Exploring Sense of Belonging,Socioacademic Integrative Moments,and Learning Communities Related to ELs’ Persistence Based on Reenrollment Decisions in Community Colleges

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to create a model of English learners’ (ELs) persistence based on theory and empirical research. Findings from this research informs community college educators in helping ELs persist and guide future research regarding this important student population. Method: We examined ELs’ persistence using structural equation modeling (SEM) based on data from the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) among a U.S. national sample of 6,872 ELs. SEM was informed through the means of measurement models for latent variables. Reliability and validity were assessed through Cronbach’s alpha, principal component analysis, and fit indices. Results: Our results show that (a) sense of belonging had significant and positive direct effects on ELs’ persistence based on reenrollment decisions, (b) socioacademic integrative moments had significant and positive direct effects on ELs’ sense of belonging, and (c) learning communities had significant and positive direct effects on ELs’ socioacademic integrative moments and sense of belonging. Contributions: Community colleges offer broad access to postsecondary education for ELs, or students in the process of learning English as a second or other language. As a whole, our study contributes to a better understanding of how ELs may persist in their academic studies. We further discuss the implications of our findings in light of policy, practice, and future research.

Keywords

community colleges English learners learning communities sense of belonging socioacademic integrative moments

Across the world, students may opt to take courses at higher education institutions in their immediate community where they can focus on refining their academic skills and/or vocational training. In the context of the United States, these schools are called community colleges and offer 2-year academic plans with granting of certificates and/or coursework, which can be transferred to a 4-year institution (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Study in the States, 2012).

In higher education, the number of English learners (ELs), or students in the process of learning English as a second or other language, has been growing at a steady pace due to more international students and more second-generation Americans (children born to U.S. immigrant parents) enrolling in higher education institutions (Bergey et al., 2018). ELs are more likely to attend community colleges than 4-year colleges (Rodriguez & Cruz, 2009) because community colleges are more accessible than 4-year colleges in terms of their open-door policies, low tuition costs, proximity, and a range of programs (Curry, 2004; Hagedorn & Li, 2017; Hoxby & Avery, 2012). Community colleges also provide English as a second language (ESL) and developmental courses for ELs who may not have passed English proficiency exams required for university entrance or who need time to refine their academic English language skills before moving into a 4-year institution (Bunch & Kibler, 2015; Chavez, 2015; Hagedorn & Li, 2017; Huerta et al., 2019; Kibler et al., 2011).

As a whole, ELs fall into a category of students least likely to complete degrees, reenroll, or transfer to 4-year institutions (Bailey et al., 2010; Moore & Shulock, 2010). Thus, factors assisting in this group of students’ persistence and success in the community college setting such as feelings of belonging and social and academic supports—discussed below—are important to consider as the number of ELs in community colleges continues to rise. The purpose of this study was to create a model, based on theory and empirical research, to assist community college educators in making informed decisions to help ELs persist in school and to prompt further research exploration regarding this important student population.

Framework

ELs

In this study, we defined ELs as adult students who are in the process of learning English as a second or other language. The term included any community college student enrolled in ESL courses to improve their English, whether they were U.S. citizens (i.e., domestic ELs) or international students (Bergey et al., 2018). In the U.S. context, the term includes Generation 1.5 or language minority students merging both their home culture and U.S. culture who may have enrolled in ESL courses (Roberge et al., 2009). Although we acknowledge defining groups of students is not without its difficulties (Benesch, 2008; Kibler et al., 2011), we chose the term, EL, because it generally describes all students in the continuum of learning English as a second or other language.

Although we acknowledge ELs are varied in their backgrounds and contexts, they share similar academic and social challenges related to language and cultural difference that students who are native English speakers do not (Bergey et al., 2018; Huerta et al., 2019; Kibler et al., 2011). For example, EL Generation 1.5 students, though having attended U.S. schools at the K–12 level, may need support in academic English required in higher education (Bergey et al., 2018; Huerta et al., 2019; Kibler et al., 2011). EL international students, though usually well prepared academically in terms of content and perhaps reading and writing skills, may need additional support in listening and speaking skills in the higher education classroom (Bergey et al., 2018). Notably, both ELs with time in the United States (EL Generation 1.5) and ELs new to the United States (EL international) encounter cultural and social differences in terms of U.S. higher education norms (Bergey et al., 2018; Deil-Amen, 2011). For these reasons, it is critical that students receive academic and social supports that help them adapt to their new environments.

Sense of Belonging

One approach to aid ELs’ persistence through community college is to focus on sense of belonging. Sense of belonging can be defined as, “students’ perceived social support on campus, a feeling or sensation of connectedness, the experience of mattering or feeling cared about, accepted, respected, valued by, and important to the group or others on campus” (Strayhorn, 2012, p. 3). Sense of belonging includes dimensions of student feelings related to on-campus relationships and supports. Sense of belonging is important because it has been related to factors associated with academic persistence such as social integration, retention, educational outcomes, and well-being (García & Garza, 2016; Hausmann et al., 2007; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Museus et al., 2017; Museus & Maramba, 2011; Sheldon, 2012; Sheldon et al., 2011; Tovar & Simon, 2010).

