AN EXPLORATION OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE
STUDENTS AND GRADUATES
Mallory Angeli Newell
B.A., California State University, Chico, 2005
M.A., California State University, Chico, 2007
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
in
EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
SPRING
2011
Copyright © 2011
Mallory Angeli Newell
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
AN EXPLORATION OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE
STUDENTS AND GRADUATES
A Dissertation
by
Mallory Angeli Newell
Approved by Dissertation Committee:
Mary K. Kirlin, D.P.A., Committee Chair
Su Jin Jez, Ph.D.
Nancy Shulock, Ph.D.
SPRING 2011
iii
Student: Mallory Angeli Newell
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this dissertation is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit
is to be awarded for the dissertation.
, Graduate Coordinator
Carlos Nevarez, Ph.D.
Date
iv
CURRICULUM VITAE
Education
B.A., California State University, Chico, 2005
M.A., California State University, Chico, 2007
Professional Employment
De Anza Community College Office of Institutional Research and Planning
Supervisor of Institutional Research and Planning
Publications
Newell, M. A. & Fuller, R. (2010). Disaggregating Ethnic Categories: An Analysis of
Asian American Educational Attainment in California. Journal of Applied
Research in Community Colleges. Fall 2011.
Wilson, S., Newell, M., & Fuller, R. (September 2010). Ready for Learning: The
Contribution of California’s Independent Colleges and Universities in Meeting
Undergraduate Demand. California Postsecondary Education Commission.
Commission Report.
Wilson, S., Newell, M., & Fuller, R. (June 2010). Ready or Not, Here They Come: The
Complete Series of Undergraduate Enrollment Demand and Capacity Projections,
2009–2019. California Postsecondary Education Commission. Commission
Report.
Newell, M. A. (December 2009). Higher Education Budget Cuts: What is Their Impact
on Students? California Postsecondary Education Commission. Commission
Report 09-27.
v
Wilson, S., Fuller, R., & Angeli, M. (December 2009). Ready or Not, Here They Come:
California State University Undergraduate Enrollment Demand Projections, 20092019. California Postsecondary Education Commission. Commission Report.
Wilson, S., Fuller, R., & Angeli, M. (September 2009). Ready or Not, Here They Come:
Community College Enrollment Demand Projections, 2009-2019. California
Postsecondary Education Commission. Commission Report 09-24.
Angeli, M. (June 2009). Access and Equity for All Students: Policy Recommendations
for Students with Disabilities. California Postsecondary Education Commission.
Commission Report 09-15.
Angeli, M. (June 2009). Access and Equity for All Students: Policy Recommendations
for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students. California Postsecondary
Education Commission. Commission Report 09-14.
Angeli, M. (June 2009). Update on the Post/9-11 GI Bill. California Postsecondary
Education Commission. Commission Report 09-12.
Field of Study
Community College
vi
Abstract
of
AN EXPLORATION OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENT OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE
STUDENTS AND GRADUATES
by
Mallory Angeli Newell
Abundant evidence from studies comparing individuals with a bachelor’s degree
to those without suggests that higher levels of educational attainment are positively
associated with increased levels of civic engagement. Yet, few studies explore the civic
engagement levels of current community college (two-year) students as well as
individuals who graduated from a community college but did not go on to obtain a fouryear degree. In this study I explored the civic engagement of current two-year students
compared to four-year students as well as adults with a bachelor’s degree compared to
those with a high school diploma or an associate’s degree to better understand if
differences exist between these groups.
I found that community-based engagement was significantly lower for two-year
students than four-year students, and these differences may stem from differences in
enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on or off campus. When I
isolated two-year students, enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on
and off campus were significant predictors of their community-based engagement. Twoyear students were also significantly less likely to discuss politics than four-year students,
however full-time enrollment, living on campus, and hours worked on or off campus did
vii
not explain the differences. In addition, two-year students were not significantly different
from four-year students in their engagement in political protests, but when I controlled
for a student enrolling full-time, living on campus, and how many hours they worked on
or off campus, two-year students were significantly more likely to participate in political
protests than four-year students. With only two-year students in the regression, enrolling
full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on campus were significant predictors of
their engagement in political protests.
For adults not currently enrolled in school and likely beyond their college going
years, high school graduates and associate’s degree holders were significantly less likely
than bachelor’s degree holders to engage in community-based and political engagement
activities. The findings resulted in leadership, policy, and equity implications.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... x
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. xiii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................. 9
What is Civic Engagement? ................................................................................... 9
Political Engagement vs. Community-based Engagement ................................... 12
Who is Engaged? .................................................................................................. 13
Mounting Political Disengagement of Adolescents .............................................. 15
Increased Engagement in Community-based Activities ....................................... 18
Why Community Colleges? .................................................................................. 19
Current Studies on Civic Engagement at Two-Year Colleges.............................. 21
Campus Engagement ............................................................................................ 25
The Path to Community-based, Political, and Cognitive Engagement – Multiple
Theories................................................................................................................. 27
How is Civic Engagement Measured? .................................................................. 41
Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 46
3. METHODS ................................................................................................................... 50
Conceptual Model ................................................................................................. 51
Research Questions for Current Students ............................................................. 53
ix
Hypotheses for Current Students .......................................................................... 54
Analysis for Current Students ............................................................................... 55
Data for Current Students ..................................................................................... 57
Limitations of the Study for Current Students ...................................................... 66
Research Question for Adults who Attained their Ultimate Level of Education 69
Hypothesis for Adults who Attained their Ultimate Level of Education ............. 70
Analysis for Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education ................ 70
Data for Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education……………... 71
Limitations of the Study for Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of
Education ...........................................................................................................…76
4. FINDINGS ................................................................................................................... 78
Current College Students ...................................................................................... 79
Adults Who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education .................................... 96
5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................105
Current Students...................................................................................................110
Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education ....................................114
Recommendations for Future Research ...............................................................120
Closing Remarks ..................................................................................................123
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................124
x
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Factors Leading to Civic Engagement ......................................................... 29
2.
Table 2 Civic Engagement Indicators ....................................................................... 44
3.
Table 3 Summary of Variables Linked to Civic Engagement and Available in the
Data ........................................................................................................................... 47
4.
Table 4 YFCY Sample Compared to National College Population .......................... 60
5.
