for sense of belonging (6 items, α = .86), (3) staff care and support (7 items, α = .90), (4) mentorship support (4 items, α = .74), (5) academic peer interaction (4 items, α = .82), (6) social peer interaction (4 items, α = .79), (7) involvement in FYS (first-year seminar courses that only enroll CCTP students, 14 items, α = .85), (8) engagement in SAC above and beyond (shared academic courses are general education courses, which only enroll 25 CCTP students, 14 items, α = .85), (9) faculty course-related interaction (3 items, α = .89), and (10) faculty non-course-related interaction (3 items, α = .82).
The ordinary least squares regression analysis entered variables in three blocks regressed onto sense of belonging (6 items, α = .86) and then onto mattering (6 items, α = .90). Each analysis was conducted separately, and each block of the regression is reported as Models 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Model 3, as the final block, is the full model and includes all of the variables regressed onto the outcome variable in each analysis. Reporting the coefficients and the amount of variance explained (R2) for each model, from Models 1 to 3, provides an opportunity to assess the statistical contribution of groups of variables by category or groups of variables. Student background characteristics (students of color, gender, family income, grade point average, college knowledge, postsecondary completion likelihood, time use, financial stress, academic control, and resiliency) were entered in Model 1, which offers the opportunity to identify significant background characteristics and R2 at that point in the regression model. Model 2, where students’ college experiences were added (i.e., pretest for each outcome, staff care and support, mentoring support, peer interaction, grade check, faculty interaction, learning community), offers a way to determine the significance of college experience variables, the added contribution of these variables to the amount of variance explained, and the total amount of variance explained at that point in the model. Model 3 focused on the students’ campus service use, which is the final model and includes all the variables in the model providing an opportunity to assess significant contributions for each variable, added and total variance explained. Multicollinearity checks were performed, and no irregularities were identified.
Results
Sense of Belonging
As presented in Table 4 (2015 Cohort) and Table 5 (2016 Cohort), the first analyses focused on sense of belonging to the CCTP. Within this analysis, the first model examined the effect of background characteristics. This model (Model 1) accounted for 4.1% (2015) and 11.3% (2016) of the variance in the outcome (R2 = .041 and R2 = .113, respectively; see Tables 4 and 5). The final model employed the background characteristics from the previous model with the addition of key program components and campus service uses, which included a baseline control for students’ perceived sense of belonging to the CCTP. In Model 3, an improvement was observed for the prediction of the outcome by accounting for 9.3% (2015) and a much more considerable improvement accounting for 33.8% (2016) of the variance in students’ perceived sense of belonging to the CCTP (R2 = .338 and R2 = .342, respectively). The research model used to examine students’ sense of belonging appears to be more useful, as indicated by the amount of variance explained, for the 2016 cohort of students than for the 2015 cohort; however, a helpful analytical model does not mean that the model is necessarily accurate. The majority of additional variance explained is in large part due to key CCTP components variables that are statistically significant in the analysis of the 2016 student cohort, which is not the case of the 2015 student cohort. In other words, about 22.5% of additional variance can be attributed to the CCTP program components for the 2016 cohort.
Multivariate Regression Analysis of Controls and Predictors of Sense of Belonging for 2015 Cohort (n = 337).
Data collected at T1, beginning of the fall semester when students entered college. bData collected at T2, end of the spring semester of their first year in college.
p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.
Multivariate Regression Analysis of Controls and Predictors of Sense of Belonging for 2016 Cohort (n = 298).
Note. GPA = grade point average; EFC = expected family contribution; FYS = first-year seminar course; SAC = shared academic courses.
Data collected at T1, beginning of the fall semester when students entered college. bData collected at T2, end of the spring semester of their first year in college.
p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.
Beyond the differences in the explained variance (i.e., R2 values), there were noticeable differences between the 2015 and 2016 cohorts. For example, in all three models, respondents in the 2015 cohort who identified as a student of color had a statistically significant and positive sense of belonging to the CCTP (e.g., in Model 3, β = 0.143, p < .05). For the 2016 cohort, identifying as a student of color was not a statistically significant consideration, but the pretest for sense of belonging (β = −0.348, p < .001), staff care and support (β = 0.131, p < .05), social peer interaction (β = 0.129, p < .05), and feeling happy with grades during the grade check process with a CCTP advisor (β = 0.134, p < .05) were all significant predictors of respondents feeling a sense of belonging to the CCTP.
We found the relatively insignificant findings for the Fall 2015 cohort curious, given previous scholars’ work emphasizing the importance of sense of belonging to student success. However, further insights into the participating campus sites revealed that “belonging to the learning community” might be emphasized to a lesser extent by the program staff. The staff may stress the importance of belonging to the campus (e.g., student organizations, club sports, or a multicultural center). These data were presented to the program leaders in the first findings report from this study, and perhaps a better understanding of best practices accounts for the uptick in staff care and support for Fall 2016 cohort. Conceivably, the staff emphasized to students that they mattered and assisted students in finding a place on campus where they can garner a sense of belonging. Therefore, we wanted to better understand perceived differences in the concept of belonging as compared with mattering.
