EXAMINING STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE NEW TRANSFER PROCESS, SB
1440: STUDENT TRANSFER ACHIEVEMENT REFORM (STAR) ACT BETWEEN
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND GRAND STATE UNIVERSITY
A Thesis
Presented to the faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
Education
(Higher Education Leadership)
by
Raquel G. Quirarte
SPRING
2014
EXAMINING STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE NEW TRANSFER PROCESS, SB
1440: STUDENT TRANSFER ACHIEVEMENT REFORM (STAR) ACT BETWEEN
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND GRAND STATE UNIVERSITY
A Thesis
by
Raquel G. Quirarte
Approved by:
, Committee Chair
José Chávez, Ed.D.
, Second Reader
Geni Cowan, Ph.D.
Date
ii
Student: Raquel G. Quirarte
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
, Department Chair
Susan Heredia, Ph.D.
Date
Graduate and Professional Studies in Education
iii
Abstract
of
EXAMINING STUDENT PERCEPTIONS OF THE NEW TRANSFER PROCESS, SB
1440: STUDENT TRANSFER ACHIEVEMENT REFORM (STAR) ACT BETWEEN
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND GRAND STATE UNIVERSITY
by
Raquel G. Quirarte
Brief Literature Review
The original California Master Plan of Higher Education came into effect after the
signing of Senate Bill 33, also known as the Donahue Act (California Department of
Education, 1960). The Master Plan faced drastic demographic changes, growth in
enrollment, and severe budget cuts between 1980 and 2010. During these difficult times
the state legislation made an additional attempt to help alleviate some of the strain by
creating a new bill—SB 1440: Student Achievement Reform Act—which came into
effect to help students transfer from a CCC to the GSU system and have a more seamless
transfer pathway. In an effort to gain further insight, the researcher used Astin’s theory
of student involvement and Bolman and Deal’s model of organizational structure.
iv
Statement of the Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine student perceptions of the new transfer
process, SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform (STAR) Act, between the
Community College and Grand State University.
The following questions were constructed based on the related literature:
1. What challenges or benefits did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform
Act, students encounter at Grand State?
2. What perceptions did the SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act
students have regarding the transfer process from the community college to Grand
State?
3. What recommendations did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act
students have for Grand State University to facilitate the transfer process?
The study researched the perceptions of STAR students from the local
Community Colleges to Grand State University. The study sought to provide
administrators, faculty, and student services professionals with insight into the STAR
students’ perceptions of the new transfer pathway as well as any challenges and benefits
they encountered during their transfer process. Furthermore, the study sought to provide
recommendations to administrators, faculty, and student services professionals on
possible improvements to services to facilitate the transfer process for future STAR
students.
v
Methodology
This study utilized a mixed methods research approach. The study consisted of
61 STAR students who had transferred to Grand State University. Forty-one point one
percent (41.1%) followed the SB 1440 transfer pathway for timely completion of degree,
obtaining an associate degree, and being admitted to Grand State. Fifty-five point six
percent (55.6%) were admitted into impacted programs. Furthermore, 57.1% had a
positive transfer experience.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The research provided insight on challenges STAR students experienced during
their transfer process. Lack of communication from the two-year and four-year
institutions created frustration for students seeking information regarding the new transfer
pathway. The benefits highlighted were admission to their four-year school of choice and
admission into impacted programs. The study revealed the importance of a more
structured transfer pathway and is highly recommended in order for future SB 1440
students to persist toward the completion of their bachelor’s degree in a timely manner.
, Committee Chair
José Chávez, Ed.D.
Date
vi
DEDICATION
First, I would like to thank God. Without Him, I would have not been able to accomplish
this goal.
To my parents, I was blessed to have you two as role models. Thank you for instilling in
me dedication, perseverance, and the ability to never give up, without which I would not
be here today.
To my loving husband, I thank you for your many years of support, for your
unconditional love, and your patience. Without you, I would not be able to pursue my
dreams. I love you.
To my boys, you guys are my guiding lights that keep me strong and keep me going
every single day. I love you with all of my heart.
To my siblings, I thank you for all you have taught me throughout the years. Being the
youngest of six has never been easy, but I have had the opportunity to learn so much from
each and every one of you. You have taught me the true meaning of dedication, strength,
courage, fairness, and last but definitely not least, love.
To my friends--you know who you are--I thank you for being the cheerleaders I needed
to get me through this process.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank Dr. Lee. Without his initial guidance and sincere
interest in the completion of my thesis, I would not have achieved this goal.
I would like to thank Dr. Chávez for not only for serving as my committee chair,
but also for providing me with further understanding of the higher education field.
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr. Cowan. You are one of a kind! I appreciate
your insight into the field of higher education, and I thank you for helping me change my
“lens” to rediscover my passion for education.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ........................................................................................................................ vii
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
Background ............................................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 2
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 3
Definition of Terms................................................................................................. 4
Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis ......................................................... 6
2. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE ........................................................... 8
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 8
California Master Plan of Higher Education .......................................................... 8
Impaction .............................................................................................................. 20
Senate Bill 1440 .................................................................................................... 23
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 26
Rationale for the Study ......................................................................................... 31
Summary ............................................................................................................... 32
3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 34
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 34
Research Design.................................................................................................... 35
Design of the Study............................................................................................... 36
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 36
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 37
Limitations of the Study........................................................................................ 39
ix
4. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION ..................................................................... 41
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 41
Presentation of Data .............................................................................................. 41
Interpretation of the Data ...................................................................................... 51
Summary ............................................................................................................... 54
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................... 55
Summary ............................................................................................................... 55
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 56
Recommendation .................................................................................................. 57
Suggestions for Future Research .......................................................................... 58
Appendix A. Email to Prospective Participants ................................................................ 60
Appendix B. Online Survey Questionnaire ...................................................................... 61
Appendix C. Interview Questionnaire .............................................................................. 65
Appendix D. Email for Interview Invitation ..................................................................... 67
References ......................................................................................................................... 68
x
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Ethnic Group/Race ................................................................................................ 43
2.
Which community college did you transfer from? ............................................... 44
3.
What is your current Major? ................................................................................. 45
4.
Why did you choose to follow this new transfer pathway (STAR act)? .............. 47
5.
Questions Nine, Eleven, and Twelve .................................................................... 48
xi
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
In the early 1960s, California was at the top of the charts regarding public higher
education with regard to access, funding, and coordination. California’s higher education
system was modeled by other states. However, after the creation of the California Master
Plan of Higher Education in the 1960s, the state was unable to foresee the challenges
public education would face in the years to come. Increased enrollment, changes in
demographics, and lack of funding have made California’s original Master Plan of
Higher Education forgo several reviews and reanalysis of the state’s circumstances.
Although faced with these challenges, higher educators continue to revise the Master
Plan to strive for a quality education for all future youth of California.
From the beginning, one of the missions of the Master Plan has been for students
to be able to transfer from a California Community College (CCC) to a University of
California (UC) or a California State University (CSU). However, with all the issues the
state has faced, accommodating such a streamlined transfer pathway has been extremely
difficult. Due to impaction and a lack of resources, in 2010, the California Legislature
created and signed Senate Bill (SB) 1440: Student Transfer Reform (STAR) Act in order
to help the student transfer process from the CCC to the UC and CSU.
At Grand State University (GSU), impaction began in 2010, and since the signing
of the STAR Act, GSU has worked closely with its local community colleges to create
2
these transfer pathways by allowing students with (a) 60 units, (b) an associate degree,
and (c) a 2.0 grade point average (GPA) to transfer to its institution. As of the fall 2013
term, 240 students had transferred to GSU with an associate in arts degree for transfer
(AA-T) or an associate in science degree for transfer (AS-T).
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of the study was to examine student perceptions of the new transfer
process—enacted through the STAR Act—from the CCC system to GSU.
The following questions were constructed based on the related literature:
1. What challenges or benefits did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement
Reform Act students encounter at Sacramento State?
2. What perceptions did the SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform
Act students have regarding the transfer process from the community
college to Sacramento State?
3. What recommendations did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement
Reform Act students have for Grand State University to facilitate the
transfer process?
The study researched the perceptions of STAR students from the local community
colleges to GSU. The study sought to provide insight to administrators, faculty, and
student services professionals on the STAR students’ perceptions of the new transfer
pathway as well as any challenges and benefits they encountered during their transfer
process. Furthermore, the study sought to provide recommendations to administrators,
3
faculty, and student services professionals on possible improvements to services and to
facilitate the transfer process for future STAR students.
Significance of the Study
Transfer between the three segments of the California higher education system
has always been key. The transfer process from the CCC to the UC or CSU has faced
many challenges. Attempts have been made to improve the process, such as
Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) and Transfer Admission
Guarantee (TAG); however, neither facilitated the transfer process as intended. Both
IGETC and TAG are used more often by students who transfer to a UC, although some
may use IGETC to transfer to a CSU (Institute for Higher Education Research and
Policy, 2009). There is still a need for a more structured transfer pathway from the CCC
to the CSU system that will provide students with the necessary guidance and structure to
have a more seamless transfer and allow timely completion of their degree.
The results of this study will provide educational administrators, faculty, and
student services professionals with information necessary to enhance current services to
help facilitate the transfer pathway for students’ transferring from the CCC system to a
four-year institution. The study will also contribute to the literature and identify any gaps
that may currently be present.
4
Definition of Terms
Achievement gap
Refers to the unequal or inequitable distribution of educational results and
benefits between racial groups (Great Schools Partnership, 2013).
AA-T
Associate in arts degree for transfer (Low & Pilati, 2011).
AS-T
Associate in science degree for transfer (Low & Pilati, 2011).
California State University (CSU) system
A public system of four-year institutions that offers undergraduate degrees,
graduate degrees up to the master's level, and selected doctoral degrees
(University of California [UC], n.d.)
California Community College (CCC)
A postsecondary education institution that offers only academic and vocational
instruction at the lower division level; it grants the associate of arts and the
associate of science degrees. Some colleges also provide adult education
programs, including basic skills, vocational, and technical programs (UC, n.d.).
Cal Grant A
Financial aid providing funds toward tuition and fees at a four-year college. If
students apply using their high school GPA, they must have at least a 3.0 GPA; if
applying using their college GPA, they must have at least a 2.4 GPA. It also
requires students’ course of study lead directly to an associate or bachelor’s
5
degree, or qualifies them for transfer from a community college to a bachelor’s
degree program (California Student Aid Commission, 2014).
Cal Grant B
State financial aid providing a living allowance of up to $1,473 in addition to
tuition and fee assistance after the first year of attending a two- or four-year
college. When renewed or awarded beyond the first year, students receive the
living allowance as well as a tuition and fee award. A minimum 2.0 GPA is
required (California Student Aid Commission, 2014).
Cal Grant C
State financial aid geared toward students pursuing their education in a technical
or vocational program. It is available for up to two years to be used to help with
tuition fees and education related supplies (California Student Aid Commission,
2014).
Low-income student
An individual whose family's taxable income for the preceding year did not
exceed 150% of the poverty level amount (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).
Opportunity gap
Refers to the unequal or inequitable distribution of resources and opportunities
based on ethnicity and socioeconomic status
Pell Grant
A federal grant for undergraduate students with financial need (Federal Student
Aid, n.d.).
6
People of color
In 2012, people of color constituted 60.9% of California’s population. Of
Californians, 6.6% were Black, 13.9% Asian, 38.2% Hispanic or of Latin origin,
1.7% American Indian and Alaska Native, and 0.5% Native Hawaiian and other
Pacific Islander (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2012).
SB 1440 (Padilla)
Student Transfer Achievement Reform (STAR) Act was signed by the governor
on September 29, 2010 “to streamline major transfer pathways” (Taylor, 2012, p.
3).
STAR students
GSU’s acronym for students following the SB 1440 (Padilla) STAR Act transfer
pathway.
Students of color
Students of color were defined as students who identified themselves as AfricanAmerican, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, and/or Native
American/Alaska Native.
Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis
The study is organized into five chapters. The next section, Chapter 2, is the
review of the related literature. The chapter introduces four subtopics and discusses the
theoretical frameworks that make up this study. Chapter 3 explains the methodology
used for the study. It describes the setting, design, population and sample, data collection
7
process, instrumentation, and limitations of the study. Chapter 4 presents the results and
interpretation of the data. Chapter 5 concludes the study with a summary of the study
and recommendations.
8
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter presents the California Master Plan of Education and addresses the
function and challenges it has faced since the 1960s. The Master Plan created a
foundation for the study and addressed the issues encountered in providing services to
students pursuing a degree at an institution of higher education. This chapter also
provides information on the importance of the transfer process from the two-year to the
four-year colleges and universities. It discusses the current challenges of impaction,
which create another obstacle for transfer students, especially those from diverse
populations. The introduction of the STAR act is presented and discussed in regard to
how it will help with the future of the California education system. The final section of
this chapter is dedicated to the discussion of the theoretical frameworks that will help
facilitate and enhance the new established transfer pathway.
California Master Plan of Higher Education
Senate Bill 33, also known as the Donahoe Act, was said to be “the most
significant step California had ever taken in the planning for the education of our youth”
(Welter, 1960, para. 1). In the late 1950s, the California Legislature requested via
Assembly Concurrent Resolution (ACR) 88 for the University of California Regents and
the State Board of Education
9
to prepare a Master Plan for the development, expansion, and integration of the
facilities, curriculum, and standards of higher education, in junior colleges, state
colleges, UC, and other institutions of higher education of the State, to meet the
needs of the State during the next ten years and thereafter. (Bollard, 2009, para.
11)
In 1960, the Donahoe Higher Education Act was brought forth and eventually became the
foundation for the California Master Plan of Higher Education. The California Master
Plan has gone through several reviews, and modifications have been made throughout the
last 50 years. The University of California Office of the President (n.d.) stated four major
accomplishments:

The Master Plan created a system that combined exceptional quality with broad
access to students.

It transformed a collection of uncoordinated and competing colleges and
universities into a coherent system.

It established a broad framework for higher education that encourages each of the
three public higher education segments to concentrate on creating its own kind of
excellence within its own particular set of responsibilities. and

It acknowledged the vital role of the independent colleges and universities,
envisioning higher education in California as a single continuum of educational
opportunity, from small private colleges to large public universities. (p. 1)
10
Donahoe Higher Education Act, 1960
California’s higher education system was the subject of numerous studies from
the early 1930s to the late 1950s in an effort to improve the postsecondary education
system in the state. Studies included “1932: State Higher Education in California;”
“Report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
Recommendations of the Commission of Seven, 1948;” “A Report of a Survey of the
Needs of California in Higher Education, 1955;” “A Restudy of the Needs of California
in Higher Education, 1957;” “A Study of the Need for Additional Centers of Public
Higher Education in California” (Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2012, para. 2).
As a result of these studies, recommendations were formed into a legislative bill, the
aforementioned Senate Bill 33, also known as the Donahoe Act, which was voted in by
the legislature and signed by Governor Edmund G. Brown on April 14, 1960 (California
Department of Education [CDE], 1960).
One of the main contributions of the Donahoe Act was to amend the California
Constitution. The California Constitution was amended to place the “tripartite public
system” within the governance of the state (Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2012,
para. 2). The three systems of higher education included the University of California
(UC), the State College (which became the California State University [CSU]), and the
Junior College (which became the California Community College [CCC]) systems. The
Donahoe Act was the gateway for the creation and approval of the Master Plan of Higher
Education in California. The Master Plan of Higher Education provided a “refined
structure, function, and coordination of the higher education systems” (CDE, 1960, p. xi).
11
University of California. The UC system was designed to recruit the top 12.5%
of the state’s high school students. Students attending a community college prior to
transferring to the UC system would be admitted with a 2.4 GPA or higher. The Master
Plan of Higher Education also established nine original campuses including Berkeley,
San Francisco, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Riverside, Davis, San Diego, Irvine, and
Santa Cruz. The main function of the UC system was set to be in research, and the
campuses were to be the only ones allowed to provide the highest of degrees, including
the doctorate (CDE, 1960).
State College/California State University. The California Master Plan of
Higher Education initiated 16 original State College campuses. The California Master
Plan of Higher Education established the State Colleges to recruit the top 33.3% of all
high school students with a minimum 2.0 GPA. The most substantive change brought
forth by the Master Plan of Higher Education was the means of governance. The State
College had previously been governed by the state educational boards, and now the State
College would be governed by the State College Board of Trustees. The main function of
the State College was to provide bachelor’s level degrees. In addition, the schools were
allowed to provide master’s level degrees and conduct minor research. The State College
was allowed to provide doctoral degrees only in conjunction with the UC system (CDE,
1960).
Junior College/California Community College. Under the California Master
Plan of Higher Education, the Junior College remained under the governance of the State
Board of Education. The main function of the Junior College
12
was to provide one or more of the following: (a) standard collegiate courses for
transfer to higher institutions, (b) vocational-technical fields leading to
employment, and (c) general or liberal arts courses. Studies in these fields may
lead to the Associate in Arts or Associates in Science Degree. (California State
Board of Education, 1960, p. 2)
Students of the Junior College, now known as the California Community College (CCC),
had been guaranteed admission to a UC or a State College via a ratio of 1:2
transfer:nontransfer students during freshman admission (University of California, 1999).
Modifications and Impacts to the Original Master Plan
After the initiation of the California Master Plan of Higher Education (Master
Plan) in 1960, reviews were conducted every 5-10 years. Many recommendations were
brought forth, as stated by the Center for Studies in Higher Education (2012), and there
were four major post-1960 reviews of the Master Plan. Each resulted in modifications to
California’s higher education system. However, there were few major structural changes
with the exception of the establishment of the Board of Governors of the California
Community Colleges in 1968 and the creation of the California Postsecondary Education
Commission to replace the Coordinating Council for Higher Education in 1974 (Center
for Studies in Higher Education, 2012). Modifications to the Master Plan in the late
1980s were meant to be internally developed by each individual institution and its
governing bodies (CDE, 1987); however, the original planners of the Master Plan were
unable to foresee the demographic and economic changes with which the state of
California would be faced.
13
Demographic changes. One major impact on the Master Plan was the
demographic shift in the state of California. During the 1990s, the student population
continued to grow and diversify. Research by Hansen (1998) and Lucas (1994) found
non-traditional-aged students and part-time students entering college (as cited in Kinzie
et al., 2004), and women soon outnumbered men on American campuses. This increase
created a larger population of students pursuing higher education (Hansen; Harwarth,
Maline, & DeBra as cited in Kinzie et al., 2004).
According to the Public Policy Institute of California (Bohn, Reyes, & Johnson,
2013), in the 1990s, there was a 37% (2.4 million person) increase of immigrants in the
state of California. In 2010, the PPIC noted a decrease of 30% in the number of Whites
in California; the decrease occurred from 1970 to 1990, with the exception of in Sierra
County. The increase in people of color in the state also created an overall increase in
enrollment by students of color. Enrollment of African-American students at institutes of
higher education rose, but the biggest increase in minority student enrollment was among
Latino students, according to Lucas (as cited in Wells, 2008). Wells (2008) stated that
from the early 1990s to 2007, there was a 10% increase of Hispanics in California.
Wells’s (2008) research claimed a slower increase in the proportion of students of color
enrolling in the state’s three higher education systems. In more recent studies, the PPIC
(2010) also reported an increase of Latino students (27% attending a CSU), noting a total
increase of 20% from 1995. Furthermore, even though eligibility rates for Latinos and
African-Americans have improved notably over the past decade, those rates are still
substantially lower than for Whites and Asians (PPIC, 2010).
14
Demographic changes in higher education were also due to non-traditional
students. Non-traditional students, as defined by the U.S. Department of Education
(1996), include students with one or more of the following three criteria: “1) enrollment
patterns, 2) financial and family status, and 3) high school graduation status” (p. 3). The
“enrollment of nontraditional students overall increased between 1986 and 1989, and then
leveled off in 1992” (U.S. Department of Education, 1996, p. 12).
With the demographic shift in the state of California, the Master Plan was not
only being challenged for its ability to serve students but it was also faced with financial
burdens brought upon by the state. Since the mid-1990s, there has been a decline of
federal funds to the higher education system, and in the 2000s, there was a decline of
state funds to the higher education system; these created an even greater challenge for the
Master Plan to properly serve all students. California could no longer accommodate the
demographic shift officially (Kinzie et al., 2004). With the increase of immigrants, nontraditional, and minority students, the Master Plan was faced with another challenge: lowincome students.
Low-income. Due to the demographic changes within the state of California—
such as an increase of immigrants and non-traditional, part-time, and adult students
entering the higher education system—the focus of the Master Plan shifted. The Master
Plan’s new focus became low-income students. According to the U.S. Department of
Education (2014), “low-income” means an individual whose family’s taxable income for
the preceding year did not exceed 150% of the poverty level amount (para. 2). In
addition, the U.S. Department of Education (2000) claimed 26% of all undergraduate
15
students were low-income between 1995 and 1996. These students were primarily from
ethnic minority groups, of non-traditional ages, and whose parents did not attend college
(U.S. Department of Education, 2000).
The state made several efforts to help this group of students by providing them
with financial aid (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). The federal government
provided money for low-income students with the Pell Grant. The Pell Grant was
established in the 1980s and given to students who demonstrated need based on the
federal government’s “needs-analysis formula” (New American Foundation, 2014, para.
2). The state of California also began a similar program to help low-income students.
The Cal Grant provided money to low-income students who were attending a public or
independent four-year college or university (Institute of Higher Education Leadership and
Policy, 2002). There were three types of Cal Grants for students attending an institution
of higher education: Cal Grant A, Cal Grant B, and Cal Grant C.
In addition, students from low-income households tend to not only have difficulty
funding their education but also tend to be under-prepared for the academic challenges of
an institution of higher education. The PPIC (2010) stated high poverty rates of students
in kindergarten through the 12th grade (K-12) can correlate with an increase in
remediation needed during the first year of college. Furthermore, their research showed
68% of freshman students entering the CSU system in 1998 needed remediation. The
effects of low-income students entering public institutions of higher education, along
with the students’ lack of preparedness to succeed, created an increase in enrollment
levels the system of higher education was no longer able to accommodate.
16
Growth of enrollment. With the increase of financial assistance for low-income
students and an increase of non-traditional students, the state of California faced a growth
of enrollment within its institutions of higher education. The CCC alleviated some of the
strain caused by the growth in enrollment. Remediation was one of main functions of the
CCC. Remediation helped students who were not prepared for college-level work
(Zeidenberg, 2008). Astin (2003) agreed the original Master Plan called for remediation
to be addressed at the community college level. However, as students’ needs for
remediation increased, there was an increase of students at community colleges (PPIC,
2010). The community colleges had to turn away over 600,000 students due to the
increase in student enrollments (Inside Higher Ed, 2013). With the creation of a
bottleneck at the community college level and the difficulty of transferring from the
community college to a four-year institution, the California Legislature has had to make
modifications to the Master Plan to facilitate the transfer process.
Transfer from the California Community College
According to Net Industries (2013), during the 1980s and 1990s, the community
colleges advanced as an integral part of the rethinking and restructuring of elementary,
secondary, and higher education systems. The CCC became the connection between K12 and an institution of higher education. The three main functions of the CCC are to
provide vocational and technical coursework, grant associate degrees, and offer courses
to allow transfer to a four-year institution of higher education (CDE, 1960). The transfer
function of the community college became an important process, and several attempts to
facilitate the process have been implemented since the early 1980s.
17
TAGs. Transfer Admission Guarantee (TAG) began in the 1980s when UC San
Diego needed to recruit students. This transfer pathway is offered by seven UC
campuses, requiring students to complete an agreement with one UC of choice. They
must complete required courses along with meeting GPA requirements (Institute for
Higher Education Leadership and Policy, 2009).
IGETC. Inter-segmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) was
implemented in 1991 (Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, 1991).
IGETC permits students to transfer from a community college to a UC or CSU by
completing lower division general education requirements. This is used primarily for
transfer to a UC (Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy, 2009).
Despite the efforts to improve the transfer pathway from the CCC to a four-year
institution, research conducted by Bailey and Alfonso (2005) demonstrated community
college students have low persistence and completion rates (p. 5). Only 36% of students