Table 5 List of YFCY Survey Variables.................................................................... 64
6.
Table 6 CPS Sample Compared to U.S. Population of Adults .................................. 73
7.
Table 7 List of CPS Variables ................................................................................... 75
8.
Table 8 Differences in Civic Engagement of Current Students ................................ 80
9.
Table 9 YFCY Community-based Index Regression Results for Models 1 – 3 ...... 86
10. Table 10 YFCY Community-based Index Engagement Linear Regression Results
for Two-Year Students .............................................................................................. 89
11. Table 11 YFCY Political Protest Binary Logistic Regression Odds Ratios for
Models 1 – 3 .............................................................................................................. 91
12. Table 12 YFCY Political Protest Binary Logistic Regression Odds for Two-Year
Students ..................................................................................................................... 93
13. Table 13 YFCY Discussing Politics Binary Logistic Regression Odds Ratios for
Models 1 -3……………………………………………………………………….....95
14. Table 14 Differences in Civic Engagement of Adults who Attained Their Ultimate
Level of Education ………………………………………………………………....97
15. Table 15 CPS Community-based Engagement Index Regression Results for Models
1 – 2 ...………………………………………………………………………..........101
16. Table 16 CPS Volunteer Index Regression Results for Models 1 – 2…………….102
xi
17. Table 17 CPS Political Index Regression Results for Models 1 – 2 ……………...104
18. Table 18 Factors Linked to Civic Engagement and Variables Available in the
Data……………......................................................................................................108
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.
Figure 1 Ehrlich’s (2000) Definition of Civic Engagement Linked to
Keeter et al.’s (2006) Measures of Civic Engagement ......................................... 45
2.
Figure 2 Individual Background Characteristics and Experiences that
Impact Civic Engagement ..................................................................................... 51
3.
Figure 3 Time and Opportunities Leading to Increased Civic Engagement ......... 52
4.
Figure 4 Conceptual Model of Factors Leading to Increased Civic Engagement. 52
xiii
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
The United States is built upon democratic principles and a representative
democracy, which requires an engaged citizenry. A commitment to civic engagement
must be one of the core tenets for democracy to function (Sullivan & Transue, 1999).
Engaged citizenship, as expressed through community-based and political
participation with the intention of voicing one’s concerns or choosing leaders, is
crucial to the functioning of a democratic government (Keeter, Zukin, Andolina, &
Jenkins, 2002). Research shows that youth engagement leads to continued civic
involvement “at communal, political, and environmental levels” (p. 189) throughout
life. Putnam (1995) argued that if college students acquire the habit of engagement,
there is evidence they will continue the habit throughout life, which has long-term
benefits for society.
However, research also shows that low socio economic status and minority
individuals exhibit lower rates of civic engagement than individuals from higher socio
economic backgrounds (Foster-Bey, 2008). Since a large proportion of two-year
students are from low socio economic and minority backgrounds, they may arrive at
college already predisposed to lower rates of civic engagement when compared to
their four-year counterparts. The limited research available on the civic engagement
of community college students also shows that these students exhibit lower rates of
2
volunteering, registering to vote, voting, and reading the newspaper than four-year
college students (Lopez & Brown, 2006), leaving them at a large disadvantage in a
participatory democracy.
In addition, the majority of community college students enroll part-time, work
of campus part or full-time, and commute to college, limiting the amount of time they
have available to be engaged on their campus (Tinto, 1997). The literature on student
engagement has found that when students spend more time on campus, they tend to be
more engaged which leads to greater student success (Tinto, 2006). Astin (1999)
found that a highly involved student will devote quite a bit of energy to studying,
spending time on campus, participating in student organizations, and interacting with
faculty and other students (Astin, 1999). Astin (1999) acknowledged that there are
many other possible forms of campus involvement that can lead to student success.
Civic engagement is another form of campus involvement where students can be
engaged on their campus through a wide variety of activities. Although, some
campuses may provide greater opportunities to be civically engaged and certain
students may have developed more of the skills needed to be civically engaged than
other students.
Due to the differences between two- and four-year students, I hypothesized
that two-year students’ civic engagement will be significantly lower than four-year
students’ when controlling for background characteristics, as well the opportunities
students have to enroll full-time, live on campus, and the hours they work on or off
3
campus. In addition, when two-year students leave the college environment and
advance into adulthood, I hypothesized that associate’s degree holders will continue to
exhibit lower rates of civic engagement than students who obtained a bachelor’s
degree based upon their background characteristics and level of education attained.
Stemming from the literature and hypotheses, this dissertation explored the
following research questions: “are there significant differences in the engagement of
current two- and four-year college students in community-based activities, political
protests, and discussing politics when controlling for background characteristics,
enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on or off campus; when
isolating two-year students, does enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours
worked on or off campus explain the differences between two-year students’
engagement in community-based activities, political protests, and discussing politics;
and, are there significant differences in the engagement of adults who attained a high
school diploma, an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree in community-based and
political engagement activities when controlling for background characteristics?”
The research on civic engagement is scattered across multiple disciplines (e.g.,
political science, education, sociology), resulting in multiple definitions of what it is,
what factors lead to it, and how to sustain it throughout life. The term “civic
engagement” encompasses both the community-based and political activities in which
individuals engage that include a wide variety of activities. Researchers studying civic
engagement utilize multiple indicators to measure engagement. This study used
4
community-based, political, and cognitive indicators to measure the overall civic
engagement of current students and adults who obtained a degree.
The majority of research on civic engagement focuses on the complex path to
engagement in an attempt to identify the predictors of civic engagement — as the most
consistent and prominent being family education and income, and participation in
extracurricular activities in high school. Just as many definitions of civic engagement
exist, there are also numerous theories about the relationship between individual
characteristics and experiences and increased civic engagement, though none have yet
been successful in identifying a clear causal explanation of increased engagement.
Rather, multiple theories have explained small correlations. While there is no
consensus on the definition of civic engagement, I used Thomas Ehrlich’s (2000)
definition of
Working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and
developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to
make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community,
through both political and non-political processes. (p. vi)
This definition is important because it includes both civic and political
activities that students can do alone or with others to influence change in their
communities.