Mattering
The second analyses examined mattering (see Tables 6 and 7). Similar to the first analysis, the first model examined the effect of mattering as an outcome. This model accounted for 4.7% (2015) and 13.9% (2016) of the variance in the outcome (R2 = .047 and R2 = .139, respectively). The final model employed the background characteristics from the previous model with the addition of key program components and campus service uses, which included a baseline control for mattering. In Model 3, a significant improvement was observed for the prediction of the outcome by accounting for 27.6% (2015) and a much more substantial improvement accounting for 39.1% (2016) of the variance in students believing they matter (R2 = .276 and R2 = .391, respectively).
Multivariate Regression Analysis of Controls and Predictors of Mattering for 2015 Cohort (n = 337).
Note. GPA = grade point average; EFC = expected family contribution; FYS = first-year seminar course; SAC = shared academic courses.
Data collected at T1, beginning of the fall semester when students entered college. bData collected at T2, end of the spring semester of their first year in college.
p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.
Multivariate Regression Analysis of Controls and Predictors of Mattering for 2016 Cohort (n = 298).
Note. GPA = grade point average; EFC = expected family contribution; FYS = first-year seminar course; SAC = shared academic courses.
Data collected at T1, beginning of the fall semester when students entered college. bData collected at T2, end of the spring semester of their first year in college.
p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.
Beyond the differences in the R2 values, there were similarities and differences between the 2015 and 2016 cohorts. For example, the pretest for mattering was statistically significant for both cohorts (β = 0.113, p < .05, and β = 0.286, p < .001, respectively). For the 2015 cohort, staff care and support were a statistically significant program component for students believing they matter (β = 0.259, p < .001). Surprisingly, staff care and support were not significantly associated with mattering for the 2016 cohort. Instead, academic peer interaction (β = 0.231, p < .001) was positively and significantly associated with students believing they matter. In contrast, peer mentorship and support (β = −0.137, p < .01) as well as being happy with grades during the grade check process were negatively associated with mattering. It seems that unlike the positive role of staff care and support for mattering in the 2015 cohort, peer interactions are more relevant to mattering for the 2016 cohort.
Discussion
There are at least three important discussion points specific to both sense of belonging and mattering that arise as a result of the findings. First, the research model used to examine our outcomes of interest revealed a number of key factors useful toward explaining sense of belonging and mattering. However, the research model, in some cases, offered very little value toward identifying statistically significant variables. For instance, the variance accounted (R2) for through the ordinary least squares regression models ranged from as little as 9.3% (cohort 2015) explaining sense of belonging to as much as 33.8% of the variance for cohort 2016; that is, for cohort 2015, the amount of variance explained between the observed variables and sense of belonging was moderate to low. For cohort 2016, the amount of variance explained was moderate to high. When compared with the 2015 cohort, the analytical (i.e., conceptual) model for the 2016 cohort was more useful toward helping us understand the significant relationships between students’ CCTP experiences and sense of belonging; it is important to note, however, that a more useful model does not mean that the analytical model was accurate in capturing the observed phenomena under investigation in this study; in other words, that amount of variance unexplained suggests that there are a number of unobserved factors that significantly contribute to students’ sense of belonging.
While the same research model also revealed differences between the amount of variance explained on mattering for the 2015 (R2 = 27.6%) and 2016 (R2 = 39.1%) cohorts, the amount of variance explained was larger when these variables were regressed onto mattering compared with sense of belonging. The analytical model yielded more significant variables for students in the 2016 cohort and, thus, was better suited to identify significant associations between CCTP key program components and the outcome variables of interest; although, there could be a number of reasons beyond the analytical model to explain these differences, including unobserved phenomena like the role of social gatherings in students’ sense of belonging. There were more statistically significant relationships between CCTP components and the outcomes of interest in this study, which included staff care and support, peer interactions (social), peer interactions (academic), grade checks (happy with grades), and mentorship and support.
Second, when considering students’ experiences in CCTP, staff care and support and grade checks (happy with grades) were significantly related to both sense of belonging and mattering. This finding suggests that the initiative staff take to help students feel like they belong and can meet institutional expectation are significant toward students’ sense of belonging to CCTP and the extent to which they believe that they matter on campus. Grade checks (happy with grades), sometimes referenced as a proactive advising strategy (Engle & Tinto, 2008), is part of a “midsemester grade check” process required for each student participating in CCTP. The grade checks process creates the opportunity for students to determine how well (or not so well) they are performing academically during the semester’s midway point. All CCTP students are required to submit a grade form to CCTP staff and set up a meeting to discuss courses and grades with CCTP staff and all the faculty teaching their classes. The primary goal of this process is to receive academic guidance, support (if needed), and promote students’ academic confidence. It appears that the proactive advising process, at least for those who are happy with their grades and staff care and support helped students feel like they belong and believe that they matter.