Literature on sense of belonging has mostly focused on U.S. domestic students (e.g., Hausmann et al., 2007; Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Maestas et al., 2007; Tovar & Simon, 2010), which may not include ELs (George-Mwangi, 2016; Glass & Westmont-Campbell, 2014). Some studies have uncovered how students’ consistent and frequent interactions with diverse peers lead to increased sense of belonging (Hurtado et al., 2007; Locks et al., 2008). Sense of belonging, then, aids in accessing cross-cultural relationships (Wang & Mallinckrodt, 2006) that can be present between ELs and those who interact with them in the community college setting (i.e., interactions involving faculty/instructors, admins/counselors, and their peers). ELs’ interactions with others could potentially benefit the community college population as a whole while also increasing their own sense of belonging. In what follows, we discuss constructs based on theory and literature contributing to the overarching idea of sense of belonging including dimensions of on-campus relationships and supports.

Socioacademic Integrative Moments

Earlier studies on culturally diverse students in higher education, which can include ELs, found that students needed to feel validations to “feel capable of learning” (Rendon, 1994, p. 43). This validation could come from within or outside the school context. The key point, however, is that validation is a form of positive relationships that students have with respect to their academic pursuits. More recent work has taken these ideas and expanded them into frameworks focused on the challenges of community colleges in terms of student academic and social integration due to student commuting and limited time on campus (Deil-Amen, 2011). For example, in a foundational study on community college students in the United States, Deil-Amen (2011) coined the term socioacademic integrative moments. These moments are described as combined social and academic opportunities of interaction for community college students. Although researchers have theoretically separated social variables from academic variables (Tinto, 1998), Deil-Amen’s study highlighted how the boundaries between these variables are blurred in the community college environment for diverse and nontraditional students.

For community college students, socioacademic integrative moments occurred more often during class time compared with outside of the class and critically contributed to students’ perceptions of feeling academically and socially integrated (Deil-Amen, 2011). Arguably, then, faculty allowing more one-on-one communication and assistance during class time would result in observable increases in student academic performance as well as students feeling “validated [of] their self-worth, sense of competence and belonging, and belief in their ability to succeed” (Deil-Amen, 2011, p. 82)—ideas echoing the idea of building students’ sense of belonging.

More recent studies have used Deil-Amen’s (2011) concept of the intermixing of social and academic aspects to build theoretical models to explore factors relating to nontraditional students’ (i.e., Latino males and language minority students) persistence in community colleges (García & Garza, 2016; Huerta et al., 2019). Their findings validate the idea that both social and academic aspects within the community colleges are important for nontraditional students’ persistence (García & Garza, 2016; Huerta et al., 2019) and sense of belonging (García et al., 2019).

Institutional Agents

Institutional agents play a critical role in ELs’ sense of belonging (Deil-Amen, 2011; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). In the context of community colleges, institutional agents can be defined as personnel such as faculty, counselors, and/or advisors who were proactive in aiding students with their “adjustment, comfort, belonging, and competence as college students” (Deil-Amen, 2011, p. 61). These proactive interactions can be vital in helping students operate and maneuver through organizational and bureaucratic structures of community colleges such as financial aid and course scheduling (Deil-Amen, 2011).

In thinking about ELs, these agents would be critical for navigating a new academic culture in a nonnative language and in contributing to student perceptions of sense of belonging. In fact, researchers have described the critical role professors have in students’ sense of belonging (García & Garza, 2016; Glass et al., 2015). For example, in utilizing sense of belonging as a theoretical framework, Glass et al. (2015) described professors as the catalyst for enhancing or diminishing the fundamental need of students to belong.

Learning Communities

Learning communities can be defined as cohorts of students who take courses together; these groups often include student and faculty collaboration and activities (Engstrom, 2008; Tinto, 1998; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). In higher education research, learning communities have been discussed in relation to student engagement and persistence (Tinto, 1998; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). Learning communities, then, can potentially increase student-to-faculty and student-to-student interactions in academic (vs. social) settings.

In community college research, learning communities concerned with ELs have been noted to include characteristics such as (a) instructional practices integrating academic language into content courses, (b) accelerating students through ESL courses, and (c) connecting students to on-campus support services (Bunch & Kibler, 2015; Kibler et al., 2011). These characteristics should assist with the relational aspects of ELs’ socioacademic integration and persistence. Learning communities have been noted to contribute to positive aspects of socioacademic integration (Engstrom, 2008; Smith, 2010) and to their persistence in the community college (Huerta et al., 2019). For example, ELs who participated in learning communities felt they learned more, experienced more confidence in their learning, felt more validated in class, and had closer relationships with other students and faculty (Engstrom, 2008). Similarly, ELs participating in learning communities have been predicted to increase in learning outcomes as a result of students feeling more support (Smith, 2010). Finally, learning communities have had direct, significant, and positive effects on community college ELs’ persistence and perceived relationships (Huerta et al., 2019). These results show that learning communities are critical for the persistence of community college students, including ELs.

Based on the above literature, we built our proposed model on the following hypotheses (see Figure 1):

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Socioacademic integrative moments will have statistically significant and direct effects on ELs’ sense of belonging.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Learning communities will have statistically significant and direct effects on ELs’ sense of belonging and socioacademic integrative moments.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Sense of belonging will have statistically significant and direct effects on ELs’ persistence based on reenrollment decisions (see “Observed Variables” section).

Figure 1.

ELs persistence conceptual model.

Method

Statistical models are helpful for explaining theoretical relationships among variables, including hypothetical constructs (i.e., latent variables) and observed variables (George & Kaplan, 1998; McLean & Gray, 1998). We, therefore, used structural equation modeling (SEM) because we could analyze the linear relationships and effects among observed and latent variables (MacCallum & Austin, 2000). The modeling is conducted in a larger context by using a U.S. national data set.

Research Questions

To address our hypotheses and to guide this study, we developed the following research questions:

Research Question 1 (RQ1): What are the direct effects for socioacademic integrative moments on ELs’ sense of belonging?