who entered the community college right out of high school completed an associate or
bachelor’s degree within six years (Bailey & Alfonso, 2005). In addition, research by the
Center for American Progress (2009) showed the opportunity gap between the
populations defined as White and Asian and those defined as Hispanic, Black, and Native
American. The research also showed an inconsistency of the transfer rate from the CCC
to a four-year institution between these populations. Students who were low-income and
of African-American, Native American, or Latino ethnicities transferred at lower rates
than their White, Asian, or more affluent peers (Center for American Progress, 2009).
18
Students need several components to successfully persist through the higher
education system. According to Pascarella and Terenzini, (as cited in Bailey & Alfonso,
2005), students need additional academic advising, counseling, and comprehensive
support services to succeed. Community colleges have made attempts to provide all
services within courses titled “student life skills” or “student success” (Zeidenberg, 2008,
p. 57). These courses focus on basic skills needed, such as how to interact with faculty,
use the library, use the counseling center, and navigate through their major (Zeidenberg,
2008).
The transfer pathway between the CCC and a four-year institution is currently
faced with several challenges, such as a segmented system, a lack of preparedness after
K-12, and the need for remediation and additional student support services. The transfer
process will not improve by individually focusing on only one issue (Alfonso & Bailey,
2005). According to Alfonso and Bailey (2005), it is necessary to reform all aspects such
as “teaching methods, counseling, student services, and organizational philosophy” (p.
21). In addition, budget cuts by the state to the higher education system have created yet
a greater need for reform and reorganization of the transfer pathway.
Budget Cuts
The growth of eligible high school graduates, according to the PPIC (2010), along
with the increase of non-traditional students coupled with severe budget cuts to the state,
have had a great impact on the ability for the Master Plan to properly serve all students as
initially intended (Bollard, 2009). The creators of the Master Plan of 1960 could not
foresee the demographic and economic changes of the state. As the demand for higher
19
education grew, Quintero (2012) stated, in comparison, “the current population of young
adults was larger and much more racially and ethnically diverse” (p. 2) and “more apt to
enroll in college than the generation that came of age in the 1990s” (p. 3). Also, the PPIC
(2010) stated the percentage of eligible high school graduates increased from 26% in
1986 to 36% in 2006. Along with an increase in demand for enrollment in institutions of
higher education, the Master Plan was being challenged by the budget cuts brought forth
by the state’s Legislature.
Research by Quintero (2012) claimed state support per student declined by 2.3%
between the 1990-91 and 2010-11 academic years. Furthermore, since 2008, California’s
Legislature had reduced higher education funds by 29.3% (Leachman, Johnson, Oliff, &
Palacios, 2013). With the increase in enrollment demands and the decrease in budget,
California’s institutions of higher education were forced to make difficult decisions, and
approximately 600,000 students have been turned away since 2008 (Bohn, Johnson, &
Reyes, 2013).
Since the creation of the Master Plan, the community college was California’s
higher education system’s segment that admitted all students. By the late 2010s,
California’s higher education system had been saturated due to a combination of
increased enrollment and reductions in state funding. The CCC, for the first time,
became impacted. The community college impaction affected, even further, the transfer
process to the four-year institutions.
20
Impaction
A CSU campus may declare impaction when a CSU campus or program is
impacted. This can happen when the number of admission applications received from
fully qualified applicants during the initial filing period exceeds the number of available
spaces (California State University [CSU], 2012). The CSU campus must petition to be
declared impacted. Once the campus has been declared impacted by the CSU
Chancellor’s office, it may also have specific programs that may be impacted as well.
Campus-wide
Campus impaction (otherwise known as campus-wide impaction) means that a
campus has exhausted existing enrollment capacity in terms of the instructional
resources and physical capacity of the campus. Because the campus receives
more eligible applicants during the initial admission application filing period than
can be accommodated, the campus must therefore restrict enrollment to the
campus for a specific enrollment category (i.e., first-time freshmen or transfers)
(California State University, 2012, p. 3).
For a small percentage of prospective freshmen or new transfers, their
eligibility may be weighed alongside other criteria such as: first generation
college status, socioeconomic factors, indication of overcoming educational
hardship, skills or talents that align with or contribute to university programs or
enrich the educational experience of the campus community (Sacramento State,
2014, para. 6).
21
Program-specific
There are subtle, yet important, differences between major and campus impaction.
Major impaction means that the number of applications from fully eligible
students to a designated major on a CSU campus during the initial filing period
far exceeds the number of spaces available in that major. However, students can
still be admitted to the campus in an alternate major, or they may eventually be
admitted to the oversubscribed major if they meet the supplementary admission
criteria. Fullerton, Long Beach, San Diego, San Jose, and San Luis Obispo
campuses are impacted in all majors, (California State University, November 6,
2013, para. 2).
Grand State University
With major budget cuts of $571 million (California State University, Sacramento,
2010) toward the CSU, GSU was faced with a need to reduce full-time equivalent
employees by 10.8% for the 2010-11 academic year (California State University,
Sacramento, 2010). In 2011, it declared the impaction of several programs. Its impacted
programs included business administration, criminal justice, design, health science,
nursing, and psychology (Sacramento State, 2014). These programs require
supplemental applications to review program-specific criteria for students wanting to be
admitted to the impacted program.
When students are initially admitted to GSU for an impacted program, they are
considered “expressed interest” (California State University, Sacramento, n.d.) until all
22
prerequisites, as well as supplemental paperwork, are submitted and students are fully
accepted by the impacted program (California State University, Sacramento, n.d.).
Whom Does Impaction Affect?
Studies show students of color have been more likely to be unprepared and unable
to be retained and persist toward the completion of a degree within an institution of
higher education (American Council on Education, 2011). As institutions of higher
education have become impacted in the GSU system, their admission requirements have
been raised due to their limited resources to accommodate additional students. The
achievement gap between White and Asian students and other students has grown.
Impaction will affect students of color who are already at a disadvantage (American
Council on Education, 2011).
Impaction has created an increase in students being turned away from the GSU
system. These students are not only being turned away from the GSU system but may
also be required to take additional courses at the CCC in order to raise their GPA to
obtain admission into the impacted program. With impaction on the horizon and the
increase in enrollment with decreases in budget, there is a great need for an improved
pipeline between each transition of the higher education system (American Council on
Education, 2011). The state Legislature has made an effort to provide an improved
pipeline to help facilitate the pathways from the CCC to the CSU.
23
Senate Bill 1440
When the CSU schools became impacted, students had to be turned away. The
lack of space within the CSU created a greater need for the CCC. The CCC schools were
then impacted as well and had to turn prospective students away. The state Legislature
determined a new bill would be needed to facilitate the transfer pathway between the
CCC and the CSU to create a more educated future population in California (Legislative
Counsel’s Digest, 2010).
Legislation and Policy
Since the establishment of the California Master Plan of Higher Education and the
Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, there have been ongoing efforts to create a more
seamless pathway for students pursuing a higher education degree. The Senate Bill 1440
(Padilla): Student Transfer Achievement Reform (STAR) Act was signed by the governor
on September 29, 2010 “to streamline major transfer pathways” between the CSU and the
CCC (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2012, p. 3). The rationale for the creation of the
STAR Act, according to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest (2010, p. 11), was as follows:
a. Since the enactment of the Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960, preparing
students to transfer to a four-year university has been a core function of the
California Community Colleges.
b. Successful progression from lower division coursework to degree completion is a
basic principle of California higher education and is critical to the future of the
state’s economy.
24
c. Currently, the coursework necessary to transfer to a campus of the California
State University or the University of California differs from the coursework
needed to earn an associate degree. As a result, many transfer students leave the
community college system having completed transfer requirements, but are
unable to participate in community college graduation ceremonies, do not have a
degree to show for their work, and are ineligible for some awards and
scholarships because they did not fulfill current requirements for an associate
degree.
d. Today, one in every four jobs requires an associate degree or higher. In the near
future, one in every three jobs will require an associate degree or higher.
e. The Public Policy Institute of California projects that California will have one
million fewer graduates than it needs in 2025, and that increasing transfer rates
from community colleges to four-year postsecondary.
educational institutions would dramatically reduce the education skills gap.
f. The community college system allows the state to address the serious projected
shortage of educated workers.
g.
To meet workforce demands in a cost-effective way, incentivizing students to
earn an associate degree while preparing for transfer to a four-year college or
university, and recognizing that they have completed a transfer preparation course
pattern, provides students encouragement and support to complete their overall
educational pursuits. (p. 11)
The STAR Act benefits students who meet the following criteria:
25
1. Completion of 60 semester units or 90 quarter units that are eligible for transfer to
the California State University, including both of the following:
a. The Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) or the
California State University General Education-Breadth Requirements.
b. A minimum of 18 semester units or 27 quarter units in a major or area of
emphasis, as determined by the community college district.
2. Obtainment of a minimum grade point average of 2.0. (Legislative Counsel’s
Digest, 2010, p. 14)
California’s Future
The future of California has many challenges to face within the higher education
system. Today, however, higher education in California faces two crises: the budget
problem and the education achievement gap (PPIC, 2010). Baldassare and Hanak (2005)
also noted one of most threatening trends is the potential mismatch between the education
requirements of the new economy and the amount of education its future population is
likely to have. The institute also predicted the problem of education trends of California
not coinciding with the population growth since the population growth would be from
groups typically attaining a lower level of education, “primarily Mexican Americans” (p.
15). Research showed if past trends in worker education within and across industries and
occupations “were to continue, the demand for college-educated workers in 2025 would
be equivalent to 41% of California workers” (Reed, 2008, p. 1). Taking into account the
importance of education to the future of California, the state Legislature decided to create
a bill to facilitate the transfer process from the CCC to the CSU.
26
The STAR Act is crucial for the future of California. It addresses the issue of
California’s future needs for an educated population. The STAR Act focuses on major
components by creating a pathway from the CCC to the CSU; it addresses the amount of
units needed for the completion of an associate of arts or an associate of science degree,
which allows students to have a certificate to obtain a job while furthering their studies at
a CSU. The act also requires the CSU to modify its programs so only an additional 60
units would be required at the CSU. With the restriction of a maximum of 120 units
comprised of 60 at the CCC and 60 at the CSU, a student would be able to obtain his or
her degree in a more timely fashion (Legislative Counsel’s Digest, 2010). If pathways
are created between the CSU and the CCC, a student will be better equipped to navigate
through the system and persist toward his or her degree.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical frameworks that make up this study are Astin’s (1984) student