Much of the research thus far has focused on the civic engagement of
adolescents between the ages of 15 and 25 because they are and will be the newest
5
generation of voters that will influence the democratic process. In addition, the
adolescent years are an important stage in the development of civic skills and civic
participation (Delli Carpini, 1989; Jennings & Niemi, 1981). Research has largely
focused on the political disengagement of this population as expressed through low
voter turnout, low voter registration, and a decrease in governmental trust (Putnam,
2000). At the same time, adolescents are increasingly engaged in community-based
activities (Sax, Astin, Lindholm, Korn, Saenz, & Mahoney, 2003) where they can
work with others to solve community problems and make an impact on their
surroundings. Recognizing this shift in engagement, many colleges have begun to
develop their own programs aimed at increasing community-based and political
engagement (Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, & Stephens, 2003b) through service learning
programs, volunteer opportunities, learning communities, and get out the vote rallies.
America’s representative democracy continues to under-represent some
individuals in our political system giving minority and low socio economic status
groups less of a voice in the political process (Kahne & Sporte, 2008). Community
colleges serve a large population of minority, lower-income, and non-native Englishspeaking students due to their open-access policies, low cost to attend, and convenient
location. Therefore, a commitment by community colleges to foster civic engagement
on their campuses is essential. As America becomes more diverse and colleges and
universities become more expensive, community colleges continue to play a larger
role as America’s democratic colleges. While much of the literature focuses on the
6
engagement of adolescents, we have only a limited understanding of the rate at which
community college students participate in civic engagement activities and whether
individuals who obtained an associate’s degree engage at the same rate as individuals
who obtained a bachelor’s degree.
To explore the relationship between the type of college a student is currently
enrolled and their civic engagement, I was able to examine community-based
activities as well as political protesting and the self-reported discussion of politics of
current community college students compared to that of four-year college students. I
also explored whether students’ background characteristics account for the differences
in civic engagement between two- and four-year students, and then whether the
opportunities student have to enroll full-time, live on campus, and hours they work on
or off campus explain the differences between these student populations. In order to
better understand the civic engagement of two-year college students alone, I was able
to isolate two-year students and explore their engagement in community-based
activities, political protests, and discussing politics and look at whether their
background characteristics account for the differences in their engagement or rather
enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on or off campus help explain
the differences in their civic engagement.
To pursue what happens to these different populations as they age, I was able
to explore the differences in civic engagement of adults who are no longer enrolled in
any type of educational environment. To do this, I looked at adults with a high school
7
diploma, an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree to determine if differences exist
in their civic engagement as well as whether their background characteristics explain
the differences in their civic engagement.
For the first population, the current students, I used the “Your First College
Year” (YFCY) survey (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 2009b) from the
Center on Institutional Research and Policy (CIRP) housed at the HERI at the
University of California, Los Angeles for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004 to explore
the civic engagement of current students. I also used data from the Current Population
Survey (Keeter et al., 2002), Civic Engagement Supplemental Survey, and the
Volunteer Supplement Survey for 2008 to explore the civic engagement of adults who
attained a degree. The inclusion of both data sets allowed for separate analysis of
current students and adults who attained their ultimate level of education to assess
their levels of civic engagement. The YFCY survey was limited in the number of twoyear colleges that participated and resulted in a sample of two-year students more
similar to four-year students than two-year students. Therefore, I cannot reasonably
generalize my results and the findings for two-year students must be considered
exploratory and used to inform future research. The results from the CPS sample are
more robust and have policy, leadership, and equity implications.
The following chapter provides a review of the literature on the civic
engagement of adolescents and community college students. The first section
provides a definition of civic engagement and addresses the differences between
8
community-based, political, and cognitive engagement. The subsequent section
reviews the broad literature on who is civically engaged and the types of engagement
activities in which they participate with a discussion of why community colleges are
important following. The remaining sections review the literature on the multiple
paths to increased civic engagement which include individual background
characteristics, socialization experiences, the development of civic skills, participation
in extracurricular activities in high school, and the college environment to which
individuals are exposed. The chapter ends with a discussion on how civic engagement
is measured in the literature.
9
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
What is Civic Engagement?
“Civic engagement” is a complex construct with multiple definitions and no
consensus on a clear definition. Some definitions focus on the skills and abilities
needed for future engagement while others focus on the community-based and
political activities individuals participate in presently. Thomas Ehrlich (2000)
developed a promising definition widely accepted in the literature. Ehrlich defined
civic engagement as
Working to make a difference in the civic life of our communities and
developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to
make that difference. It means promoting the quality of life in a community,
through both political and non-political processes. (p. vi)
This definition is important because it includes both community-based and political
activities done alone or in concert with others. It also focuses on observable and
measurable actions or behaviors associated with civic engagement as opposed to
values individuals have that may or may not lead to civic engagement in the future.
An additional definition of civic engagement widely referenced in the literature
by Sydney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman and Henry Brady (1995) is in their book,
Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. The authors focus
10
largely on political participation but also highlight the importance of non-political
community-based activities which they refer to as ‘civic voluntarism’. They define
voluntary political activity as activities not done for pay that have the “intent or effect
of influencing government action- either directly by affecting the making or
implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people
who make those policies” (p. 38). They measure political engagement through
working and donating to political campaigns, participation in demonstrations or
protests, being a member of a political organization, and voting. They define civic
voluntarism as “non-political activity in religious and secular domains outside the
sphere of politics” (p. 40). Civic volunteerism activities include: informal activities in
local communities, interactions with public officials, and serving on local boards.
Verba et al. (1995) argued that engagement requires three components: resources,
engagement, and recruitment. Engagement includes the concepts of political efficacy
and the motivation to become involved while resources are developing the skills
required to participate in civic volunteerism activities and recruitment is an
individual’s invitation or recruitment by others to participate. They found that
resources, political engagement, and recruitment through social networks are the basic
sources of political participation and that all three factors are necessary for future
engagement.
To come to the above conclusion, the authors developed a comprehensive
model they called the Civic Volunteerism Model using data from the Civic
11
Participation Study that surveyed over 15,000 individuals. The authors used an
Ordinary Least Squares regression analysis to estimate the relationship between the
Civic Volunteerism Model and other factors such as civic skills, political engagement,
time spent working, free time, education, and income. Ehrlich’s definition stated that
both individual and collective action is necessary to civic engagement. Verba et al.’s
(1995) definition leans more towards political engagement where Ehrlich’s definition
includes both community-based and political activities. The balance between political
and community-based engagement is widely debated in the literature – where a mix of
both is necessary for an engaged citizenry.