Research Question 2 (RQ2): What are the direct effects for learning communities on ELs’ sense of belonging and socioacademic integrative moments?

Research Question 3 (RQ3): What are the direct effects for sense of belonging on ELs’ persistence based on reenrollment decisions?

Data Source

We conducted a secondary data analysis using the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), a nationally representative and anonymous data set (CCSSE, 2005–2016, 2014). The CCSSE is comprised of 37 questions—several with subquestions. Data examined in this study were collected from 2013 by the Center for Community College Student Engagement. Administered annually during the spring semester, the CCSSE has undergone reliability and validity evaluation (e.g., test–retest r = .61; Marti, 2008). There is also the element of randomization in the administering of the CCSSE, which involves students in randomly selected classrooms from participating community colleges. To ensure adequate sampling across students, the sampling method is stratified by time of day (i.e., morning, afternoon, and evening courses), which ensures student participation across different attendance schedules. In addition, the sampling frame includes all credit-bearing courses with some exceptions (i.e., students in distance courses, independent study, lower level ESL courses, and dual-enrollment courses from high school students).

Sample

The 2014 CCSSE data include more than 100,000 responses from community college students across the United States. We disaggregated the data by identifying ELs in the sample. The demographics of the sample by gender, race/ethnicity, and age is described in Table 1, which generally illustrates the student profile as Hispanic female age 20 to 21 years. Based on our definition of ELs (see “English Learners” in the “Framework” section), we wanted to capture students for whom English was not a first language and who were in the process of developing their English skills. We first selected students who answered “no” to the question, “Is English your (native) first language?” From this sample, we then selected students who answered they were planning to take or had taken ESL courses (see Table 2). Our final sample of ELs included 6,872 survey respondents. Missing data ranged between 0.2% and 0.9% among demographics variables, which was considered marginal and inconsequential (Schafer, 1999).

Table 1.

Demographics of English Learners.

Gender	6,872 (total)
Female	3,952 (57.6%)
Male	2,905 (42.4%)
Race/ethnicity	6,872 (total)
American Indian or Other Native American	60 (0.9%)
Asian, Asian American, or Pacific Islander	2,082 (30.5%)
Native Hawaiian	26 (0.4%)
Black or African American, non-Hispanic	722 (10.6%)
White, non-Hispanic	708 (10.4%)
Hispanic, Latino, Spanish	2,800 (41.1%)
Other	418 (6.1%)
Age (years)	6,872 (total)
18–19	1,395 (20.5%)
20–21	1,698 (24.9%)
22–24	1,319 (19.4%)
25–29	956 (14.0%)
30–39	857 (12.6%)
40–49	393 (5.8%)
50–64	139 (2.0%)
65+	51 (0.7%)

Note. Missing data for demographics variables were between 0.2% (n = 15) and 0.9% (n = 64) of 6,872.

Table 2.

CCSSE Items Used for Observed Variables.

Observed variable (code)	Item	Question stem
English learner
(ENGFST)	32	Is English your native (first) language? (yes or no)
(ESL)	8b	ESL course
Persistence based on reenrollment decisions (TAKAGAIN)	20	When do you plan to take classes at this college again? (All item responses kept but rank-ordered by researchers from best [4] to worst [1]; 4 = I will accomplish my goal(s) this term and will not be returning, 3 = within the next 12 months, 2 = uncertain, 1 = I have no current plan to return)
	8	Which for the following have you done, are you doing, or do you plan to do while attending this college? (1 = I have not done nor plan to do, 2 = I plan to do, 3 = I have done)
Learning communities (LRNCOMM)	8i	Organized learning communities (linked courses/study groups led by faculty or counselors)

ESL = English as a second language.

Data Analysis

SEM in lavaan (Rosseel, 2012; Rosseel et al., 2013) was used to identify the effects of socioacademic integrative moments, learning communities, perceptions of social supports, and perceptions of relationships had on ELs’ sense of belonging in U.S. community colleges. The analysis was also used to determine the effects of sense of belonging on ELs’ persistence based on reenrollment decisions. The estimation method of weighted least squares mean and variance-adjusted (WLSMV) was utilized to provide a robust estimation method for observed variables with a 4-point Likert-type scale. In addition, WLSMV estimation was used for its nonassumption for normally distributed variables (Brown, 2006). Assigned observed variables from the CCSSE data set are described in Table 2, whereas Table 3 describes the variables used in defining latent variables for the proposed model. SEM fit was assessed through several fit indices because each fit index has a different rationale (Fan et al., 1999). The following fit indices were used: (a) comparative fit index (CFI) and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) above .95, (b) root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) below .06, and (c) standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) below .08. (Bentler, 1990; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Steiger & Lind, 1980; Tucker & Lewis, 1973). Table 4 presents a correlation matrix to illustrate the bivariate relationships among the variables and promote study replicability.

Table 3.

CCSSE Survey Items Used to Construct Measurement Models.

