An Exploratory Study of Transferring From a Community College Into a 4-Year Music Education Program

Abstract

Two-year community colleges (CCs) provide access to higher education for those who might not otherwise have had the opportunity. Research into CCs has seen growth in past years, with a focus on areas of curriculum, such as music history and musicianship; however, research within music education regarding transfer students is remarkably slim. This qualitative case study investigated the experiences of four CC transfer students in music as they transitioned into music education programs at 4-year universities. The primary research question was: How do transfer students in music education describe their experiences making the transition from 2- to 4-year music programs? Current analysis indicates a need for greater communication between different institutions, the presence of transfer-specific systematic barriers for students, and the importance of community and support for transfer music education majors.

Keywords

music teacher preparation transfer students

Although many students enroll in a 4-year university immediately after completing high school, that trajectory is not always a practical option. Many students opt to first enroll at a community college (CC). Allen et al. (2014) note that “for a growing number of students, particularly those who have been historically underrepresented among baccalaureate degree holders, the pathway to the bachelor’s degree is through community college” (p. 353). The National Center for Education Statistics (2021) recently reported that approximately 1,350,000 undergraduate students transferred from a CC into a university in fall 2019. Moreover, CCs are among the most diverse institutions in higher education throughout the United States (Nora & Rendon, 1990). In 2018, CC students were 29% first-generation college students, and the average age of students was 27 years (American Association of Community Colleges, 2022).

Although transferring can serve as a key point of access for students, it can also be the source of CC transfer-specific challenges such as longer time to graduation (LaSota & Zumeta, 2016), a low Grade Point Average (GPA), different academic expectations (Laanan, 2001), and credit mobility (Hodara et al., 2017). When examining data of transfer students between 2003 and 2009, LaSota and Zumeta (2016) indicated that transfer students can take approximately 6 years to complete their education from when they start at the CC.

One specific challenge is the transfer of credits, as there are often inconsistencies between curricular configurations, levels of courses (i.e., upper division, lower division), and the number of credit hours per course. For example, when examining the most recent data available through the National Center for Education Statistics, the 2003–2004 cohort of CC students, 58% of the transfer students transferred 90% or more of their college credits; however, 14% of students had their transfer institution accept less than 10% of their credits. Students who had all or most of their credits transferred had a 2.5 times greater likelihood of graduation than similar students who had less than half their credits transferred (Monaghan & Attewell, 2015). One cause of this challenge might be that transfer students do not select a major at a 4-year institution early enough in their CC career (Hodara et al., 2017).

Additional transfer-specific challenges may involve students’ race, ethnicity, age, and stage in life. Among over 7,000 transfer students throughout the nation, transfer students of color are less likely to be satisfied with 4-year universities than their White peers. Zhang et al. (2018) suggested that this may indicate that students of color experience more challenges and impediments than White students during the transfer process. In addition, in examining 12 transfer students at a Historically Black College, Walker and Okpala (2017) found large diversity among the population, with ages ranging from 18 to mid-50s, as 42% (n = 5) of their participants were married or divorced. These participants discussed their additional responsibilities outside of school, such as family obligations and having part- or full-time jobs to assist their family situations.

A sense of community is of great importance for college and university students. Frequently, transfer students enter at a variety of stages in life (Tobolowsky & Cox, 2012; Walker & Okpala, 2017), are often older than their peers (Townsend & Wilson, 2006), and are often less engaged in campus social activities (Ishitani & McKitrick, 2010; Nunez & Yoshimi, 2016). Hence, transfer students must often build social networks outside of campus. Lester et al. (2013) found that transfer students viewed support structures outside the university, such as family, mentors, colleagues, church, and other community-based groups, as contributing to their success, more so than on campus support structures.

Venezia and Jez (2019) conducted a thorough study of the transfer process for California Community College (CCC) students. Results indicated that CCC transfer students encountered several difficulties when transferring from a CCC campus to a California State University (CSU) campus, namely, (a) larger overall student populations at the CSU campuses, (b) confusing benchmarks for student entrance and admittance, (c) differences between curriculum requirements, and (d) assistance needed to navigate the transfer process. In addition, in California, Wassmer et al. (2004) examined data from all public CCs across the state and found that race and ethnicity impacted students’ transfer experiences, with Latino and African American students having a lower transfer rate than their White peers.