Interestingly, peer interactions that are social, where discussions of political opinions, religious beliefs, diversity, and personal values are shared, these interactions have a significant and positive association with students’ sense of belonging. Peer interactions that are academic, where peers share concerns about class, academic issues, group projects, and study with one another, these interactions have a significant and positive association with mattering. These differential peer-related findings seem to suggest that when others are interested in and care about students’ accomplishments, disappointments, exams, or projects, students believe that they matter. When students engage with peers about personal values, beliefs, and opinions, students are more likely to make friends, figure out if they are liked by their peer, and do not feel out of place and feel that they belong. Although the latter set of findings are consistent with prior research about sense of belonging (Johnson et al., 2007; Museus & Maramba, 2011), these findings offer interesting linkages between students’ experiences in CCTP and mattering as well as which CCTP components are more significant toward understanding mattering and sense of belonging.
Finally, concerning student demographics and background characteristics, we found that being a student of color was the only background characteristic that was significant in any of the final models for either analysis and across both cohorts. However, this variable was only significant for sense of belonging in the 2015 cohort, which suggests that being a student of color was positively associated with reporting higher levels of sense of belonging. Based on prior research, students of color when compared with their White counterparts are not as likely to feel that they belong to their respective campuses (Museus & Maramba, 2011). According to Museus and Maramba (2011), culture can influence students’ sense of belonging, particularly when students are transitioning and adjusting to new or unfamiliar campus cultural environments. Yet Museus and Maramba (2011) also conclude that (1) the campus environment, within campus cultural centers, for example, influence and mediate the how and with whom students feel as though they belong and (2) that different racial/ethnic minorities like Filipino Americans may not engage their traditional heritage to navigate successfully through their academic environment. While aggregating multiple ethnic minority groups together can diminish the possibility of identifying significant relationships between race/ethnicity and sense of belonging and mattering, several studies suggest that there should still be statistically noteworthy findings (Johnson et al., 2007; Museus & Maramba, 2011). The findings in the current study offer evidence that aggregating ethnic minority groups did not diminish, at least in one analysis, significant association with sense of belonging. Moreover, it was also noteworthy, based on Rayle and Chung (2007), that gender was not significantly related to mattering. Based on this prior work, it was expected that female students would report having higher levels of belonging and mattering. And finally, while it was expected to find that female students would report higher levels of belonging and mattering as indicated earlier in this study, it is worth noting that the analysis did not account for a race/gender intersection, such that these findings do not tell us how women of color reported their belonging and mattering, which could be different from how men of color and White women experience belonging and mattering.
Limitations
This study is limited in at least four ways that limit the generalizability of these findings to other contexts. First, the sample used in this study, although longitudinal in design is specific to students randomly assigned and also include students who are not randomly assigned (AP) to one of the three CCTPs. Second, the data in this study were based on students’ self-reports. Although we controlled for a variety of student demographics and background characteristics (Seifert, Drummond, & Pascarella, 2006), the use of self-reported data is often noted as a limitation. Third, the staff care and support factor included in each analysis was constructed as a unidimensional construct. Future CFA along with more nuanced conceptual frames might give reason to pursue 2- or 3-factor solutions suggested in some of the exploratory factor models. Finally, future analysis beyond students’ first-year experience may have more substantive and robust findings when multiple time-series or longitudinal structural equation modeling can be conducted to estimate both the indirect and direct effects of students’ CCTP experiences on sense of belonging and mattering as well as the relationship between sense of belonging and mattering in the same analytical model. Strayhorn (2012) argued that “sense of belonging is related to, and seemingly a consequence of, mattering” (p. 21).
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study extends our understanding and makes a significant contribution to the literature because we examine a contemporary longitudinal cohort of CCTP students’ sense of belonging and mattering across three college campuses and two cohorts. Little research focuses on both sense of belonging and mattering as it is reflected through students’ participation in CCTPs. It is within the CCTP context that this study offers value to the existing literature when identifying factors that significantly affect students’ belief that others depend on and are interested in them (i.e., mattering) as well as students’ belief that they are an essential part of the CCTP within which they are educationally involved (i.e., sense of belonging).
Although prior research has identified that meaningful bonds developed within CCTPs have both academic and social value, particularly as students’ transition into college, our study offers additional empirical evidence to support these claims. Even considering the lack of significant findings in background characteristics except for race within sense of belonging to the 2015 cohort, we assert that perhaps the CCTPs are helping to mitigate differences observed in previous research through the structured opportunities for engagement. It matters that students have staff who care and support them, over and beyond the mentoring support that engage students in and out of the classroom.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