involvement theory and Bolman and Deal’s (2008) theory of organizational structure,
which is based on four frames. Astin’s (1975, 1977) main theoretical focus was on
student involvement. It stated to improve student retention, students must be involved on
campus. Additionally several longitudinal studies of student development determine the
“chances of students dropping out are substantially greater at a two-year college than at a
four-year college” (Astin, 1984, p. 524). Astin’s theory used the input, environment, and
outcomes (I-E-O) model to determine student development. Bolman and Deal’s four-
27
frame model of organizational structure focused on four aspects of any organization
including structure, human resources, politics, and symbols.
These theories will help with understanding the importance of the transfer process
from the CCC to GSU. They focus on how it is vital for administrators, faculty, and
student services professionals to be aware of the importance of student involvement
during the transfer process from a two-year college to a four-year college. They also help
provide insight to the importance of organizations, in this case institutions of higher
education, to modify their structures to provide a healthier and more efficient
organization. Ultimately, both of these models will help provide administrators, faculty,
and student service professionals with the necessary tools to help streamline the transfer
process by way of the STAR Act.
Overview of Alexander W. Astin, Student Involvement Theory
Alexander Astin’s theory of student development is composed of three
components: inputs, environment, and outcomes. His theory is known as “the inputenvironment-outcome (I-E-O) model used as a conceptual guide for studying college
student development” (Astin, 1993, p. 7).
Inputs. Inputs refer to the “characteristics of the student at the time of initial
entry to the institution” (Astin, 1993, p. 7). Inputs may also include performance pretests
that function as control variables in research. In addition, Astin (1993) stated inputs
might include demographic information, educational background, political orientation,
behavior pattern, degree aspiration, reason for selecting an institution, financial status,
career choice, major field of study, life goals, and reason for attending college (as cited in
28
Thurmond & Popkess-Vawter, n.d.). “Including input data when using the I-E-O model
is imperative because inputs directly influence both the environment and outcomes,
thereby doubly effecting outputs” (Thurmond & Popkess-Vawter, n.d., para. 10).
Environment. Environment “refers to the various programs, policies, faculty,
peers, and educational experiences to which the student is exposed” (Astin, 1993, p. 7).
Institutions affect a student’s environment in the following manners: through student peer
group characteristics, faculty characteristics curriculum, financial aid, and residence,
according to Astin (1993). Per Astin (1993), student involvement is also an important
aspect of his or her environment; different outcomes may be achieved based on the
amount of time a student dedicates to studying and participating in class.
Outcomes. Outputs are outcome variables that may include post-tests,
consequences, or end results. Astin (1993) stated in education, outcome measures have
included indicators such as grade point average, exam scores, course performance, degree
completion, and overall course satisfaction. Outputs are the student’s characteristics
“after exposure to the environment” (Astin, 1993, p. 7).
Astin also created five basic assumptions about involvement. He argued
involvement requires an investment of psychosocial and physical energy. Secondly,
involvement is continuous, and the amount of energy invested varies from student to
student. Thirdly, aspects of involvement may be qualitative and quantitative. Next, what
a student gains from being involved (or their development) is directly proportional to the
extent to which they were involved (in both aspects of quality and quantity). Lastly,
academic performance is correlated with student involvement (Astin, 1984).
29
Astin (1984) believed students’ involvement was vital in the development of their
academic career. Astin (1984) viewed involvement as the energy students would use in
their day-to-day lives. The more energy they used toward their academic careers, the
more likely they would succeed. Astin’s theory also included the belief that the greatest
resource the administration has is the students’ time and energy (Astin, 1984). The
administration must incorporate activities in which students may stay actively involved.
Faculty also needs to help students stay involved; it should focus less on the content and
teaching techniques and more on what students are actually doing so they may be aware
of how motivated and how much time and energy their students devote to learning (Astin,
1984). Finally, student services professionals must also take an active role in assuring
students are involved. Student services professionals are vital elements to student
involvement because they frequently work one-on-one with them (Astin, 1984). In
summary, Astin’s theory of student involvement creates “a unifying construct that can
help focus the energies of all institutional personnel on a common objective” (Astin,
1984, p. 527).
Overview of The Four Frame Model of Bolman and Deal
Bolman and Deal’s model focused on four aspects of an organization, which are
the structural, human resources, political, and symbolic. Their model focused on
“reframing different aspects of the four frames of the organization” in order to create a
more efficient organization as a whole (Bolman & Deal, 2009, p. ix). The structural
frame also deals with the rules, roles, goals, and policies that drive behavior within an
organization (Bolman & Deal, 2008). In an institution of higher education, this would
30
include the mission, university policies, and culture of an organization. “The structural
frame suggests organizations are stable environments that can increase efficiency through
the specialization and division of labor” (Kohut, 2011, para. 3).
Human resources focus on human and organizational needs and the relationships
among them (Bolman & Deal, 2008). For an institution of higher education, this would
pertain to what students’, faculty’s, administration’s, and student services professionals’
needs are, along with how they pertain to what the institution’s needs may be.
Power, conflict and competition are features of what is included in the political
frame (Bolman & Deal, 2008). An organization must build networks and coalitions to
acquire power and acquire resources. A good, healthy organization is comfortable with
conflict and is capable of negotiating in this environment (Kohut, 2011). Within an
institution of higher education, the political aspect of the frame would include the
president of an institution and how well he or she uses resources to create established
networks among the campus communities and the surrounding communities as well as
the relationship he or she has with the surrounding community colleges.
The symbolic frame focuses on the culture of an organization and the importance
of its leaders to inspire (Bolman & Deal, 2008) and provide vision (Kohut, 2011). For an
institution of higher education, it is important for those who lead others to provide
inspiration and vision. Administrators, faculty, and student professionals providing
services or making decisions to enhance or facilitate students’ experiences have key roles
in being inspiring and visionary.
31
Bolman and Deal’s (2008) four frameworks were formed to understand the
different components of an organization. By isolating the different components, it could
be understood where an organization’s need for improvement is. Organizations or
institutions of higher education can then reframe themselves in order to work more
efficiently as a whole.
Rationale for the Study
Since the creation of the Master Plan of Higher education, transferring between
the three segments of the California higher education system has been a key role.
However, due to the budget cuts, demographic changes, and enrollment growth, the
ability for higher education institutions have faced difficulties providing a more seamless
transfer pathway. Students transferring from a two-year to a four-year institution face
many challenges, such as lack of guidance and counseling from administrators, faculty,
and student services professionals. The state Legislature has made an additional attempt
to provide students with a more seamless pathway between the community college and
the GSU system. The STAR Act will help students transfer from a CCC to an institution
within the GSU system.
The research of this study will help GSU be more aware of the perceptions STAR
students have about the new transfer pathway. The researcher’s goal is to identify gaps
and offer recommendations to higher education leaders. This study will provide GSU
with valuable information about student perceptions—opinions that will be beneficial in
determining students’ needs and making certain these students are being provided with
32
adequate services. The study will also give insight into ways GSU administrators,
faculty, and student services professionals can enhance or facilitate the transfer process
for STAR students.
Summary
The review of the literature provides an understanding of the unique structure of
the California higher education system, as well as challenges it has faced throughout the
last 50 years. The original California Master Plan of Higher Education came into effect
after the signing of Senate Bill 33, also known as the Donahoe Act (CDE, 1960). The
Master Plan created a “tripartite public system” within the governance of the state
(Center for Studies in Higher Education, 2012). The establishment of the Master Plan in
the early 1960s created an elite system of higher education other states followed.
However, from the late 1980s and on, this new system was faced with unforeseen
challenges.
The higher education system faced drastic demographic changes, growth in
enrollment, and severe budget cuts between 1980 and 2010. These changes created
challenges to properly serve the new student populations, and by 2010, the increase in
enrollment and budget cuts were too severe for the system to continue to serve all
students. By 2010, over 600,000 students were turned away from the CCC system, and
impaction made it very difficult for students from a two-year institution to transfer to a
four-year institution.
During these difficult times, the state Legislature made an additional attempt to
help alleviate some of the strain by creating a new bill. SB 1440: Student Achievement
33
Reform Act came into effect to help students transfer from a CCC to the CSU system as a
way to have a more seamless transfer pathway. The future of California faces many
challenges if we do not have a more educated population.
The theoretical frameworks used for this research were Astin’s (1984) theory of
student involvement and Bolman and Deal’s (2008) model of organizational structure.
Both these models bring insight to the importance of providing students with the
necessary support from administrators, faculty, and student support professionals.
Bolman and Deal’s model is key because it provides insight on ways to help institutions
of higher education restructure themselves.
34
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to examine student perceptions of the new transfer
process—via the STAR Act—between the CCC system and Sacramento State. The
following research questions were constructed based on the related literature:
1. What challenges or benefits did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform
Act, students encounter at Grand State?
2. What perceptions did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act
students have regarding the transfer process from the community college to Grand
State?
3. What recommendations do SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act
students have for Grand State to facilitate the transfer process?
To answer the research questions, the researcher used a mixed methods research
design based on an online survey and individual interviews using a structured open-ended
questionnaire. This chapter includes the methodology the researcher utilized for the
study. It includes the setting of the study, population and sample, design of the study,
data collection, instrumentation, and the limitations of the study.
35
Research Design
Setting of the Study
The mixed methods study was conducted at GSU, one of the largest and most
diverse public four-year universities located in Northern California. Founded in 1947,
the campus is located on 300 acres of land. The institution offers 58 undergraduate
majors among its seven colleges. This institution is one of 23 campuses in the CSU
system and is one of the largest institutions in the CSU system. In the fall 2013 term,
28,811 students attended GSU. The student body was composed of 56% females and
44% males. The ethnic breakdown on campus was 40% White, 21% Asian/Pacific, 19%
Latino, 6% African-American, 1% American Indian, and 11% other. More than 55% of
GSU’s new enrollees for the fall 2013 term were transfer students. (California State
University, Sacramento, 2013a).
Population and Sample
The population for this study consisted of students who had completed the new
SB 1440 transfer pathway and were enrolled at GSU. These students had obtained an
AA-T or an AS-T at their community college prior to transferring to GSU during the
spring 2013 and fall 2013 terms. These students are referred to as “STAR students” at
GSU. The STAR students were identified by “service indicators,” which are in the
internal database used by GSU. The names of these students were extracted via a report
from the school’s Office of the Registrar. The report had a total of 254 STAR students