Researchers have explored music instruction at CCs, concentrating on areas of curriculum (Brophy, 1997; Stewart et al., 2014), such as music history (Friedlander, 1979) and musicianship (Anderman, 2011). In addition, researchers have focused on specific state systems such as the Alabama Community College System (Powe, 2010) and the California Community College System (Abel, 2018). Research within music education regarding transfer students is remarkably slim. Belford (1970) examined music instruction for transfer students in the 1963–1964 school year, with results indicating a need for stronger communication between the junior colleges and 4-year institutions to support success in the transfer process. More recently, Glenn (2020) examined the transfer experiences of five CC transfer students in instrumental music education in Mississippi. Specifically, he examined the students’ sense of acceptance and how these experiences impacted the transfer students’ self-awareness and perceptions of acceptance. The results indicated the participants relied most on their applied instrument teachers and other transfer students in their instrument studios and ensembles for information specifically related to scheduling, coursework, and social integration. However, as different states have different guidelines and policies for higher education, it seems important to continue this line of inquiry into other states and systems.

Transfer students are a large population and experience unique challenges; however, there are a limited number of research studies available. In addition, the research that is available is not specifically aimed at the music education population (Venezia & Jez, 2019) or examines music transfer students within a specific state system (Abel, 2018; Glenn, 2020; Powe, 2010). As we, the researchers, are both music teacher educators instructing in a state with the largest number of CCs in the nation, we have the unique opportunity to explore this population. The purpose of this study was to investigate the experiences of CC transfer students in music as they transition into music education programs at 4-year state university (SU) campuses. The primary research question, based upon previous literature (Venezia & Jez, 2019), was: How do transfer students in music education programs describe their experiences making the transition from 2- to 4-year music programs?

Method

The study utilized a qualitative case study approach (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), with the participants in this study bound through their status as CC students who have transferred to music education programs at SU campuses.

Theoretical Framework

As music teacher educators within the SU system, we are both familiar with the specific procedures involved in the CC-SU transfer process. We approached the data collection and analysis through Schlossberg’s (Schlossberg et al., 1995) theory of transition, which provides a framework for counselors, social workers, educators, or anyone working with adults experiencing a transition in life. These three phases of transition are defined as approaching transitions (moving in), potential resources (moving through), and taking charge (moving out). This lens has been used by previous researchers (Glenn, 2020) with the specific lens of music education students who have transferred. The participants in this study were in the third phase of the transition model (Schlossberg et al., 1995); however, through data collection we explored their experiences during the first two phases.

Setting

This study is contextualized to a specific state, which contains 115 schools and more than 2 million students in its CC System. This is the largest system of higher education in the country, and through an understanding of these students’ experiences, we can begin to develop a broader understanding of some of the CC to SU pipeline issues. One in four CC students nationwide is enrolled in a CC in the state in which this study took place (California Community College Chancellor’s Office, 2021), with 57% of the state’s high school graduates beginning their higher education via enrollment at a 2-year in-state CC. Across the state, it is estimated that 69% of Latinos and 65% of African Americans, compared with 60% of White and 42% of Asian American students, begin their postsecondary education at a CC (Gandara et al., 2012). In the 2017–2018 school year, 72% of these students transferred to a 4-year university within the SU system.

The SU system is the largest 4-year public university system across the nation, with 23 campuses and approximately 486,000 students, in which 95% (n = 461,700) of the total undergraduate student body are considered in-state residents (The California State University, 2021). The SU system reflects diversity within their 23 campuses, granting 62% of all bachelor degrees to Hispanic students, and approximately one third of the undergraduate student population is first-generation college students (The California State University, 2021). With few exceptions, the state’s music teacher preparation programs are located within the 23-campus SU system. It is unknown how this structure of higher education and the role of the CCs and transfer students impact music teacher education. As the two institutions represented in this current study are members of a large SU system, we investigated whether the transfer students experience similar difficulties and additional complexities in the transfer system as music education majors.