Latent variable (survey code)	Item	Question stem
Socioacademic integrative momentsα = .62	4	In your experiences at this college during the current school year, about how often have you done each of the following? (scale of 1–4: 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often, 4 = very often)
Worked with others (CLASSGRP)	4f	Worked with other students on projects during class
Discussed grades (FACGRADE)	4l	Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor
Career plan talks (FACPLANS)	4m	Talked about career plans with an instructor or advisor
Received feedback (FACFEED)	4o	Received prompt feedback (written or oral) from instructors on your performance
Sense of belonging
Perceptions of campus-based relationships
α = .73	11	Mark the number that best represents the quality of your relationships with people at this college (scale of 1–7 with 1 being most negative and 7 being most positive)
Student relations (ENVSTU)	11a	Other students
Instructor relations (ENVFAC)	11b	Instructors
Admin relations (ENVADM)	11c	Administrative personnel and offices
Perceptions of campus environment supports α = .82	9	How much does this college emphasize each of the following? (scale of 1–4: 1 = very little, 2 = some, 3 = quite a bit, 4 = very much)
Support to succeed (ENVSUPRT)	9b	Provide the support you need to help you succeed at this college
Encouraging diversity (ENVDIVRS)	9c	Encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds
Nonacademic coping (ENVNACAD)	9d	Helping you cope with your nonacademic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)
Social support (ENVSOCAL)	9e	Providing the support you need to thrive socially

Table 4.

Correlation Matrix.

Variable	M	SD
ENVADM	5.2	1.6	—
ENVSTU	5.5	1.4	.41**	—
ENVFAC	5.8	1.3	.57**	.47**	—
ENVSOCAL	2.6	1.0	.33**	.29**	.30**	—
ENVSUPRT	3.2	0.9	.40**	.27**	.41**	.49**	—
ENVDIVRS	2.9	1.0	.29**	.29**	.28**	.54**	.53**	—
ENVNACAD	2.4	1.1	.27**	.25**	.24**	.67**	.41**	.50**	—
FACPLANS	2.3	0.9	.16**	.14**	.14**	.24**	.23**	.22**	.23**	—
CLASSGRP	2.7	0.9	.08**	.17**	.10**	.16**	.14**	.18**	.15**	.22**	—
FACGRADE	2.6	0.9	.08**	.12**	.11**	.18**	.16**	.18**	.17**	.45**	.24**	—
FACFEED	2.7	0.9	.14**	.15**	.23**	.19**	.23**	.22**	.15**	.28**	.21**	.33**	—
TAKAGAIN	2.9	0.8	.04**	.05**	.06**	.04**	.05**	.04**	.03*	.05**	.04**	.05**	.04**	—
LRNCOMM	1.8	0.7	.05**	.06**	−.01	.17**	.11**	.14**	.18**	.18**	.10**	.14**	.09**	.03*

p < .01 and *p < .05 (two tailed).

Study Variables

In operationalizing the following variables, careful interpretation of the existing literature, consideration of the survey questions, and robust statistical exploratory and confirmatory analysis were used. We note that these are approximations based on questions available on the survey.

Observed variables

To measure persistence based on reenrollment decisions, we used the CCSSE question asking, “When do you plan to take classes at this college again?” (see Table 2). The responses were rank ordered from the best to worst on a scale of 1 to 4 with 4 being the best and 1 being the worst (i.e., a Likert-type scale). Rank 4 was I will accomplish my goal(s) this term and will not be returning, Rank 3 was within the next 12 months, Rank 2 was uncertain, and Rank 1 was I have no current plan to return. I will accomplish my goal(s) this term and will not be returning was selected as Rank 4 because it indicates the student persisted up to the point of completing their goals at the community college. Therefore, it is a measure of the highest level of persistence through completion. Instead of turning these variables into a dichotomous (i.e., yes/no) response, we kept the continuity of the data to not lose information from the original survey items (Thompson, 2006). To measure learning communities, we used the CCSSE question item relating to whether students had not or planned to, planned to, or had participated in a learning community (see Table 2).

Latent variables

We operationalized socioacademic integrative moments by students’ social and academic interactions within class settings (Deil-Amen, 2011; see Table 3). Last, we operationalized sense of belonging by two latent variables: perceptions of campus-based relationships and perceptions of campus environment support (see Table 3). Sense of belonging was informed by (a) previous work operationalizing sense of belonging (García & Garza, 2016; Huerta et al., 2019; Lau et al., 2018); (b) Strayhorn’s (2012) definition of sense of belonging, which includes students’ perceived feelings of being connected, mattering, and/or feeling cared about by others on campus (see “Sense of Belonging” subsection in section “Framework”); and (c) by Deil-Amen’s (2011) and Stanton-Salazar’s (2011) discussion of institutional agents. Perceptions of campus-based relationships included question items asking students to rank-order the quality of their relationships with other students, instructors, and administrative personnel and offices (scale of 1–7 with 7 being most positive). Perceptions of campus environment support included question items asking students to rank-order the quality of their perception of how much their college emphasized (a) support to help them succeed (support to succeed or ENVSUPRT), (b) encouragement to interact with students from different backgrounds (encouraging diversity or ENVDIVRS), (c) help in coping with their nonacademic responsibilities such as work and family (nonacademic coping or ENVNACAD), and (d) general support to thrive socially (social support or ENVSOCAL). This latent construct was informed by Strayhorn’s definition of sense of belonging, which begins with the phrase, “students’ perceived social support on campus” (p. 3) as well as empirical research on the benefits of students interacting with others different than themselves (Hurtado et al., 2007; Locks et al., 2008).