who were admitted during the fall 2013 term (California State University, Sacramento,
2013b).
36
Design of the Study
A mixed methods approach was utilized for this study, which entailed the use of
both quantitative and qualitative methods of research. The goal of the mixed method
study was to obtain student perceptions of the new transfer process—through the STAR
Act—from the CCC schools to GSU. The research was designed to learn the benefits and
challenges students faced during their transfer process. The researcher also sought the
perceptions and recommendations of the STAR students attending GSU during the fall
2013 term. A quantitative survey was sent during the fall 2013 term and was distributed
to all STAR students enrolled at GSU. The participants voluntarily chose to take the
survey, and 61completed the survey anonymously. The researcher also conducted 10
individual qualitative interviews using a structured set of demographic and open-ended
questions to gain further insight on STAR students’ perceptions of the transfer process.
Data Collection
The researcher took several steps to collect data for the research. First, approval
by the Institution Review Board was obtained in order to conduct the research. Upon
approval, the researcher worked with the university’s Office of the Registrar to obtain email addresses for students who completed the new SB 1440 transfer pathway and had
completed an AA-T or an AS-T at a CCC prior to transferring to GSU. The e-mail sent
to prospective participants introduced the researcher and gave a brief explanation of the
survey (see Appendix A). The e-mail concluded with a link to the survey. The survey
was administered through SurveyMonkey, an online survey tool (see Appendix B). The
37
survey link directed participants to the participation consent page, which explained the
survey and made it clear that participation was voluntary and that all answers would be
kept anonymous. The researcher’s contact information was provided to participants, and
the participants were encouraged to contact the researcher if they had any questions or
concerns regarding the survey. The first question on the survey was whether or not the
participants consented to complete the survey. The participant had to select either “yes”
or “no.” Those who agreed were directed to continue the survey.
The survey was available approximately six weeks and closed November 30,
2013. Sixty-one STAR students completed the survey during the open period, resulting
in a 24% response rate. Within three weeks, 10 students agreed to participate in the
qualitative interview (see Appendix C). By the end of the third week, 10 students had
taken part in the one-on-one interviews.
Instrumentation
The researcher submitted the Human Subjects Approval Review Forms to the
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department before collecting the data. A
consent letter, survey questions, and interview questions were submitted for review. The
review form consisted of explaining the purpose of the study, the researcher’s
methodology, and the steps the researcher would use to safeguard participants’ safety and
privacy. Once the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects approved the
research design, the researcher proceeded with recruiting participants and collecting data.
38
During the fall 2013 term, surveys were electronically distributed to 254 current STAR
students who had originally been admitted during the spring 2013 and fall 2013 terms.
Students were asked to complete an online survey through SurveyMonkey. Participants
were informed of the purpose of the study and provided with a link to the consent form,
then directed to the survey. They were not compensated for their participation in the
online survey; however, they were informed voluntary participation in the research could
be beneficial to future START students. Students had six weeks to complete the survey.
The survey questionnaire was composed of 13 questions that helped the researcher
determine demographic information regarding the participants, as well as from where
these students had transferred and what their perception of the transfer process was after
completing the new SB 1440 transfer pathway. The survey questions focused on the
following:
1. The challenges or benefits of the SB 1440: Transfer Pathway
2. The perceptions of the SB 1440: Transfer Pathway from the community
college to Grand State University
3. Recommendations regarding the SB 1440 transfer process.
Question 1 requested the students’ consent to participate in the survey. Questions
2 through six were demographic questions. Questions seven and eight focused on majors
selected and if the students were currently employed within their field of study in which
they had completed their AA-T or AS-T. Questions 9-12 were open-ended questions
focusing on the guidance and overall experience of the new SB 1440 transfer pathway.
39
Question 13 was an invitation to allow the student to contact the researcher to participate
in a face-to-face interview.
The researcher also used qualitative interviews to obtain more in-depth data for
the study. The survey respondents were asked to contact the researcher if they were
interested in an interview. They were given the researcher’s e-mail address and informed
they would receive a $15 gift card for their participation (see Appendix D). The
participants who contacted the researcher participated in one-on-one, anonymous
interviews that lasted from 30 to 60 minutes. The interviews took place at GSU; six were
conducted in the university library and four were conducted on the quad. The interview
questionnaire consisted of four demographic questions and six open-ended questions.
The purpose of the interviews was to collect qualitative information regarding the
perceptions students had regarding the new SB 1440 transfer pathway. Questions one
through four were demographic questions. Questions five and six questioned who had
helped guide them and why they had completed the new transfer pathway. Question 7-10
focused on the students’ perceptions and the challenges and benefits faced during the new
transfer pathway. Finally, Question 11 focused solely on recommendations students may
have had for current and future students, faculty, and staff regarding the new transfer
pathway.
Limitations of the Study
The researcher may have gained greater insight from a larger number of
participants. The group of students was relatively small; out of approximately 4,400 total
40
transfer students in the fall 2013 term, only 254 completed the new transfer pathway.
The transfer pathway is a new process, and limited information is currently available
since implementation is still in progress. Additionally, the participants had varied
understanding of the transfer process; therefore, the survey and interview questions may
have been misinterpreted by the participants.
41
Chapter 4
FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION
Introduction
The purpose of the study was to examine student perceptions of the new transfer
process—through the STAR Act—from the CCS schools to Grand State.
The following research questions were constructed based on the related literature:
1. What challenges or benefits did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform
Act, students encounter at Sacramento State?
2. What perceptions did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act
students have regarding the transfer process from the community college to
Sacramento State?
3. What recommendations do SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act
students have for Grand State to facilitate the transfer process?
To answer the research questions, the researcher used a mixed methods research
design based on an online survey and individual interviews using a structured open-ended
questionnaire.
Presentation of Data
Demographics
The purpose of questions two through six of the online survey was to gather
demographic information from the participants. Two hundred fifty-five e-mails were sent
42
requesting participation in the online survey. A total of 61 people responded for an
approximate response rate of 24%. Of the respondents, 25.9% were the first in their
families to attend college, while 74.1% were not. Survey respondents were asked to
identify the age range into which they fell. There were five ranges from which students
were able to choose: 5% were between the age of 18 and 20, 83.3% were between the age
of 21 and 30, 6.7% between the age of 31 and 40, 3.3% between the age of 41 and 50,
and 1.7% were 51 years old or older. Of the 61 respondents, 8.5% completed their AA-T
or AS-T at a CCC in two to four semesters, 44.1% in five to six semesters, 20.3% in
seven to eight semesters, and 27.1% in nine or more semesters. Table 1 displays the
ethnicity or race the respondents selected. In the survey, 45.9% of the respondents
selected White, 16.3% selected Hispanic/Latino, 9.8% selected Asian, 9.8% selected
multi-racial/ethnic, 3.2% selected Black/African American, 1.6% selected American
Indian, 1.6% selected Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 21.3% declined to state.
43
Table 1
Ethnic Group/Race
American Indian
Asian
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
White
Decline to State
Other/Multi-Racial/ethnic
Response Percent
Response Count
1.6
1
9.8
6
3.2
2
16.3
10
1.6
1
45.9
28
21.3
13
9.8
6
Table 2 displays the community college from which the respondents transferred.
Many respondents transferred from the Los Rios Community College District, though the
responses are broken down by the four colleges within the district as well as by the
district as a whole. When combined, a total of 57.1% of the respondents transferred from
the Los Rios Community College District to GSU. Of the respondents, 21.3% transferred
from Sierra College, 18.0% from other community colleges, and 3.2% declined to state.
44
Table 2
Which community college did you transfer from?
Response Percent Response Count
Los Rios Community College
District
8.1
5
Cosumnes River College
11.4
7
American River College
13.1
8
Sacramento City College
14.7
9
Folsom Lake City College
9.8
6
Sierra
21.3
13
Other (please specify)
18.0
11
Decline to state
3.2
2
Ten STAR students participated in the qualitative interview. Seven (7) were
within the age range of 21 to 30, one (1) between 18 and 20, one (1) between 31 and 40,
and one (1) between 41-50. Six (6) were white, three (3) were multiracial, and one
Russian which would fall under other. Five (5) were the first to go to college in their
family and five (5) were not the first. Four (4) completed their AA-T or AS-T in five to
six semesters, three (3) in seven to eight, two (2) in nine or more, and one in two (2) to
four semesters.
Online Survey Data
Respondents were asked to answer multiple-choice and open-ended questions.
The final question used a Likert-type scale (positive, somewhat positive, somewhat
45
negative, negative). Questions seven and eight focused on majors selected and if the
students were currently employed within the field of study in which they had completed
their AA-T or AS-T. Questions 9-12 were open-ended questions focusing on the
guidance and overall experience and perception of the new SB 1440 transfer pathway.
Question 13 was an invitation to allow the student to contact the researcher in order to
participate in a face-to-face interview. Of the 61 respondents who participated in the
online survey, 18.6% were currently employed within the field of study in which they
received their AA-T or AS-T, and 81.4% were not.
Table 3
What is your current Major?
Answer Options
Psychology
Business
English
Declined to state
Response Percent
Response Count
44.2
27
4.9
3
1.6
1
1.6
1
19.6
12
8.1
5
6.5
4
3.2
2
1.6
1
Other (please specify):
Communications
Sociology
Criminal Justice
Mathematics
Physics
46
Table 3 continued
Answer Options
Response Percent
Response Count
1.6
1
1.6
1
1.6
1
1.6
1
1.6
1
Other (please specify):
Spanish
Kinesiology
Interior Design
Child Development
Social Work
Impacted Programs
GSU had six impacted programs, including business administration, criminal
justice, design, health science, nursing, and psychology (Sacramento State, 2014). Most
impacted programs’ students’ GPAs are above the minimum 2.0, which is required for
non-impacted programs (Sacramento State, 2014). In addition, impacted programs
require supplemental applications so departments may review program-specific criteria in
order to admit students into the impacted program.
Table 3 displays the specific subject in which the respondents majored. Of the
respondents, 44.7% majored in psychology, 6.5% in criminal justice, 4.9% in business,
and 1.6% in interior design majors. These majors are impacted programs at GSU. It
demonstrates the benefit of SB 1440 in how it allowed students transferring from a CCC
to be admitted to majors that are not allowing a large population of students due to
47
program restrictions. That totals 57.7% of respondents from the online survey students
who were admitted into impacted programs.
Why Students Pursue This Transfer Pathway
Table 4
Why did you choose to follow this new transfer pathway (STAR act)?
Answer Options
Timely completion of Bachelor’s (1)
To obtain my Associates degree (2)
To obtain admission at Sacramento State (3)
1&2,
1&3
2&3
All of the above
None of the above
Response
Percent
Response
Count
0.0
0
1.8
1
10.7
6
3.6
2
23.2
13
7.1
4
41.1
23
12.5
7
The top three reasons why students chose the SB 1440 transfer pathway was to
complete their bachelor’s degree in a timely manner, to obtain an associate degree prior
to transferring to the four-year institution, and finally, to obtain admission to GSU.
In recent years, an increase in enrollment and a decrease of funding at institutions
of higher education forced community colleges to turn away over 600,000 students due to
the increase in student enrollments (Inside Higher Ed, 2013). As shown in Table 5,
students are making a conscious effort to complete their bachelor’s degree and are
48