Participants

We used purposeful sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to select four participants who transferred from CC programs and enrolled in music education programs at one of two SU campuses. The primary criteria for the purposeful sampling were (a) completion of at least 1 year of classes at the SU and (b) as data collection occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, completion of at least one semester of in-person classes prior to moving to virtual instruction. Approximately 20 students fit these criteria. Final selection was based upon (a) meeting these criteria, (b) representation of different primary performance areas (to diversify studio/ensemble experience), and (c) researcher familiarity with the participants’ academic progress in both the music education (e.g., conducting, methods) and the overall music major (e.g., theory, history, aural skills) coursework in person prior to the pandemic.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data sources consisted of a background survey (using Google forms), two 1-hr individual semi-structured interviews with each participant, two email journal entries, and a final 1-hr focus group interview with all four participants. The background survey, based upon previous literature (Matthews & Koner, 2017), was used for demographic information on each participant, as presented in Table 1. The interview/focus group design was based upon scholarly literature (Eros, 2014; Seidman, 2019), and questions for the interviews were based upon other CC/transfer student research (Glenn, 2020; Venezia & Jez, 2019). The journal prompts were based on a previous study the authors conducted examining the lived experiences of music education students (Koner & Eros, 2019), where the topic of struggles of transferring repeatedly appeared in discussions and to request additional information on participants’ responses in the interviews.

Table 1.

Self-Identified Participant Characteristics.

Pseudonym	Age	Gender	Ethnicity	Associate degree?	Primary instrument
Ross	23	Male	White	Yes	Horn
Monica	23	Female	Multirace	Yes	Voice
Rachel	25	Female	Asian	Yes	Clarinet
Phoebe	40	Female	Multirace	Yes	Voice

Data collection took place over a 6-week period. We conducted and recorded meetings and interviews over Zoom, and transcribed them ourselves. We used an overall collaborative approach to data analysis, informed throughout by Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) constant-comparative model. We used Saldaña’s (2021) initial coding approach for our preliminary analysis of all the data sources. We handled the first cycle of coding individually, and after our independent analyses, we collaborated for a second cycle of axial coding to arrive at the final themes for the research (Saldaña, 2021).

Trustworthiness (validity) was addressed via data collection triangulation (multiple sources including interviews, focus group, email journals, and background survey), member checking (all four participants at the conclusion of preliminary data analysis), and attention to researcher expertise. Both researchers have extensive experience in working with and advising CC transfer students. We asked two faculty at other regional campuses in large state systems (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to review our protocols. Finally, in an effort to account for any instructor–student power dynamics, we interviewed the students from the other researcher’s institution. However, as both researchers are instructors in the SU system, we both have an insider perspective (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

Findings

The purpose of this study was to investigate the experiences of CC transfer students in music as they transition into music education programs at 4-year SU campuses. We uncovered four themes: (a) communication, (b) community and support, (c) expectations, and (d) systemic barriers. During data collection, participants reflected back on (a) their first phase of transition, (b) planning for their transition into the SU, and (c) resources used during their second phase of transition (Goodman et al., 2006; Schlossberg et al., 1995).

Communication

The participants felt that there were difficulties with various communications among different stakeholders (e.g., CC campuses, SU campuses, academic advisors, music faculty). All four participants were told that they could transfer from a CC and complete an undergraduate degree in 2 years; however, once they met with their advisors at the SU and learned the requirements for their specific majors, they realized that 2 years was not a realistic option. They stated that they did not mind that it would take longer than 2 years; however, to plan their schedules and finances, an honest picture of the time frame to complete the degree would have been helpful. In addition, they would have appreciated more communication as to what courses to be enrolled in and what would not transfer, whether that be from the college or from the university. For example, Monica did not enroll in any music education–specific coursework in her first semester because she did not know she was supposed to do so (Interview 1).

Music education has a different curricular structure than other academic majors. Phoebe stated, in her second interview, that she wished she had someone who had communicated some “unwritten rules” to her. For example, she did not know she should not schedule classes at noon on Wednesdays, as this is the time for meetings and recital classes. Similarly, Rachel shared, during her first interview, that she had emailed her new applied teacher, as students typically schedule their own lesson times with an applied teacher, but the teacher was not using their university email, so the communication did not reach them. The instructor only teaches on that campus once a week, so Rachel could not go to their office and was finally able to connect with the applied teacher when she got their phone number from a fellow student in her studio. She expressed frustrations with the lack of communication she experienced during this time.