An additional definition that includes both political and community-based
engagement activities is by Cliff Zukin, Scott Keeter, Molly Andolina, Krista Jenkins,
and Michael Delli Carpini (2006). In their book, A New Engagement? Political
Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen, the authors defined
civic engagement, which I refer to as community-based activities, as how individuals
are involved in public life through multiple activities that lead to greater involvement
in their communities. Their definition includes civic, electoral, political voice, and
cognitive engagement activities. The definition has led to a widely used measurement
tool based on their civic, electoral, political voice, and cognitive engagement activities
used as indicators for measuring an individuals’ level of engagement in each area and
as a whole. Their measurement tool complements Ehrlich’s definition of civic
12
engagement, as it includes both community-based and political activities as well as
activities done alone or with others to influence change.
Political Engagement vs. Community-based Engagement
The types of community-based and political engagement activities in which
individuals engage vary depending on the intended goal, the time they have to commit,
the effort they can expend, and the institutions or groups with which they are involved.
The right balance of activities necessary to be an engaged citizen and the distinction
between the two has spurred a great deal of research and debate (Hanson, 1985;
Putnam, 2000; Skocpol, 2003). Verba et al. (1995) addressed the differences between
political and community-based engagement. The authors define political engagement
as “activity that has the intent or effect of influencing government action either
directly by affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by
influencing the selection of people who make those policies” (p. 38). Voting is often
believed to be the most important activity within this realm (Zukin et al., 2006). In
addition to political engagement, community-based engagement can be defined as
organized voluntary activity focused on problem solving and helping others. It
includes a variety of work done alone or with others to affect change (Zukin et al.,
2006). This includes activities such as volunteering, participating in community
organizations, or participating in service learning programs.
Zukin et al. (2006) argued,
13
The “gold standard” for a democratic system would be wide participation in
both community-based and political activities with citizens being able to
navigate in both arenas, where each form is valuable and alone is insufficient
in addressing the challenges of our advanced democracy. (p. 10)
Zukin et al. (2006) posited that there are many ways for citizens to participate in
democracy and some activities may be more appropriate for and accessible to different
groups of individuals, for different purposes, for different outcomes, and at different
times in their life.
Who is Engaged?
The engagement activities of 20% of those surveyed in the Civic and Political
Health of the Nation: A Generational Portrait were concentrated in electoral activities
such as voting or working for a candidate or party while 16% participated in
community-based activities such as working on problems in their community, raising
money for a charity, or volunteering (Keeter et al., 2002). Comparing adults 26 and
older to adolescents between the ages of 15 and 25, adults were more engaged in
community-based activities, such as group membership and raising money for a
charity, but less engaged than adolescents in community-based activities such as
volunteering and participating in a run/walk or bike for charity (Keeter et al., 2002).
In the electoral realm, adults outperformed adolescents in all areas including voting,
campaigning, donating money to a candidate and membership in a political group
(Keeter et al., 2002). As for political voice activities, adolescents outperformed adults
14
in contacting the broadcast media, protesting, and canvassing. Although, adults had
higher participation in contacting an official, contacting the print media, signing an
email and paper petition, boycotting a product, and buycotting a product (buying a
certain product or service because of the social or political values of the company that
produces or provides it) (Keeter et al., 2002).
The Political Health of the Nation survey was first administered in 2002 with a
follow-up survey in 2006 with accompanying reports on the data. The authors
developed 19 civic, political voice, electoral, and cognitive indicators to assess the
civic and political attitudes of youth and adults administered through both telephone
and internet surveys. Much of the research on civic engagement focuses on
adolescents (15-25) because they are at a major point in their developmental process,
and adolescents are most likely to develop their own identities and views that will
stick with them through adulthood (Delli Carpini, 1989; Jennings & Niemi, 1981).
The skills and experiences adolescents have in regard to civic engagement may have
an influence on later engagement. As for their engagement, Lopez, Levine, Both,
Kiesa, Kirby, and Marcelo (2006) reported that adolescents were engaged in a wide
variety of activities in both areas, including volunteering (30%), boycotting (36%) and
regularly voting (26%), although a considerable proportion of adolescents (17%) were
not engaged in any form of community-based activity.
As for differences in engagement by varying demographic groups, Whites,
native-born citizens, the well educated, and high-income groups are more likely to
15
volunteer, attend a community meeting, or work on a neighborhood problem than
ethnic minorities, immigrants, and low-income and working-class individuals (FosterBey, 2008). Whites are more likely to be civically engaged in volunteer activities and
community activities than Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, where Hispanics and Asians
are consistently less engaged in both activities. Blacks are more likely to volunteer
with religious organizations than Whites, Asians, or Latinos, and Latinos are more
likely to volunteer in educational and youth service organizations than Blacks, Whites,
or Asians. Latinos and Asians seem to volunteer at a lower rate than Blacks or
Whites, and native-born U.S. citizens exhibit higher levels of civic engagement than
foreign-born citizens or non citizens.
Mounting Political Disengagement of Adolescents
Recent studies argued that Americans overall and adolescents specifically, do
not feel the need to participate or pay attention to politics (Verba et al., 1995; Youniss,
McClellan, & Yates, 1997). Some researchers questioned whether the traditional
political measures of engagement that find engagement to be declining are valid, or if
a greater focus should be on community involvement where adolescent participation is
on the rise. Keeter et al. (2002) argued that both political and community-based
engagement is necessary, yet political engagement is falling and some scholars see this
as a problem. For example, Robert Putnam’s work in Bowling Alone first published as
an article in 1995 then as a book in 2000, focuses on the disengagement of Americans
16
in the community-based and political realm. Putnam (2000) argued that there is a
“generation gap in civic engagement with each generation accelerating a treacherous
rip current of civic disengagement” (p. 35). Such disengagement is often attributed to
low levels of voter turnout among adolescents, an increase in television viewership,
and a decrease in governmental trust. Putnam used the General Social Survey to
assess declining levels of civic engagement in both the article and the book. Putnam’s
definition of engagement includes political (voting, being a member of a political
group, attending a political rally or speech, working for a political party) and civic
activities (attending a public meeting on town or school affairs, serving on a
committee of a local organization, being a member in a civic group).