Measurement models

The variables of study were assessed and tested for model fit in the form of measurement models, which meant principal component analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFI) were used. Each construct in the proposed model was informed by measurement model fit and each variable’s contribution to the construct. For instance, the measurement model for socioacademic integrative moments had good fit (i.e., results from CFI = TLI = .99, RMSEA = .03 with 90% confidence interval [CI] = [0.02, 0.04], SRMR = .02) and illustrated that discussed grades (β = .70; see Table 3 for variable information) and career plan talks (β = .62) contributed the most to socioacademic integrative moments. The weakest contribution to socioacademic integrative moments was worked with others (β = .37) and received feedback (β = .48). The internal consistency (α = .62) for socioacademic integrative moments was not good but fair and represented the mixture of both social and academic integration. Sense of belonging was first assessed as a first-order construct (Huerta et al., 2019) when using the CCSSE data set. However, in this study, sense of belonging was elevated to a second-order construct to robustly include characteristics of institutional agents as described by Deil-Amen (2011) and Stanton-Salazar (2011). Thus, sense of belonging encompassed two first-order constructs (perceptions of relationships and perceptions of social supports), which modeled the relational and support components for sense of belonging. Perceptions of campus-based relationships as a measurement model using the CCSSE survey had good fit (CFI = TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = SRMR = .00) and internal consistency (α = .73), with instructor relations (β = .81) and admin relations (β = .71) contributing the most, and student relations (β = .59) contributing the least. Perceptions of campus environment support also had good measurement model fit (CFI = .99, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .09 with 90% CI = [0.08, 0.10], SRMR = .04) and internal consistency (α = .82) with social support (β = .83), nonacademic coping (β = .75), and encouraging diversity (β = .71) as contributing the most, and support to succeed (β = .62) contributing the least.

Results

The proposed model (see Figure 2) displayed good fit from the CCSSE data set. The WLSMV estimation resulted in N = 6,129, χ² = 698.23, df = 61, p < .05, CFI = .98, TLI = .97, RMSEA = .04 (90% CI = [0.04, 0.04]), SRMR = .04. No post hoc modifications were needed due to preliminary results indicating good fit for the CCSSE data set aligning to the literature-guided model proposed. Figure 2 displays the standardized coefficients of the model where all pathways were statistically significant at an alpha level of .05. In assessing the magnitude of effects in Figure 2, βs statistically significant and below .05 would be considered too small to have a meaningful effect. Thus, the small βs in Figure 2 are considered small but meaningful.

Figure 2.

Final ELs persistence model with standardized coefficients (p < .05).

Research Question 1: What Are the Direct Effects for Socioacademic Integrative Moments on ELs’ Sense of Belonging?

Socioacademic integrative moments and learning communities were predictive of greater sense of belonging (β = .52, p < .05; Figure 2) for ELs. Talking about career plans with an instructor or advisor contributed the most (β = .65; career plan talks) in defining socioacademic integrative moments. Discussing grades or assignments with an instructor (β = .57; discussed grades) and receiving prompt feedback from instructors (β = .53; received feedback) also contributed more to socioacademic integrative moments compared with the student-centered variable (β = .41; worked with others).

Research Question 2: What Are the Direct Effects for Learning Communities on ELs’ Sense of Belonging and Socioacademic Integrative Moments?

Learning communities was also predictive of greater sense of belonging for ELs (β = .06, p < .05; Figure 2). As learning communities increased (β = .24, p < .05) so did socioacademic integrative moments. Although learning communities had a direct, though small, effect to sense of belonging (β = .06, p < .05), it also had an indirect effect through socioacademic integrative moments. Results demonstrated H1 and H2 were true: Both socioacademic integrative moments and learning communities were statistically significant in their direct effects to sense of belonging.

Both perceptions of campus-based relationships (β = .64) and perceptions of campus environment supports (β = .92) contributed in defining sense of belonging with strong path coefficients. Perceptions of campus-based relationships received the most contribution from instructors (β = .73; instructor relations), and administrative personnel and offices (β = .72; admin relations). ELs’ relationships with other students contributed .64 (β; student relations) in defining perceptions of campus-based relationships. College’s emphasizing ELs’ support to thrive socially (β = .79; social support) contributed the most to perceptions of campus environment supports. Next, the college’s emphasis to encourage contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds contributed strongly (β = .72; encouraging diversity) to perceptions of campus environment supports. The college’s emphasis to help ELs cope with nonacademic responsibilities (e.g., work and family) also had a strong contribution to perceptions of campus environment supports (β = .71; nonacademic coping). Perceptions of campus environment supports were also defined by the college’s emphasis in providing the support ELs need to be successful at college (β = .69; support to succeed).

Research Question 3: What Are the Direct Effects for Sense of Belonging on ELs’ Persistence Based on Reenrollment Decisions?

Sense of belonging had significant and positive direct effects on persistence based on reenrollment decisions (β = .08; TAKAGAIN), indicating that as sense of belonging increased so did this variable. Although the effect was small, the statistically significant direct effect is in line with H3 and addresses the second research question. The one-unit standard deviation increase in sense of belonging transfers to a 0.08 standard deviation increase in persistence based on reenrollment decisions. Thus, greater sense of belonging among ELs will increase their persistence based on reenrollment decisions in community colleges.

Discussion

Overall, our results found (a) sense of belonging had significant and positive direct effects on ELs’ persistence based on reenrollment decisions, (b) socioacademic integrative moments had significant and positive direct effects on ELs’ sense of belonging, and (c) learning communities had significant and positive direct effects on ELs’ socioacademic integrative moments and sense of belonging. In what follows, we discuss these, and other salient findings related to operationalizing the variables along with implications for research and practice.

Sense of Belonging

Findings related to sense of belonging

Sense of belonging had significant and positive direct effects on persistence based on reenrollment decisions but not as large of a contribution as expected (β = .08). This finding supports research noting relationship between sense of belonging and persistence based on reenrollment decisions among language minority and international students, which comprise our EL sample (e.g., García & Garza, 2016; Museus et al., 2017).