During the focus group, Ross and Monica shared that many transfer students take about 6 years to complete undergraduate degrees due to the lack of communication and coursework not transferring as expected. In their first interviews, Phoebe and Ross expressed their frustrations with different pedagogical approaches for aural skills. The specific SU they entered used a fixed do system, whereas both of their CCs used movable do. Ross stated that he had put in 2 years of hard work in aural skills and felt like he was starting over because of the different approach at the SU. He went on to say that if the CC and SU could communicate for a consistent system, this would greatly assist the transfer students. Ross continued to discuss communication, in regard to his needed coursework at the CC:

I don’t think that the community college pushes being on top of making sure that you are eligible for the transfer to the institution of your choice as hard as they should. I took it seriously. I was checking every other day, “I’m going to make sure that I’m taking these classes, take this box, this box, this box, so my transfer process is smooth, no hitches, no nothing.” And they weren’t very articulate about it, I had to take it upon myself, which is fine. You are an adult, you are responsible functioning members of society they are not going to hold your hand they are not supposed to. That said, they do a really poor job of explaining. (Interview 1)

Community and Support

All four participants found importance in community and support at the CC and SU in relation to the students and the faculty. They discussed the importance of this camaraderie among the students at the SU to give guidance and support. For example, Ross entered the SU and joined the marching band. During band camp, prior to the semester starting, he met other music majors in the band who helped guide him on scheduling his classes. Rachel shared, in her first interview, the community at SU helped her grow as a musician, because “a big community wants to help each other grow and succeed, become a better musician than you were before.”

Phoebe discussed the positive impact of making connections with other transfers from her specific CC and receiving advice on classes and staying organized. As Phoebe came in a little older than most students and already had a family, she met another transfer student who also was of similar age, had children, and was about to graduate. Phoebe looked to him as a sort of inspiration, namely, that if he could do it, so could she. She talked about how she would stress about things, but seeing this peer in a similar situation comforted her as she stated in her second interview: “knowing that people were going through this, they’ve been through this, and they weren’t wigging out about it; it was probably going to be okay on some level” (Interview 2).

In her second interview, Rachel discussed the importance of social media in building community. Through Facebook groups, current students reached out to the new transfers, prior to the semester starting, to make them feel welcome to the music department. Ross stated how the transfer students bonded, as “misery loves company,” and would commiserate how the systemic barriers, curriculum discrepancies, and transfer system in general at the SU would make them feel like the “low priority” (Interview 2).

Phoebe and Monica both described in their first interviews missing the community of music students found at the CC, particularly as experienced through full-department, as opposed to studio, performance classes. Phoebe described the experience and connections among the students at the CC: “we had an applied music class and no matter what instrument you were on, that met for the same three hours weekly. We performed for each other, we took it seriously, and we got critical feedback” (Interview 1).

The participants also emphasized the impact of their interactions and rapport with the faculty, although their impressions differed. Monica characterized the SU faculty as appearing busier and more distant than the faculty at her CC. She felt a closer connection with the CC faculty and mentioned that, as many of them were graduate students, there was an additional sense of mutual support as fellow students. She stated, “I think that at the SU it is a little bit more intimidating to ask questions of teachers, because they always have that, ‘I’m very busy, don’t don’t bother me’, vibe kind of thing” (Interview 1). By contrast, Ross felt a strong sense of community and support with the faculty at the SU. Specifically, as a music education major, he felt a sense of common ground with his large ensemble directors, both of whom had also been undergraduate music education majors and had gone on to teach K–12 music. He mentioned that they would provide guidance to him both as a music education major in the present and as a preservice music teacher who would one day have his own program. He felt it was more like a “family” among students and professors at the SU (Interview 1).

Expectations

Participants discussed the expectations as a music student entering a 4-year institution. Ross described the difference in expectations between his CC and SU campuses (Journal), in that they were preparing him differently, meaning the CC was preparing him to get into a 4-year institution, and the 4-year institution was preparing him for his future career. However, the other three participants identified discrepancies in expectations. Monica stated this in relation to the curriculum. For example, at her CC, the aural skills and piano elements were all included in the music theory course, whereas at the SU, they are three different courses. Therefore, when she transferred into the SU, she felt she was behind her classmates, as they had individual classes dedicated to these skills and she struggled meeting the teacher’s expectations in those areas.

Rachel also discussed the difference in performance expectations with both her applied lessons and in the ensembles (Interview 1). As her CC did not offer individual applied lessons, she was placed at sophomore, rather than junior, level when she transferred into her SU. Hence, she would be required to take 3 years of applied lessons, rather than 2, to graduate—effectively making a 2-year time table impossible. She also said the large ensemble expectations were very high in comparison with her CC. In the band at the CC, the students would pick their own parts (e.g., first clarinet, second clarinet), so students could take turns with different parts, which she discussed making things more “fun and relaxed.” By contrast, her SU conductor used a traditional audition procedure to assign seating and parts.