seeking a more streamlined process to help them persist and achieve their academic
goals.
Perception of Transfer Experience
Table 5
Questions Nine, Eleven, and Twelve
Answer options
Response percent
How or where did you hear about the new transfer pathway STAR act?
Community College Counselors
73.2
Friend
1.7
Family
0.0
Professor
1.7
Other
25.0
Did you obtain advising from the community college you attended regarding the STAR Act
transfer pathway? Please indicate from whom.
No, I did not obtain any advising
26.3
Yes, from an Academic Counselor
71.9
Yes, from a faculty member
0.0
Yes, from a friend
1.8
Yes, from family
0
How would you rate your transfer process experience, from the community college to
Sacramento State, as a STAR student?
Positive
57.1
Somewhat positive
32.1
Somewhat negative
10.7
negative
0.0
49
Of the respondents, 73.2% were consciously following the transfer pathway, of
which 71.9% of the respondents had received advising regarding the pathway from their
community college counselor, and 57.1% had a positive experience. However, 25% of
respondents did not know anything regarding the SB 1440 transfer pathway, while they
had participated in it. Considering the majority of these students transferred from one of
GSU’s feeder schools, there is an apparent lack of communication between the
community college and GSU in regard to supporting these students’ transfer process. As
stated in Bolman and Deal’s (2008) theory, human resource is a key aspect to the success
of the overall function of an institution.
Interview Data
The researcher asked participants five open-ended interview questions to obtain
further data on their perceptions of SB 1440 and their experiences with the SB 1440
transfer pathway. The data were organized as follows: transfer process experience,
advising obtained during the transfer process, challenging and beneficial aspects of the
transfer process, and recommendations.
Transfer process experience. Common themes that emerged from the
participants’ experiences varied from very positive to very negative. The positive aspects
included being well advised by professors and academic counselors. Another positive
aspect of the participants’ transfer experience was obtaining admission to their first
choice four-year institution and into an impacted major. The negative aspects were not
having well informed academic counselors to properly guide them and needing to take
additional courses to complete the AA-T or AS-T.
50
Advising obtained during transfer process. Participants were asked if they had
obtained advising from counselors at the community colleges, and the following themes
emerged: no they did not, the majority of students although originally told by a counselor,
the counselor was not well informed, so student had to do a lot of research on their own.
Most students were frustrated by the lack of information by their academic counselors.
Challenges and Benefits of SB1440 transfer pathway. There were two main
challenges participants encountered, “the lack of knowledge from the professionals”
(noted by participant 8) and the lack of communication between the community college
and GSU. Participants also stated other challenges related to the two main challenges,
including not being aware of courses that would not transfer to clear requirements. Other
participants were not aware they would need to take additional “upper division GE”
(participant 2).
Participants had several different responses regarding the benefits. The most
common theme that emerged was admission to a four-year institution and admission into
an impacted program. Other participants felt motivated by the “guarantee of the SB 1440
transfer process” (participant 7). Some participants felt they did not experience any
benefits by following the SB 1440 transfer pathway.
Student recommendations. Half the participants did not have recommendations
for GSU, however, common themes emerged from those who did have recommendations.
These recommendations included GSU should do a better job of disseminating
information regarding requirements to the community colleges, as this would allow for
51
community college counselors to be better informed to better inform students using the
SB 1440 transfer pathway.
Interpretation of the Data
Question One: What challenges or benefits did SB 1440: Student Transfer
Achievement Reform Act, students encounter at Sacramento State?
Regarding the challenges, the leading theme that emerged from responses of both
the online survey respondents and the interview participants was the lack of information.
Twenty-five percent of online respondents stated they did not know they had followed
the SB 1440 transfer pathway and they had never heard of it. The participants who were
interviewed also confirmed the community college counselors were not aware of the new
transfer pathway, and the majority was either misadvised or had to do research on their
own. Community colleges are places where the involvement of both faculty and students
seems to be minimal (Astin, 1984). Astin (1984) also stated faculty and administrators
often concentrate on their own techniques and ignore or overlook what is going on with
the student. However, Astin (1984) believed that if faculty, administrators, and student
services professionals dedicated more time to knowing what students were actually
doing, knowing how they were involved, or providing a platform of involvement,
students would then exert their energy toward institution-based involvement.
Benefits of the transfer process were few but extremely important. Of the online
survey respondents, 41.1% agreed the three main reasons to follow the SB 1440 transfer
process pathway were to obtain an associate degree from a community college prior to
52
transferring, timely completion of their associate degree, and admission into GSU. The
participants of the one-on-one interviews also agreed with two of the three reasons:
timely completion of their degree and admission into GSU. In addition, participants
believed following the SB 1440 transfer pathway was beneficial because it allowed them
admission into an impacted program and, for some, admission during a term when GSU
was not allowing admission; due to the SB 1440 status the students had, they were
admitted. During the spring 2013 term, GSU was impacted and was not granting
admission to all students. However, if students were following the SB 1440 transfer
pathway, they were still able to transfer and begin their academic careers at GSU.
Question Two: What perceptions did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement
Reform Act students have regarding the transfer process from the community
college to Sacramento State?
Of the online survey respondents, 57.1% stated their transfer process experience
was positive, and only 10.7% of respondents stated it was somewhat negative. However,
when the interview participants were asked questions to help answer this underlying
question, half the respondents did not have a positive transfer experience. Their negative
experiences were due to the lack of information the community college had to guide
them. The respondents who had negative experiences also felt one of the impacted
programs was not providing the correct information to the community colleges.
Dougherty agreed the transfer function was ineffective due to the lack of collegiate
environment and culture on a university campus (as cited in Zamani, 2001).
Furthermore, Zamani (2001) added the importance of having a positive relationship
53
between the two- and four-year institutions to improve the transfer process. Several
respondents stated they had to take additional lower division courses toward the major,
while the intent of the SB 1440 transfer process was to assure students did not have to
complete any additional lower division requirements at the four-year college to which
they transferred if they had completed the AA-T or the AS-T program (Legislative
Counsel’s Digest, 2010). The Bolman and Deal (2008) model focused on the structural
frame of an institution. Thus, if administrators, faculty, and student service professionals
focused on achieving goals and objectives, and increasing the efficiency of their
institution, according to Boleman and Deal (2008), then SB 1440 would offer a more
streamlined transfer process.
Question Three. What recommendations do SB 1440: Student Transfer
Achievement Reform Act students have for Grand State to facilitate the transfer
process?
All 10 participants were asked if they had any recommendations to improve their
transfer, and those who responded would have liked for GSU to properly disseminate
information to the community colleges so community college counselors could be better
equipped to provide advice and guidance for students who are trying to complete the SB
1440 transfer pathway. According to Schlossberg’s theory of transition, the “supports a
student has—such as the availability of people, services, resources, and agencies—are
critical elements in the ability to cope with transitions” (as cited in McAtee, 2012, p. 30).
Chickering and Reisser noted academic programming that can help students explore and
54
develop their purpose can lead them to a clearer “transition that is more clear and seems
more attainable” (as cited in McAtee, 2012, p. 30).
The current structure of the GSU system has been set since the enactment of the
Master Plan; however, in order for it to more properly function, major modifications must
be made. Administrators, faculty, and student service professionals must all make an
effort to help with the reframing of the transfer process (Bolman & Deal, 2008). This is
so the predictions about the future of California do not come to fruition.
Summary
Participants in this study did fall within the demographic categories the related
literature had stated. Over 50% of the participants who completed the online survey
where White or Asian. The predominant challenges faced by the participants were the
lack of communication and help from community college faculty and student service
professionals. There was also a lack of communication between the community college
and GSU. The benefits that surfaced from the study were the ability to transfer after
following the SB 1440 transfer pathway and the ability to be admitted to impacted
programs at GSU. The findings revealed the need for structural changes within the
higher education system.
55
Chapter 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted to examine student perceptions of the new transfer
process—through the STAR Act—from CCC schools to Sacramento State. The study
addressed the following research questions:
1. What challenges or benefits did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform
Act, students encounter at Sacramento State?
2. What perceptions did SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act
students have regarding the transfer process from the community college to
Sacramento State?
3. What recommendations do SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act
students have for Grand State to facilitate the transfer process?
A mixed methods approach was used for this study, which involved the use of
quantitative and qualitative methods of research. The research was designed to learn
about STAR students’ perceptions and to discover the experiences, benefits, and
challenges they encountered. A quantitative survey was distributed to STAR students
enrolled at GSU. There were 254 e-mails distributed requesting participation in the
research. Sixty-one STAR students completed the survey. The participants voluntarily
chose to take the survey and completed the survey anonymously. Participants had six
weeks to complete the survey before it closed. The researcher also conducted individual
56
qualitative interviews using a structured set of open-ended questions to gain further
insight into STAR students’ experiences and perceptions. Ten STAR students voluntarily
participated in the interview.
Conclusion
The primary challenge STAR students encountered was a lack of information
available to them regarding the SB 1440 transfer pathway. The community college
student service professionals were not prepared to answer questions, and several students
had to do their own research in order to obtain answers regarding the SB 1440 transfer
pathway. As Astin (2003) commented, with the lack of attention in higher education to
the affective side of students’ development, campus leaders have instead focused on
whether they follow the rules and regulations, how many credits they earn, and GPAs
obtained (p. 14). In addition, once at GSU, STAR students faced challenges with specific
programs in which they had completed their AA-T or AS-T. These programs required
additional lower division courses, which is not part of the transfer pathways guidelines.
As the state faces many challenges within its institutions of higher education, it is
important to understand the structural and human resource aspects of Bolman and Deal’s
(2008) model. All aspects of the model focus on the challenges faced by the SB 1440
transfer pathway. The lack of information to and from GSU and CCC demonstrates a
need for the structural aspects of the transfer process to be reviewed. In addition, the
human resource aspect of the model is key. A great benefit for these students is to
57
properly have the administrators, faculty, and student service professionals all work
toward establishing a more streamlined transfer process.
The benefits STAR students encountered were the ability to transfer to a four-year
institution of their choice and admission into an impacted program. In addition, the study
provided recommendations for GSU. STAR students recommended the need to improve
communication between GSU and the community colleges regarding academic
requirements and information pertaining to their internal policies for the new SB 1440
transfer.
Recommendation
Based on the findings of this study and the presented literature, the researcher
makes the following recommendations:

The university should host an event to help provide faculty and student services
professionals from both GSU and its surrounding community colleges with
information regarding their internal policies on the SB 1440 transfer pathway.

The university should provide outreach efforts to properly inform community
college students on its internal policies regarding the SB 1440 transfer pathway.

The university should abide by the guidelines assigned by the SB 1440 transfer
pathway. Students should not need to take additional lower division coursework
for their degrees.
58
Suggestions for Future Research
This study can serve as a foundation for further studies regarding the SB 1440
transfer pathway. Further qualitative or quantitative research can be more focused on the
student populations who are using the transfer pathway. SB 1440 was originally signed
to help provide a more educated workforce for the future of California. Future research
could explore whether the transfer pathway has provided an increase in degree
completions.
59
APPENDICES
60
APPENDIX A
Email to Prospective Participants
Subject:
Body:
Star Students (SB 1440) Transfer Pathway
You are being asked to participate in research that will be
conducted by Raquel G Quirarte, a graduate student in the
Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (EDLP) department at
California State University, Sacramento (Sacramento State) in
collaboration with Dr. Edmund Lee, EDLP faculty. The purpose of
the study is to examine student perceptions of the new transfer
process, SB 1440: Student Transfer Achievement Reform (STAR)
Act, between the Community College and Sacramento State.
If you have any questions about this research, you may contact
Raquel G. Quirarte at (916) 802-9277 or by e-mail at
quirarte@csus.edu
You will be given two weeks to complete the survey.
Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary. By clicking
the link below indicates you are not a minor and are 18 years of
age or older.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx
This link is uniquely tied to this survey and your email address.
Please do not forward this message.
Thanks for your participation!
Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails from us,
please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed
from our mailing list.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx
61
APPENDIX B
Online Survey Questionnaire
1. Do you agree to participate in this survey?