In addition to Putnam, other researchers have studied cynicism and apathy
among college students and their apparent disengagement. For example, Bennett and
Bennett (2001) along with Harwood and Creighton (1993), found widespread evidence
that college students are cynical and apathetic about politics. The majority of research
in this area stems from survey data and comes to the same conclusion: this mounting
disengagement is not good for the future of American democracy. Researchers often
argue that the new generation of college students must be encouraged to see both the
value and necessity of community-based and political engagement (Keeter et al.,
2002) to combat the mounting disconnect.
Other influential scholars, such as Astin, Sax, and Avalos (1999), have
surveyed and tracked the civic engagement of four-year college students over the past
17
three decades and report the results annually. Up to 2000, the report showed a
continual decline in political interest among college freshmen. The years preceding
2000 showed a slow increase in political interest that has continued through today.
For example, in 2008, the authors surveyed the fall 2008 cohort of freshman students
at four-year public and private universities across the nation and found an increase in
two areas, discussing politics and paying attention to political affairs. The survey
included 240,580 first-time, full-time, four-year students, of which 85% reported they
frequently or occasionally discussed politics, up from 35% in the previous year.
Thirty-nine percent of respondents reported they kept up with politics, up from 28% in
2000. Even though there has been an increase in these two areas, this cohort of
college students had not yet surpassed their parent’s generation, the baby boomers, in
either measure (HERI, 2009a).
Even though college students exhibit lower levels of political and communitybased engagement than their parents’ generation, four-year college students are more
engaged than community college students (Lopez & Brown, 2006), though community
college students are more engaged than individuals with only a high school diploma
(Levine, 2006). Previous research found that college attendance is positively
associated with civic engagement (Levine, 2006). For example, voter turnout for
individuals with some college is 15-20 percentage points higher than that for
individuals with no college experience (Levine, 2006). Additionally, current college
students are found to be more active in activities such as running, biking or walking
18
for charity; displaying a campaign button or sign; trying to persuade others about an
election; protesting; and contacting the broadcast media than individuals with no
college experience. Individuals with no college experience exhibit lower levels of
engagement in all areas when compared to current college students except for
protesting, where they are equal to college students and just as likely to volunteer as
people with some college (Lopez & Brown, 2006).
Increased Engagement in Community-based Activities
While college students may be less active in political engagement activities as
expressed through voting and keeping up with political affairs, they express their
interest and commitment to democracy through their community-based engagement in
activities such as volunteering, community involvement, and collaborating with peers
to accomplish a shared goal. While it is clear that Keeter et al. (2002) and others
argued that a balance between community-based and political activities is necessary
for an engaged citizenry, political engagement continues to fall while communitybased engagement is on the rise for adolescents.
To further explore this shift in engagement, Sax et al. (2003) found this decline
in political participation to coincide with a high rate of involvement in community
service among college students. The authors argued that because of this shift in
engagement, it is important to explore both the community-based and political
activities in which college students participate, the opportunities to participate within
19
their college, and the characteristics that lead some groups to greater participation than
others. While adolescents are less engaged in the political arena and more engaged in
the community-based realm than adults, many ideas exist as to why this may be, but it
may be attributed to a shift in the type of activities adolescents find valuable,
accessible, and capable of getting them to their intended outcome. Regardless of the
reasons for the shift in engagement, this study focused on the activities community
college students engage in while in college, as well as the activities adults engage in
later in life. The next section focuses on the importance of community colleges
fostering civic engagement in their students.
Why Community Colleges?
Community colleges are considered to be based on the ideal of democracy and
viewed as “vehicles of access and opportunity” (Rendon, 2000, p. 1). The students
served by community colleges are most often “ethnic and racial minorities, firstgeneration students, low-income students, students with low participation rates, and
students who view community colleges as their last chance to realize their hopes and
dreams” (Rendon, 2000, p. 1). Fostering civic engagement on college campuses
should be a focus of both four-year and two-year colleges since a requirement of a
representative democracy is that the interests of all citizens are represented. Kahne
and Sporte (2008) argued that the majority of the time, low-income and less educated
citizens are underrepresented in the political process, have far less voice, and the votes
20
of elected officials align with those of higher income citizens to a greater degree than
with the rest of the population. Additionally, civic engagement plays a role in helping
community college students transform inequitable structures in their communities
(Prentice, 2007) by becoming more engaged citizens.
This makes community colleges a perfect place to reach a group of individuals
not typically mobilized in our political system. However, the majority of students who
attend community colleges commute, have jobs off campus, and are only on campus
during the time of their classes. This limits the colleges’ ability to create a sense of
community on campus (Minkler, 2001), which can be detrimental to civic
engagement. Research argues that community colleges can foster a sense of
community on their campuses by focusing on teaching their students how to
participate effectively as a citizen of democracy while they have them in their classes
(Tinto, 1997).
Lastly, American higher education has "typically had among its primary goals
not only the development of the individual intellect, but also the fostering of a sense of
one's moral and civic responsibility" (Pascarella, Ethington, & Smart, 1988, p. 412).
Civic engagement has a long history of being embedded in the American school
system. Numerous higher education associations have focused their attention on
fostering civic engagement on college campuses including the Association of
American Colleges and Universities, the American Association of Community
21
Colleges, and the American Association of Higher Education (Perry, 2005; Saltmarsh,
2005; Van Stephenson, 2010).