Phoebe characterized the climate at her SU campus as “high pressure,” compared with her CC. She said that during her experience at the CC, the faculty wanted their students to just “do their best.” By contrast, at the SU, “they expect everyone to perform at this level, that they set really high expectations and then, if you do not meet the rigid high expectations it is almost like you are kind of humiliated in the class and it is a very stressful situation. I have never experienced that before” (Interview 1).

Systemic Barriers

Participants presented their frustrations with systemic barriers throughout data collection, specifically in relation to their experience in entering the SU. During the focus group discussion, Monica discussed her frustrations about required classes being offered at the same time. While this might work for a traditional student, who has 4 years to distribute their coursework, this causes scheduling conflicts for a transfer student who is trying to complete their degree in 2 to 3 years. She also noted that a professor stated,

You guys are unicorns, it’s as if it was like a super rare thing” when referring to transfer students. However, she said, “I’m sure it’s happening everywhere, but it’s only one or two students, every year, so it doesn’t seem like a lot, but it’s continually. (Interview 2)

Ross and Phoebe experienced issues of being waitlisted for required courses. Continuing students tend to register for classes in the spring, whereas entering transfer students are not able to register until they attend their summer orientation. Ross felt that transfers were “literally last on the priority list because we are the last to get to the campus, we are the last to go through our orientation process” (Interview 2). Phoebe discussed how she had to delay starting part of the music education coursework sequence because of this issue and how this did not feel fair as a student.

Discussion

Oftentimes, students are under the impression that when they complete their 2 years at a CC and transfer into a university, it will only be an additional 2 years of coursework. However, as seen throughout this study and previous literature (LaSota & Zumeta, 2016), this is often not the case. Our participants discussed how they were not upset that it would take longer than the traditional 4 years; however, they felt distressed that no one had communicated this to them throughout their academic careers. Glenn (2020) recommended that departments and schools of music directly communicate with incoming transfer students, and our participants also suggested this idea. Monica said that she wished a music teacher educator from the SU had reached out to her in the late spring or summer prior to her entering the music education major.

Belford (1970) called for better communication between 2-year and 4-year institutions, and it appears that, more than 50 years later, this is something that still warrants improvement. Communication with incoming transfer students from music teacher educators could greatly assist them throughout their transfer process. As incoming students, they often rely on their applied teachers for direction and guidance (Glenn, 2020); however, as was the case for Rachel, her applied teacher was not a full-time faculty member and therefore was difficult to connect with. In addition, the applied teachers may not know all the scheduling and policy details that accompany being a music education major. Perhaps music teacher educators should consider reaching out to these pre-service educators to communicate curriculum requirements and even state mandates required for certification to teach in their state.

Participants discussed the systemic barriers that accompany being a transfer student (e.g., waitlists); however, these may be prevented through advising. Music teacher educators may be able to speak with the students and/or advisors and work with them to get students enrolled in appropriate courses that might have a waitlist or guide them to a different required course. In addition, all students could benefit from individualized advising, as no two students’ paths are exactly the same.

The idea of community is important for the music education transfer student, but sometimes can be challenging, as transfer students can be non-traditional students, who are older than their peers and often have additional responsibilities, such as additional jobs or children at home (Brewer, 2014; Forrester & Eros, 2020; Tobolowsky & Cox, 2012; Townsend & Wilson, 2006; Walker & Okpala, 2017). A non-traditional student may find additional community support among the graduate student or teacher assistant community. All participants felt supported and motivated by the CC faculty, similar to previous research (Stewart et al., 2014), and Monica commented that as many of their CC faculty were also graduate students at the time, it felt like a community of students working toward their goals. If graduate students are not at a university, music teacher educators may consider encouraging these non-traditional transfer students to find a music education community elsewhere, perhaps through professional music education organizations.

CC campuses are among the most diverse campuses in the nation (American Association of Community Colleges, 2022), and previous researchers have discussed challenges for transfer students from diverse populations (Walker & Okpala, 2017; Wassmer et al., 2004; Zhang et al., 2018). Tobolowsky and Cox (2012) found that race, gender, socioeconomic status, and age diversity of transfer students varied to a much greater degree than the direct-entry student cohort. A diverse community was represented in this current study as well, with three of our participants of a race and ethnicity that is not White, all four of a non-traditional student age (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021), and one participant married with a family.