Yes

No
2. How old are you?

18-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51+
3. Ethnic group/race:
☐American Indian
☐Asian
☐Black/African American
☐Hispanic/Latino
☐Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
☐White
☐Decline to State
☐Other ____________________
62
4. Are you the first (i.e. neither of your parents/guardians or siblings have
attended any college) in your family to go to college?
☐ Yes
☐ No
5. How many semesters/quarters did you attend the community college?

2-4

5-6

7-8

9+
6. What community college did you transfer from?

Los Rios Community College District

Cosumnes River College

American River College

Sacramento City College

Folsom Lake City College

Sierra

other _____________________________
7. Are you currently employed in the field of study in which you obtained your
Associates Degree from the community college?

Yes

No
63
8. What is your current Major?

Psychology

Business

English

Other____________________________
9. How or where did you hear about the new transfer pathway STAR act?

Community college counselor

Friend

Family

Other
10. Why did you choose to follow this new transfer pathway (STAR act)?

Timely completion of degree

To obtain my associates degree

To obtain admission to Sacramento State

1&2

1 &3

2&3

All of the above

None of the above
11. Did you obtain advising, from the community college you attended, regarding
the STAR act transfer pathway? Please indicate from whom?
64

No, I did not obtain advising

Yes, from an academic counselor

Yes, from a faculty member

Yes, from a friend

Yes, from a family
12. How would you rate your transfer process experience, from the community
college to Sacramento State, as a STAR student?

Positive

Somewhat positive

Somewhat negative

Negative
13. Your voluntary participation in a 30 minute interview is requested to gather
further information on your experiences as a Star student at Sacramento State.
A $15 gift card will be given to each participant who is interviewed. Your
feedback is valuable and will be greatly appreciated. If interested please email
the researcher with your contact information to 64uirarte@csus.edu. Would
you like to participate in an interview?

Yes

No
65
APPENDIX B
Interview Questionnaire
1. Age _________
2. Ethnic group/race:
☐American Indian
☐Asian
☐Black/African American
☐Hispanic/Latino
☐Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
☐White
☐Decline to State
☐Other ____________________
3. Are you the first (i.e. neither of your parents/guardians or siblings have
attended any college) in your family to go to college? ☐ Yes ☐ No
4. What community college did you transfer from?
_____________________________
5. How or where did you hear about the new transfer pathway STAR act?

Community college counselor

Friend

Family
66

Other
6. Why did you choose to follow this new transfer pathway (STAR act)?
a. Timely completion of degree
b. To obtain your associates
c. Admission to Sacramento State
7. Please tell me about your transfer process experience as a STAR student.
8. Did you obtain advising, from the community college you attended, regarding
the STAR act transfer pathway? If so from whom?
9. Please describe what you considered to be challenging aspects of the transfer
process because you were a STAR student?
10. Please describe what you considered to be beneficial aspect of the transfer
process because you were a STAR student?

Did anything (or anyone) in particular facilitate the transfer process?
11. What could Sacramento State have done as an institution to facilitate the
STAR act transfer pathway?

Was there anything you wish you would have known?
67
APPENDIX D
Email for Interview Invitation
Hello,
You are being asked to participate in research that will be conducted
by Raquel G Quirarte, a graduate student in the Educational
Leadership and Policy Studies (EDLP) department at California State
University, Sacramento (Sacramento State) in collaboration with Dr.
Edmund Lee, EDLP faculty. The purpose of the study is to examine
student perceptions of the new transfer process, SB 1440: Student
Transfer Achievement Reform (STAR) Act, between the Community
College and Sacramento State.
I would like to invite you to participate in an interview and answer
questions regarding your perception of the STAR act transfer process
from the community college you attended to Sacramento State. The
interview may require up to an hour of your time.
If you participate, you will receive a $15 dollar gift card once the
interview has concluded. Your feedback is valuable and will be greatly
appreciated.
If you are interested in participating in an interview, please contact
Raquel G. Quirarte at (916) 802-9277 or by e-mail at
quirarte@csus.edu
Thank you in advance for your time,
68
REFERENCES
American Council on Education. (2011). Minorities in higher education: Twenty-fourth
status report. Washington, DC: Author.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (2003). What matters to Alexander Astin? A conversation with higher
education’s senior scholar. About Campus, 8, 11-18.
Bailey, T. R., & Alfonso, M. (2005). Paths to persistence: An analysis of research on
program effectiveness at community colleges. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina
Foundation for Education.
Baldassare, M., & Hanak, E. (2005). CA 2025: It’s your choice. San Francisco: Public
Policy Institute of California.
Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. (1991, January). Adoption of
the intersegmental general education transfer curriculum. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED326271.pdf
Bohn, S., Reyes, B., & Johnson, H. (2013). The impact of budget cuts on the California’s
community colleges. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Bollard, S. (2009). The master plan at 50: Assessing California’s vision for higher
education. Sacramento: Legislative Analyst’s Office.
69
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
California Department of Education (CDE). (1960). A master plan for higher education
in California, 1960-1975. Sacramento: Author.
California Department of Education (CDE). (1987). The master plan renewed: unity,
equity, quality, and efficiency in California postsecondary education. Sacramento:
Author.
California State University, Sacramento. (2013a). College portrait. Retrieved from
http://www.collegeportraits.org/CA/CSUS/characteristics
California State University, Sacramento. (2010). Campus-wide impaction request.
Retrieved from
http://www.csus.edu/student/enrollment%20management/docs/impactionproposalapril201.pdf
California State University, Sacramento. (2013b). Registrar’s report. Sacramento:
Author.
California State University, Sacramento. (n.d.). Impaction. Retrieved from
http://www.csus.edu/admissions/impaction.html
California State University. (2012, August 10). Impacted undergraduate majors and
campuses in the California State University 2013-2014. Retrieved from
http://www.calstate.edu/SAS/impactioninfo.shtml
California Student Aid Commission. (2014). Available Cal grants. Retrieved from
Calgrants.org
70
Center for American Progress. (2009). Re-imagining community colleges in the 21st
century: A student-centered approach to higher education. Washington, DC:
Author.
Center for Studies in Higher Education. (2012). The history and future of the California
master plan of higher education. Retrieved from
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/uchistory/archives_exhibits/masterplan/pre1960.html
Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, S. 33, Cong. (1960).
Federal Student Aid. (n.d.). Pell grant. Retrieved from
http://studentaid.ed.gov/types/grants-scholarships/pell
Great Schools Partnership. (2013). Achievement gap. Education Writers Association.
Portland, ME.
Inside Higher Ed. (2013). California’s evolving master plan. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/09/27/two-year-colleges-californiamull-bachelors-degrees
Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy. (2002). The Cal grant entitlement:
increasing access to financial aid. California State University, Sacramento.
Sacramento: Author.
Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy. (2009). Crafting a student-centered
transfer process in California: Lessons from other states. California State
University. Sacramento: Author.
71
Kinzie, J., Palmer, M., Hayek, J., Hossler, D., Jacob, S. A., & Cummings, H. (2004).
Fifty years of college choice: Social, political and institutional influences on the
decision-making process. New Agenda Series, 5(3). Indianapolis, IN: Lumina
Foundation for Education.
Kohut, J. (2011). Bolman and Deal’s four organizational frames and the federal cloud
computing initiative. Retrieved from
http://www.govloop.com/profiles/blogs/bolman-and-deal-s-four-organizationalframes-and-the-federal
Legislative Counsel’s Digest. (2010). Senate Bill No.1440. Retrieved from
http://www.sb1440.org/Portals/4/sb1440home/Policy/sb_1440_bill_20100929_ch
aptered.pdf
Low, S., & Pilati, M. (2011). AA-T and AS-T degrees-updates and ideas. Retrieved from
http://sb1440.org/Portals/4/sb1440home/Communication/Presentations/AAT%20and%20AS-T%20Degrees%20%20Regional%20Curric%20Training%20April%202011.pdf
McAtee, J. F. (2012). Pathway programs to life after college. New Directions for Student
Services, 138, 29-41.
Net Industries. (2013). Community colleges – The history of community colleges, the
junior college and the research university, the community college mission.
Retrieved from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1873/CommunityColleges.html#ixzz2kSk79YJ5
72
New American Foundation. (2014). Federal Pell Grant program. Retrieved from
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/federal-pell-grant-program
Oliff, P., Palacios, V., Johnson, I., & Leachman, M. (2013). Recent deep state higher
education cuts may harm students and the economy for years to come.
Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2010). Higher education in California: New goals
for the master plan. San Francisco: Author.
Quintero, J. (2012). The great cost shift: How higher education cuts undermine the future
middle class. New York: Demos.
Reed, D. (2008). California’s future workforce will there be enough college graduates?
San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
Taylor, M. (2012). Reforming the state’s transfer process: A progress report on senate
bill 1440. Sacramento: Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Thurmond, V. A., & Popkess-Vawter, S. (n.d.). Examination of a middle range theory:
Applying Astin’s input-environment-outcome model to web-based education.
Retrieved from http://ojni.org/7_2/thurmond.htm
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2012). State and county quick facts: California.
Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html
U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Nontraditional undergraduates: Trends in
enrollment from 1986 to 1992 and persistence and attainment among 1989-90
beginning postsecondary students. Berkeley, CA: Author.
73
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Low-income students: Who they are and how they
pay for their education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Federal TRIO programs current-year low-income
levels. Washington, DC: Author.
University of California (UC). (n.d). Major features California master plan for higher
education. Retrieved from
http://ucfuture.universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/ca_masterplan_summary.pdf
University of California Office of the President. (n.d.). Major features California master
plan for higher education. Retrieved from
http://ucfuture.universityofcalifornia.edu/documents/ca_masterplan_summary.pdf
Wells, A. M. (2008). Trends of population growth and student demographic change in the
State of California. The Vermont Connection, 29.
Welter, J. (1960, April 27). Master plan for education signed, praised by Brown. San
Francisco Examiner. Retrieved from
http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/sfexam042760.htm
Zamani, E. M. (2001). Institutional responses to barriers to the transfer process. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 114, 15-24.
Zeidenberg, M. (2008). Community colleges under stress: Publicly funded two-year
colleges are facing daunting challenges in dealing with surging enrollments of
disadvantaged and unprepared students. Dallas, TX: Issues in Science &
Technology.