Findings related to operationalizing sense of belonging

In operationalizing sense of belonging based on Strayhorn’s (2012) definition for ELs, it was notable that ELs’ perceptions of campus environment support (β = .92) contributed more than student perceptions of campus-based relationships (β = .64). How supported students felt the college was in helping them succeed, interact with diverse students, cope with nonacademic responsibilities, and thrive socially, weighed more heavily on ELs’ sense of belonging than did their relationships with other students, instructors, and administrative personnel and offices. This is not to discount the contribution of perceptions of campus-based relationships to defining sense of belonging (β = .92). The fact that ELs’ interactions with faculty and staff contributed more (βs = .73, ENVFAC; .72, ENVADM), than the other observed variables to perceptions of campus-based relationships, importantly supports Glass et al.’s (2015) theory on faculty’s critical role in increasing students’ sense of belonging. These interactions with both faculty and staff are known to have a direct impact on students’ sense of belonging (Bai & Pan, 2009; Campbell & Nutt, 2008; Hunter & White, 2004; Packard & Jeffers, 2013; Zhang, 2016). Still, our findings importantly show that perceptions of good relationships are just a piece of what contributes to ELs’ sense of belonging. Perceptions of those relationships to tangibly include support to thrive socially in order to succeed was more important for ELs’ sense of belonging. These findings corroborate with qualitative work noting how community college students who are nontraditional, such as students in our EL sample, need campus environment support that considers social aspects as well, which seem to be intertwined with their academic lives (Deil-Amen, 2011).

Socioacademic Integrative Moments

Findings related to socioacademic integrative moments

Socioacademic integrative moments had direct and significant effects on ELs’ sense of belonging. The results are supported by Deil-Amen’s (2011) study, which found students’ sense of belonging to increase when they felt they had more socioacademic integrative moments on campus. In addition, socioacademic integrative moments are related to interacting with institutional agents (Deil-Amen, 2011; Stanton-Salazar, 2011), or faculty and administrators who proactively assist students in maneuvering through the community college. These interactions most likely contribute to students’ perceptions of campus-based relationships and perceptions of campus environment support, which comprise sense of belonging.

Findings related to operationalizing socioacademic integrative moments

In defining socioacademic integrative moments for ELs, ELs talking about career plans with an instructor or advisor contributed the most to the latent variable (β = .65; FACPLANS). This observed variable (i.e., talking about career plans) is related to discussing grades or assignments with an instructor (β = .57; FACGRADE), the second-highest contributor to socioacademic integrative moments for ELs. Similar to the findings regarding how much students’ feelings of institutional support contribute to operationalizing sense of belonging, socioacademic integrative moments include actions related to institutional support. Talking with instructors or advisors is a tangible action, related to institutional agents validating students in their academic journey and empowering them to persist in their academic environments (Deil-Amen, 2011; Glass et al., 2015; Rendon, 1994; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). This finding, however, notes that conversations related to academic grades and future career plans are the most important socioacademic integrative moment variables for ELs. This finding aligns with research reports on how ELs often use community colleges as a springboard to further their education and careers (Bergey et al., 2018).

Learning Communities

Learning communities had significant and positive direct effects on ELs’ socioacademic integrative moments and sense of belonging. These findings align with previous quantitative work on the significant and positive direct effects on language minority student persistence (Huerta et al., 2019) as well as with qualitative work on the positive effects of learning communities on ELs’ desire to persist in their academic pursuits at community colleges (Engstrom, 2008; Smith, 2010). It was notable, however, that learning communities had a larger effect on socioacademic integrative moments (β = .24) than on sense of belonging (β = .06). These findings may be explained by the fact that learning communities are more focused on academics than on social aspects of the community college experience (Bunch & Kibler, 2015; Kibler et al., 2011). Yet, as these results have found, for ELs, these academic connections are critical to their overall sense of belonging.

Limitations

In defining our proposed constructs, we were limited by what variables were available in the CCSSE survey. The data were self-reported, which potentially limited the findings. For example, the survey question “When do you plan to take classes at this college again?” was self-reported. A more robust measure of persistence could have been actual student records of reenrollment or completion (though this was not possible in the anonymous nature of the survey). In addition, operationalization of concepts such as socioacademic integrative moments may capture only aspects of this construct. Future researchers can certainly attempt a quantitative survey and/or mixed-method study to capture all the complexities of these constructs.

However, though constrained by CCSSE survey items available, items used to operationalize latent variables in this study were confirmed using principal component analysis and CFI. This process provided conceptual verification of the constructs. The study contributes to the literature by confirming theory and previous work concerned with variables of EL persistence in community colleges and provides a base for future work in the field.

Implications for Research and Practice

The results support previous work calling for operationalizing variables such as socioacademic integrative moments (Deil-Amen, 2011) as well as work noting connections between sense of belonging and positive student outcomes including persistence (e.g., García & Garza, 2016; Museus et al., 2017). In operationalizing sense of belonging with ELs, we found perceptions of campus environment support to more heavily weigh on the construct. We also found that academic-related conversations weighed more in operationalizing socioacademic integrative moments for ELs. In practice, community college faculty and staff should be cognizant that fostering general feelings of positive relationships with ELs is important. However, taking tangible action to promote and provide supports related to their academic and social life is more important to promote ELs’ sense of belonging. Community colleges could, for example, train faculty and staff on how to make time to talk with ELs about their academics before, during, and immediately after class time and help students maneuver their academic pursuits by serving as or pointing students toward institutional agents (Deil-Amen, 2011; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Community colleges could also promote learning communities as a way to foster both academic interactions and supports for ELs’ persistence (Huerta et al., 2019).