Implications for Music Teacher Educators

Music teacher educators may wish to consider connecting with the local CCs’ faculty, students, and advisors to have more of an open dialogue to assist transfer students. Music teacher educators may visit the local CCs in their area to let them know the requirements for entrance, courses that may or may not transfer, and become a recognizable face to the incoming transfer students, as someone they can ask questions. Music teacher educators may also want to consider connecting to the advisors, whether through the CC or the SU. Advisors may not be as knowledgeable as the requirements and needs of a music education major, so may benefit from meeting with music teacher educators to relay this information to the students.

In addition, music teacher educators may wish to point transfer students from the diverse populations found within this study (e.g., older in age, with families) toward campus groups or resources for support of these communities, such as offices for diversity and inclusion found on university campuses. In addition, music teacher educators may want to gain a deeper understanding of these students’ prior experiences and current home life situation, as these factors can greatly impact the academic career of a non-traditional student (Forrester & Eros, 2020).

Future Research

Researchers in the future may continue to explore challenges for transfer students in music education. As a limitation, this study explored transfer students throughout one SU system and through a qualitative lens, whereas future researchers may want to expand to examine whether these findings are consistent in additional states and institutions. Researchers may also continue to explore the ideas of communication and expectations as found throughout this study from the perspective of music faculty members, both from the CC and from the university setting, to examine where the gaps of information might be for the students and the faculty. Researchers should continue to analyze the specific curricular challenges of transfer students. The participants in this study briefly discussed curricular challenges, such as the different pedagogical approaches to aural skills, and coming in at a different level than expected for applied lessons; however, future researchers may continue to explore these challenges to assist university curricular decisions for transfer students. While this study has focused on the specifics of the transfer process, future researchers might explore more global differences between 4-year and 2-year academic settings.

Conclusion

The evidence from both the research literature and this study indicates that transfer students form a significant part of the student population at a 4-year institution and that, alarmingly, transfer students in music education encounter challenges that have been heretofore under-researched. Given documented teacher shortages, the profession cannot afford to lose this valuable population. In addition, as music teacher education programs are heavily populated with White students (Elpus, 2015) and often transfer students are students of color (Tobolowsky & Cox, 2012), it is particularly important to support this diverse population as we continue to aim to recruit a diverse community of music educators.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Karen Koner

John Eros

References

Abel

S. J.

(2018). Music curriculum priorities of California community colleges: Stakeholders and practice [Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University]. Boston University Thesis & Dissertations. https://hdl.handle.net/2144/30654

Allen

J. M.

Smith

C. L.

Muehleck

J. K.

(2014). Pre- and post-transfer academic advising: What students say are the similarities and differences. Journal of College Student Development, 55(4), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0034

American Association of Community Colleges. (2022). Research. https://www.aacc.nche.edu/research-trends/

Anderman

M. A.

(2011). Musicianship instruction in California community colleges (Publication No. 902741333) [Doctoral dissertation, Boston University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis Global.

Belford

M. L.

(1970). An investigation and analysis of the public junior college music curriculum with emphasis on the problems of the transfer music major. Journal of Research in Music Education, 18(4), 407–413. https://doi.org/10.2307/3344508

Brewer

W. D.

(2014). Searching for community: The role identity development of a dually nontraditional music education student enrolled in a traditional degree program. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 200, 23–40. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.200.0023

Brophy

T. S.

(1997). Music in American community colleges: An historical overview. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21(8), 741–752. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066892970210806

California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2021). About California Community Colleges. https://www.cccco.edu/

Elpus

(2015). Music teacher licensure candidates in the United States: A demographic profile and analysis of licensure examination scores. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63(3), 314–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429415602470

10.

Eros

J. D.

(2014). Collecting and analyzing focus group data. In Conway

C. M.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research in American music education (pp. 271–287). Oxford University Press.

11.

Forrester

S. H.

Eros

(2020). Nontraditional students in traditional music education programs: A case study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 223, 42–58. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.223.0042

12.

Friedlander

(1979). Music history and appreciation in the two-year college curriculum. Journal of Research in Music Education, 27(1), 29–34. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/3345117

13.

Gandara

Alvarado

Driscoll

Orfield

(2012). Building pathways to transfer: Community colleges that break the chain of failure for students of color. The Civil Rights Project. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529493.pdf

14.