Current Studies on Civic Engagement at Two-Year Colleges
Research is extremely limited on the civic engagement of community college
students. Begun in 2002, the Center for Information on Civic Research and
Community Engagement (CIRCLE) is the largest repository of current research on
adolescent civic engagement. Of the 290 reports or fact sheets on the CIRCLE
website between December 2002 and June 2010, only one fact sheet, derived from
survey research, specifically addressed the civic engagement of community college
students (Lopez & Brown, 2006). The Higher Education Research Institute at the
University of California at Los Angeles performs the largest national survey of college
freshmen civic engagement and publishes an annual research brief highlighting the
yearly findings. Though the Institute collects survey data on both two- and four-year
students, annual reports do not disaggregate the findings by college type. Of the
additional civic engagement literature available at this time, only 10 articles addressed
community college students and 3 studies explored learning communities or service
learning programs as a promising way to increase engagement on community college
campuses (Smith, 2009; Prentice, 2007, Prentice & Robinson, 2007). Two additional
studies explored service learning at community colleges but linked the outcomes to
persistence and success or shared scholarship rather than civic engagement (Peterman,
22
2000; Hodge, Lewis, Kramer & Hughes, 2001). While five articles offered editorials
on the importance of engagement at community colleges, which largely conclude that
as America’s democracy colleges that serve a large proportion of minority and first
generation students, they should focus on fostering greater engagement in their
students (Colby et al., 2003b; Pickeral & Peters, 1996; Levinson, 2004; Franco, 2002;
Zlotkowski, 2004).
The one fact sheet published by CIRCLE was authored by Lopez and Brown
(2006) who acknowledged the lack of available data that focused on the large group of
Americans who study in community colleges and either finish their education with an
associate’s degree or transfer to a four-year college. The authors used the National
Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 as it provides a large, nationally
representative sample of young people who were eighth graders in 1988. The same
respondents were later contacted in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 2000. Of those surveyed,
26% had no college experience, 23% only attended a two-year institution, 18%
attended both a two-year and a four-year institution, and 32% attended a four-year
institution only.
The authors found that community college students fall below four-year
students but above high school graduates in their levels of civic engagement.
Interestingly, community college students, largely those who intend to transfer to a
four-year college, are almost equal to bachelor’s degree holders in rates of
volunteering and registering to vote. The authors believed the findings to be insightful
23
considering that community college students largely come from less advantaged
backgrounds. The fact sheet provides a much needed focus on community college
students but uses an outdated survey from 1988 and only offers information on voting,
volunteering, and following the news – not the full range of civic engagement
measures.
In a small study focused on increasing civic engagement among community
college students, Smith (2009) looked at the ‘Help America Vote Program’ at a small
community college in northern Connecticut. Students who participated were required
to enroll in an American Elections course, attend poll worker training, and work on
Election Day at a polling station. Students then discussed their Election Day
experiences in the classroom. Smith conducted pre and post surveys of 79 students
who participated in the program as well as a similarly sized control group of
participants who enrolled in the course but did not participate in the polling element.
Smith found that students who participated in the program were more likely to
demonstrate greater civic engagement than their non-participant counterparts as
measured through attending a public meeting, development of political and social selfefficacy, and registering to vote. While this study provides some insight on the civic
engagement of community college students, it is limited in that it included a small
sample of community college students and only measured a limited number of civic
engagement indicators.
24
Another small study focused on the role of service learning in helping
community college students transform inequitable structures in their communities was
performed by Prentice (2007). The author surveyed students at 8 community colleges
across the United States which included 107 respondents at the end of a service
learning program in the spring semester, as well as 47 respondents who did not
participate in any service learning program. The survey included questions pertaining
to community involvement, political participation, and social justice. The main
finding of the study was if respondents participated in two or more service learning
programs they were significantly more likely to score higher on community
involvement questions and justice-oriented questions than students who had never
experienced service learning when comparing the mean scores. It should be noted that
this survey included a small number of respondents and only tracked their level of
engagement over one semester.
This section reviewed the limited studies related to civic engagement and
community college students. In a subsequent section, I returned to the literature on
service learning at community colleges. First, in the following section I reviewed the
literature available on campus engagement as well as the broad literature on civic
engagement in order to build an understanding of how civic engagement develops, the
multiple paths to increased civic engagement, the influence of the college
environment, and civic engagement measurements.
25
Campus Engagement
Research shows that the more active students are in their learning process, by
developing peer and faculty networks and engaging in service opportunities, the more
they learn about citizenship (Sax, 2004). Research also showed that students engaged
on their campus with other students and faculty have higher persistence rates than
students less engaged on their campus (Tinto, 1998). Student engagement is focused
on increasing student success, persistence, and retention through engagement in
activities on campus, building social networks with peers and faculty, and developing
a sense of community on campus (Tinto, 2006). Many of these same factors have
been found to increase civic engagement. However, civic engagement has not yet
been linked to greater student retention or persistence. Astin (1999) defined student
engagement as the amount of physical and psychological energy a student devotes to
their academic experience. A highly involved student will devote quite a bit of energy
to studying, spending time on campus, participating in student organizations, and
interacting with faculty and other students (Astin, 1999).
Astin (1999) acknowledged that there are many other possible forms of
campus involvement. Though civic engagement in college has been linked to civic
engagement later in life (Lopez & Elrod, 2006), studies have not yet linked civic
engagement at either two- or four-year colleges to improved persistence or retention.
Rather, research has focused on the linkage between different types of civic
26
engagement and moral and civic development (Colby et al., 2003b), or increased
learning and grade point average (Astin, Vogelsang, Ikeda, & Yee, 2000).
The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) is widely
used by campuses nationwide to measure the engagement of this population. The
CCSSE is administered annually in the spring at colleges that choose to pay to
participate in the survey. The results are published in an annual report. The 2008
cohort includes more than 343,000 students at 585 institutions in 48 states in rural,
suburban, and urban areas. The respondents are from a wide array of ethnic
backgrounds and range from 18 to 65 years of age. The CCSSE work affirms Astin’s
(1999) work on student engagement finding that student engagement is an important
element of success at two-year campuses (CCSSE, 2008). While community college
students differ from four-year students, engagement on campus, with faculty, other
students, with academic work, and other campus activities is equally important to their
success. The report also found that students who are most engaged on campus are
full-time students, nontraditionally aged students (over age 24), seeking a credential,
female students, international students, and students who have participated in learning
communities and orientation. Lastly, the CCSSE also highlights the important role of
the classroom. Since many community college students spend limited time on
campus, they have fewer opportunities in which to interact, making the classroom a
critical element of success (CCSSE, 2008).