The fact that we found sense of belonging to not contribute as heavily as we anticipated to persistence based on reenrollment decisions (even though the results were positive, direct, and significant) opens avenues for further research. What other variables, for example, contribute to ELs’ persistence in community colleges apart from sense of belonging? Given ELs’ specific linguistic and cross-cultural characteristics, it may be worthwhile to explore variables related to academic course work (Bunch & Kibler, 2015; Huerta et al., 2019) and external variables (e.g., financial aid, family support) as a next step within the present model.

In terms of operationalizing variables, it may be interesting to explore differences between subgroups of community college students. For example, does sense of belonging change (or not) for non-EL students in terms of how heavily perceptions of on-campus relationships versus perceptions of campus environment support weigh into the construct? Does discussing grades and future career plans weigh equally as heavily for non-EL students as for EL students? Even within the larger EL subset, what are the differences and similarities between international ELs and noninternational ELs (i.e., language minority students; Bergey et al., 2018)? Researchers could also create, apply, and evaluate effects of campus-wide efforts to increase socioacademic integrative moments through faculty training and/or learning community efforts on students’ sense of belonging and persistence. For example, researchers could collaborate with community colleges to create professional development sessions to raise faculty awareness on the importance of socioacademic integrative moments with students and provide practical ways to do this in their own classrooms (e.g., arriving early to class, being available to talk with students after class). If implementing learning communities, community colleges can pair the implementation with surveys and interviews to evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts and to revise the efforts in another iteration.

Last, we are not unaware of the limitations of quantitative survey data from nationally representative samples (see, for example, Porter, 2011). For this reason, we propose researchers use these findings to further investigate salient variables, which have corroborated in both qualitative and quantitative camps to date (e.g., sense of belonging, social and academic supports, learning communities) regarding ELs. Mixed-methods designs, in particular, would allow researchers to obtain both a broad view (like this one) and a more narrow view regarding variables at play for different groups of ELs (e.g., international, language minority, different races) and community college contexts (e.g., location, type of programs offered).

Conclusion

ELs are a large and growing subset of community college students. Like all community college students, this group of students deserve a chance to succeed in their academic journey. This study contributes quantitative analyses to operationalize literature-supported theoretical constructs and analyze their relationship to ELs’ community college students’ persistence in relation to socioacademic integrative moments and sense of belonging. It provides implications for practice as well as future research, which can further enhance knowledge related to variables helping or hindering ELs’ persistence in community colleges.

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.

ORCID iD

Tiberio Garza

Author Biographies

Tiberio Garza has a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology with an emphasis in quantitative methods from Texas A&M University. He is an assistant professor in the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Margarita Huerta has a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology with an emphasis in bilingual education from Texas A&M University. She is an associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Hugo A. García has a Ph.D. in Education with an emphasis in higher education from Claremont Graduate University. He is an assistant professor in the College of Education at Texas Tech University.

Jared Lau has a Ph.D. in Counseling/Counselor Education. He is an associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

References

Bai

Pan

(2009). A multilevel approach to assessing the interaction effects on college student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 11, 287–301. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.11.2.g

Bailey

Jeong

D. W.

Cho

S. W.

(2010). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.09.002

Benesch

(2008). “Generation 1.5” and its discourses of partiality: A critical analysis. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 7, 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348450802237954

Bentler

P. M.

(1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238

Bergey

Movit

Baird

Faria

(2018). Serving English language learners in higher education: Unlocking the potential [American Institutes for Research]. https://www.air.org/resource/serving-english-language-learners-higher-education-unlocking-potential

Brown

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guildford Press.

Bunch

G. C.

Kibler

A. K.

(2015). Integrating language, literacy, and academic development: Alternatives to traditional English as a second language and remedial English for language minority students in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39, 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.755483

Campbell

S. M.

Nutt

C. L.

(2008). Academic advising in the new global century: Supporting student engagement and learning outcomes achievement. Peer Review, 10(1), 4–7.

Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2005–2016). The community college student report [Measurement Instrument]. http://www.ccsse.org/aboutsurvey/aboutsurvey.cfm

10.

Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2014). A matter of degrees: Practices to pathways (high-impact practices for community college student success). The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.

11.

Chavez

M. A.

(2015). Community college journeys of Hispanic ESL women. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2013.795506

12.

Curry

M. J.

(2004). UCLA community college review: Academic literacy for English language learners. Community College Review, 32, 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155210403200204

13.

Deil-Amen

(2011). Socio-academic integrative moments: Rethinking academic and social integration among two-year college students in career-related programs. The Journal of Higher Education, 82, 54–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2011.11779085

14.

Engstrom

C. M.

(2008). Curricular learning communities and unprepared students: How faculty can provide a foundation for success. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008, 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.322

15.

Fan

Thompson

Wang

(1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540119

16.

García

H. A.

Garza

(2016). Retaining Latino males in community colleges: A structural model explaining sense of belonging through academic-social integration. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 23(2), 41–57.

17.

García

H. A.

Garza

Yeaton-Hromada

(2019). Do we belong? A conceptual model for international students’ sense of belonging in community colleges. Journal of International Students, 9(2), 460–487. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v9i2.669

18.

George

Kaplan

(1998). A structural model of parent and teacher influences on science attitudes of eighth graders: Evidence from NELS: 88. Science Education, 82, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199801)82:1<93::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-W

19.

George-Mwangi

C. A.

(2016). Exploring sense of belonging among Black international students at an HBCU. Journal of International Students, 6(4), 1015–1037.

20.