Glenn

(2020). A narrative study of transfer students in instrumental music education [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi]. The Aquila Digital Community. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1816

15.

Goodman

Schlossberg

N. K.

Anderson

M. L.

(2006). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice and theory (3rd ed). Springer.

16.

Hodara

Martinez-Wenzl

Stevens

Mazzeo

(2017). Exploring credit mobility and major-specific pathways: A policy analysis and student perspective on community college to university transfer. Community College Review, 45(4), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117724197

17.

Ishitani

T. T.

McKitrick

S. A.

(2010). After transfer: The engagement of community college students at a four-year collegiate institution. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(7), 576–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920701831522

18.

Koner

Eros

(2019). From Diego to the Bay: An exploratory study of instrumental music eduction majors in California [Poster presentation]. Colloquium for Teachers of Instrumental Music Methods. https://www.imte.online/

19.

Laanan

F. S.

(2001). Transfer student adjustment. New Directions for Community Colleges, 114, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.16

20.

LaSota

R. R.

Zumeta

(2016). What matters in increasing community college students’ upward transfer to the baccalaureate degree: Findings from the beginning postsecondary study 2003 - 2009. Research in Higher Education, 57, 152–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9381-z

21.

Lester

Leonard

J. B.

Mathias

(2013). Transfer student engagement: Blurring of social and academic engagement. Community College Review, 41(3), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552113496141

22.

Matthews

W. K.

Koner

K. M.

(2017). A survey of elementary and secondary music educators’ professional background, teaching responsibilities and job satisfaction in the United States. Research & Issues in Music Education, 13(1), Article 2. http://ir.stthomas.edu/rime/vol13/iss1/2

23.

Merriam

S. B.

Tisdell

S. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed). Jossey-Bass.

24.

Monaghan

D. B.

Attewell

(2015). The community college route to the bachelor’s degree. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 70–91. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714521865

25.

National Center for Education Statistics (2021). College enrollment rates. https://nces.ed.gov/

26.

Nora

Rendon

L. I.

(1990). Determinants of predisposition to transfer among community college students: A structural model. Research in Higher Education, 31(3), 235–255. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40195941

27.

Nunez

Yoshimi

(2016). A phenomenology of transfer: Students’ experiences at a receiving institution. Innovative Higher Education, 42, 173–187. https://doi-org.libproxy.sdsu.edu/10.1007/s10755-016-9374-7

28.

Powe

(2010). An assessment of music programs in the Alabama community college system [Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama]. The University of Alabama Institutional Repository. https://ir.ua.edu/handle/123456789/865

29.

Saldaña

(2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE.

30.

Schlossberg

N. K.

Waters

E. B.

Goodman

(1995). Counseling adults in transition (2nd ed). Springer.

31.

Seidman

(2019). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education & the social sciences (4th ed). Teachers College Press.

32.

The California State University. (2021). About the SU. https://www.calstate.edu/csu-system/about-the-csu

33.

Stewart

J. R.

Williams Vu

K. T.

Collins

T. R.

Clementson

C. J.

Berberick

D. M.

(2014). Motivating factors for teaching and studying music at two-year colleges: A survey of faculty and students. Contributions to Music Education, 40, 13–39. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/24711069

34.

Tobolowsky

B. F.

Cox

B. E.

(2012). Rationalizing neglect: An institutional response to transfer students. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2012.11777249v

35.

Townsend

B. K.

Wilson

(2006). “A hand to hold for a bit”: Factors facilitating the success of community college transfer students to a large research university. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0052

36.

Venezia

Jez

S. J. G.

(2019). Improving transfer in California: Trial and error in statewide reform and local implementation. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 11(3), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.5070/P2cjpp11343535

37.

Walker

K. Y.

Okpala

(2017). Exploring community college students’ transfer experiences and perceptions and what they believe administration can do to improve their experiences. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 65, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2017.1274618

38.

Wassmer

Moore

Shulock

(2004). The effect of racial/ethnic composition on transfer rates in community colleges: Implications for policy and practice. Research in Higher Education, 45, 651–672. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000040267.68949.d1

39.

Zhang

Y. L.

Laanan

F. S.

Adamuti-Trache

(2018). What matters to students’ satisfaction: A comparative study between vertical and horizontal transfer students at 4-year universities. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(12), 878–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1366