27
It is clear that student engagement and civic engagement are linked, in that
they both require students to spend more time on campus engaging in a wide variety of
activities that, in the case of student engagement, lead to greater retention, persistence
and success. However, the link between civic engagement and student success,
retention, and persistence has not yet been made. Based upon the similarities in
student engagement and civic engagement, many of the factors leading to increased
student engagement may be applied to civic engagement and many of the findings
from studies on student engagement may also be applied to that of civic engagement.
While the research pertaining to the linkages between civic engagement and student
success are unclear, the literature on student engagement may help fill in this puzzle
and lead to greater exploration of the civic engagement of two- and four-year students.
From the findings highlighted in this section on student engagement, it is
apparent that student engagement can lead to greater civic engagement. But how do
students initially become engaged in community-based, political, and cognitive
engagement activities? In the following section I outlined the multiple paths
researchers have explored which lead to increased civic engagement.
The Path to Community-based, Political, and Cognitive Engagement –
Multiple Theories
Researchers have focused considerable energy on identifying the pathways to
increased civic engagement, though they have not yet come to a consensus on when it
28
happens or why. Research shows that family socio economic status—defined as a
family’s education and income—is the largest predictor of future engagement,
although it is not known why. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the multiple possible
factors leading to increased civic engagement. The following section goes into greater
detail on each of the factors.
Background Characteristics
The literature is conclusive on the effects of education being a strong predictor
of later civic engagement where Zukin et al. (2006) found that “education is a triedand-true motivator that works both directly and indirectly on engagement” (p. 127).
As education increases, so does levels of civic engagement. Income is also strongly
linked to increased civic engagement where Foster-Bey (2008) found that high levels
of income are correlated with high levels of civic engagement. In addition to
education and income, ethnicity (Foster-Bey, 2008), gender (Jenkins, 2005), and
citizenship status (Foster-Bey, 2008) were found to predict civic engagement, with
less conclusive findings pertaining to gender. For example, Foster-Bey (2008) found
that immigrants and limited-English speakers are less civically engaged than nonimmigrants and native English speakers. And Whites exhibit higher rates of civic
engagement than Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians.
To come to these conclusions, Foster-Bey (2008) used a logistic regression to
analyze the relationship between varying background characteristics and communitybased engagement (volunteering and participating in community activities) while
29
controlling for education, family income, citizenship, age, and gender using the
Current Population Survey Annual Volunteer Supplement for 2005-2007.
Table 1
Factors Leading to Civic Engagement
Factors
Variables Linked to Engagement
Background
Family education; income; ethnicity; citizenship; gender
Characteristics
(Burns, Schlozman, & Verba, 2001; Foster-Bey, 2008;
Jenkins, 2005; Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Marcelo, Lopez &
Kirby, 2007a; Nie et al., 1996; Verba et al., 1995)
High School Activities Volunteering; membership in community organizations;
newspaper; yearbook; political clubs; student government
(Astin, Sax, & Avalos, 1999; Keeter et al., 2002; Kirlin,
2002; Verba et al., 1995; Youniss, McLellan, & Yates,
1997)
Socialization
Volunteer opportunities; political discussions at home;
service learning programs (Gaeke, 2009; Keeter et al.,
2002; Zukin et al., 2006)
Civic Skills
Writing letters; membership in groups; planning or
chairing a meeting; making speeches or presentations;
decision making (Kirlin, 2003b; Verba et al., 1995)
College Environment
Diverse student bodies; students with high socioeconomic
status; campuses environments that foster civic
engagement; peer networks; shared commitment to social
activism; open political discussions; sense of community;
(Astin, 1993; Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Prentice, 2007; Sax,
2004; Zukin et al., 2006)
30
When controlling for these factors, ethnicity, education, income, and
citizenship status resulted in independent positive effects on civic engagement (FosterBey, 2008). The author acknowledged that while ethnicity and citizenship do in fact
predict certain areas of civic engagement, these demographic factors may mask other
important differences (Foster-Bey, 2008). For example, Blacks and Hispanics have
lower average incomes and education compared to Whites and Asians. Lastly, it
should be noted that the results were limited to only two measures of civic
engagement, not the full-range of civic engagement indicators and did not
disaggregate college students from the total population.
While education, income, ethnicity, and citizenship were found to influence
civic engagement, gender did not appear to play a significant role in shaping the
engagement of youth (Jenkins, 2005). Differences in engagement by men and women
do exist in the types of activities in which young men and women engage. Jenkins
(2008) found that women were equally engaged as men but in different types of
activities where men were more likely to be engaged in political activities while
women were more likely to be engaged in community-based activities (Marcelo,
Lopez, & Kirby, 2007; Verba et al., 1995). The author used the National Citizens
Engagement Study to analyze the engagement activities of 15- to 25-year-olds in the
areas of electoral, community-based, cognitive engagement, and political voice
activities. Reporting on the survey results using descriptive statistics, Jenkins (2008)
found that young men and women exhibited similar levels of civic engagement though
31
young women were more engaged than young men in activities such as solving
society’s problems through volunteering with a variety of organizations. Men
reported being more engaged in activities such as boycotts and or buycotts and were
more attentive to the news and politics than women, reflecting differences also
observed among adult men and women. Though the working paper provided
important insights into the differences in engagement by gender, it did not
disaggregate the results by college participation or educational attainment.
Extracurricular Activities in High School
Participation in extracurricular activities in high school is also a strong
predictor of increased levels of civic engagement later in life. Ample research focused
on extracurricular activities in high school and identified the activities that lead to later
engagement, such as volunteering, and those not as clearly linked, such as athletics.
Studies consistently showed that students who volunteer in high school are more likely
than non-volunteers to engage in volunteering and community-based activities as
adults. Additionally, students involved in school organizations, excluding athletics, as
teenagers were more involved as adults (Astin, Sax, & Avalos, 1999; Keeter et al.,
2002; Kirlin, 2002; Verba et al., 1995; Youniss et al., 1997).