Glass

C. R.

Kociolek

Wongtrirat

Lynch

R. J.

Cong

(2015). Uneven experiences: The impact of student-faculty interactions on international students’ sense of belonging. Journal of International Students, 5(4), 353–367.

21.

Glass

C. R.

Westmont-Campbell

(2014). Comparative effects of belongingness on the academic success and cross-cultural interactions of domestic and international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.04.004

22.

Hagedorn

L. S.

(2017). English instruction at community colleges: The language bridge to the USA. In Tran

L. T.

Dempsey

(Eds.), Internationalization in vocational education and training (pp. 229-241). Springer.

23.

Hausmann

L. R.

Schofield

J. W.

Woods

R. L.

(2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of intention to persist among African American and White first-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 48, 803–839. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9052-9

24.

Hoxby

Avery

(2012). The missing “one-offs”: The hidden supply of high-achieving, low-income students (NBER Working Paper No. 18586). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18586

25.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

26.

Huerta

Garza

García

H. A.

(2019). Language minority students in community colleges: An SEM model exploring socio-academic variables related to persistence pertaining to re-enrollment. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(3), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1449144

27.

Hunter

M. S.

White

E. R.

(2004). Could fixing academic advising fix higher education? About Campus, 9(1), 20–25.

28.

Hurtado

Carter

D. F.

(1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of campus climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673270

29.

Hurtado

Han

J. C.

Sáenz

V. B.

Espinosa

L. L.

Cabrera

N. L.

Cerna

O. S.

(2007). Predicting transition and adjustment to college: Biomedical and behavioral science aspirants’ and minority students’ first year of college. Research in Higher Education, 48, 841–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-007-9051-x

30.

Kibler

A. K.

Bunch

G. C.

Endris

A. K.

(2011). Community college practices for U.S.-educated language-minority students: A resource-oriented framework. Bilingual Research Journal, 34, 201–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.597822

31.

Lau

Garza

García

(2018). International students in community colleges: On-campus services used and its affect on sense of belonging. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 43(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1419891

32.

Locks

A. M.

Hurtado

Bowman

N. A.

Oseguera

(2008). Extending notions of campus climate and diversity to students’ transition to college. The Review of Higher Education, 31, 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2008.0011

33.

MacCallum

R. C.

Austin

J. T.

(2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201

34.

Maestas

Vaquera

G. S.

Zehr

L. M.

(2007). Factors impacting sense of belonging at a Hispanic-serving institution. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6, 237–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192707302801

35.

Marti

C. N.

(2008). Dimensions of student engagement in American community colleges: Using the community college student report in research and practice. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701366867

36.

McLean

Gray

(1998). Structural equation modeling in market research. Australian Market Research Society, 6(1), 27–47.

37.

Moore

Shulock

(2010). Divided we fail in LA: Improving completion and closing racial gaps in the Los Angeles community college district. Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.

38.

Museus

S. D.

Maramba

D. C.

(2011). The impact of culture on Filipino American students’ sense of belonging. Review of Higher Education, 34, 231–258. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2010.0022

39.

Museus

S. D.

Saelua

(2017). The impact of culturally engaging campus environments on sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 40, 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2017.0001

40.

Packard

B. W. L.

Jeffers

K. C.

(2013). Advising and progress in the community college STEM transfer pathway. NACADA Journal, 33, 65–76. https://doi.org/10.12930/NACADA-13-015

41.

Porter

S. R.

(2011). Do college student surveys have any validity? The Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 45–76.

42.

Rendon

L. I.

(1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01191156

43.

Roberge

Siegel

Harklau

(Eds.). (2009). Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching academic writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. Lawrence Erlbaum.

44.

Rodriguez

G. M.

Cruz

(2009). The transition to college of English learner and undocumented immigrant students: Resource and policy implications. Teachers College Record, 111(10), 2385–2418.

45.

Rosseel

(2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

46.

Rosseel

Oberski

Byrnes

Vanbrabant

Savalei

(2013). lavaan: Latent variable analysis [Software]. http://lavaan.ugent.be/

47.

Schafer

J. L.

(1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/096228029900800102

48.

Sheldon

K. M.

(2012). The self-determination theory perspective on positive mental health across cultures. World Psychiatry, 11, 101–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpsyc.2012.05.017

49.

Sheldon

K. M.

Cheng

Hilpert

(2011). Understanding well-being and optimal functioning: Applying the Multilevel Personality in Context (MPIC) model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.532477

50.

Smith

R. A.

(2010). Feeling supported: Curricular learning communities for basic skills courses and students who speak English as a second language. Community College Review, 37, 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552109356592

51.

Stanton-Salazar

R. D.

(2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43, 1066–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877

52.

Steiger

J. H.

Lind

J. C.

(1980, May). Statistically based test for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.

53.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2012). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students. Routledge.

54.

Thompson

(2006). Foundations of behavioral statistics. Guilford Press.

55.

Tinto

(1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167–177.

56.

Tovar

Simon

M. A.

(2010). Factorial structure and invariance analysis of the sense of belonging scales. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175610384811

57.

Tucker

L. R.

Lewis

(1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170

58.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Study in the States. (2012). What is a community college? https://studyinthestates.dhs.gov/2012/03/what-is-community-college

59.

Wang

C.-C. D.

Mallinckrodt

(2006). Acculturation, attachment, and psychosocial adjustment of Chinese/Taiwanese international students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.4.422

60.

Zhang

(2016). An overlooked population in community college: International students’ (in)validation experiences with academic advising. Community College Review, 44, 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552116633293

61.

Zhao

Kuh

G. D.

(2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de