Kirlin (2003a) performed a literature review focused on high school
participation in extracurricular activities and adult political engagement where she
found a strong correlation between adolescent extracurricular participation and adult
political and community-based participation. Among the 11 studies reviewed, eight
32
reported a positive correlation between high school extracurricular activities and civic
engagement later in life. Kirlin (2003a) found that participants in extracurricular
activities from both high and low socioeconomic families had similar adult political
and community-based engagement behaviors. When controlling for the type of
organization, participation in instrumental organizations—those with a collective goal
beyond individual participation—such as student government, newspaper, yearbook,
political clubs, debate, community organizations, and vocational clubs were strongly
linked to later political and community-based participation. Participation in
expressive activities, which include athletics, cheerleading, band or orchestra, chorus,
and hobby clubs were not correlated with later participation. Research suggests that
these differences were due to the skills or habits individuals acquired by participating
in instrumental organizations that require interaction, cooperation, and collective
decision making to achieve shared outcomes.
Socialization
We now know that students’ background characteristics, many with which they
are born, and the activities they engage in while in high school play a role in their
civic engagement in college and throughout adulthood. But how important are the
experiences young people and adolescents have while growing up? The literature
often refers to these experiences as socialization – the process by which one learns
political and/or community-based behaviors and develops attitudes and beliefs that
lead to engagement in civic life. Socialization occurs through activities at school, with
33
their families and friends, and through other social, cultural, and political institutions
with which they come in contact (Gaeke, 2009). Life events while growing up, such
as a war or a depression or the way the media presents the event to the public, also
alter the way individuals perceive politics and engagement (Keeter et al., 2002).
Keeter et al. (2002) argued, “individuals have the potential to be exposed to important
socializing experiences early in life that place them in a better position to acquire the
skills, attitudes, and networks that add to the likelihood that they will be engaged” (p.
124).
Multiple studies have focused on the standard measures for early socialization
which most often include having a parent who volunteers and having political
discussions at home (Keeter et al., 2002; Verba et al., 1995). The authors found that
individuals who discussed politics in their home at a young age or grew up with a
parent who volunteered were more likely to be engaged throughout life (Keeter et al.,
2002). Similarly, Zukin et al. (2006) found that the two most powerful predictors of
college student engagement were parents talking about politics at home and schools
arranging for volunteer opportunities. They found that classes that require students to
pay attention to politics and government had a strong influence on the socialization of
students to politics and community-based engagement. Such students were more
engaged than those who did not have the same requirements, though the authors did
not explore whether the effects lasted after the class had been completed.
34
The factors leading to a strong foundation for civic engagement are now
becoming clear. We now know that parents’ education and income are the most
important predictors of adolescent civic engagement followed by participation in
extracurricular activities in high school, and socialization experiences throughout life.
Other building blocks in the socialization process are specific types of experiences
such as service learning programs and learning communities. The importance of both
in the development of civic engagement is discussed below.
Service Learning Programs and Learning Communities. Many scholars argue
that service learning programs or learning communities are a way for students to
socialize to community-based and political behaviors while in school, regardless of
whether they received it at home. Due to this optimism, the research on service
learning programs is inundating the literature across multiple disciples. Service
learning is “participation in community service work in connection with an academic
course” (Vogelgesang, Ikeda, Gilmartin, & Keup, 2010, p. 1). Service learning
programs and learning communities result in positive effects on student engagement
and civic awareness. Alexander Astin and Helen Astin (2000) found that service
learning had a positive effect on students’ perceptions of their leadership skills,
commitment to activism, critical thinking, likelihood of choosing a service-related
career, and plans to participate in service later in life. Service learning largely falls
into community-based engagement. Unless the service learning program includes a
focus on political activism, such as political volunteer work or community-based work
35
for political purposes. In this case, service learning would also fall into the political
engagement category, and students would be learning important civic skills needed for
both. Additionally, service learning also includes cognitive engagement since much of
the curriculum requires students to discuss how the community service work they
performed links to the greater political and social context of society.
Prentice and Robinson (2007) argued that service learning “can be the
educational spark that sets fire to the commitment of students to claim their role as
active community members” (p. 11). The authors used both quantitative and
qualitative methodologies to explore the relationship between civic engagement and
service learning. They found that service learning participation increased students’
knowledge of civic and community needs, increased students’ commitment to
continue being involved in the community, and helped students have a better
understanding of their role as community members. The authors conducted, a pre- and
post-course civic engagement survey at 12 community colleges that offered servicelearning courses to their students. The survey followed students enrolled in the
courses over a two-year period, which resulted in a total of 1,107 surveys. The
authors also conducted seven focus groups at four of the colleges with 59 participants.
The authors concluded that while past studies have resulted in mixed results about the
role of service-learning programs, their study validated community college educators’
use of service learning to inspire students to be civically engaged through the use of
36
service learning linked to community involvement focused on implementing change
and volunteering to improve their communities (Prentice & Robinson, 2007).
Civic Skills
Civic skills are an important element in developing the capacity for civic
engagement, which can then lead to increased engagement. Research shows that
individuals who have the civic skills to participate in civic activities participate at a
higher rate than individuals without the skills needed to participate (Verba et al.,
1995). While there is a great deal of reference to civic skills in writings, there is not a
consensus on what exactly constitutes civic skills. Mary Kirlin (2003b) found that
even though the term “civic skills” is widely used, there exists a "surprising lack of
information about what civic skills are, how to measure them, and when they begin to
be developed" (p. 2).
To better understand civic skills, Kirlin (2003b, 2005) performed an extensive
literature review across multiple disciplines to come to a conclusion on the definition.
Kirlin (2005) found that civic skills are “competencies that allow one to become a
participant in democratic processes rather than an observer” (p. 308). Kirlin (2005)
added that civic skills do not have to be political in nature, but can focus on how
individuals engage in their communities. She also found that civic skills are behaviors
and not beliefs, attitudes, or specific knowledge; they must be learned, developed, and
practiced. Lastly, Kirlin (2005) implied it is likely that civic skills are transferable
37
from one context to another, which enables individuals to be more effective in more
areas than just politics or civic duties.
In Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics, Verba et al.
(1995) discussed the importance of civic skills. The authors defined civic skills as
“communication and organizational abilities” (p. 304) needed to effectively engage
politically. Included in civic skills were using English, writing letters, going to
meetings, taking part in decision making, planning or chairing a meeting, and giving a
presentation or speech, all which they believed could be learned and developed as part
of the socialization process early in life, in school and college, and into adulthood.
They posited that individuals who developed civic skills were more likely to be
politically involved, more effective when involved, and able to use their time and
money more efficiently. Discussing politics in class or with faculty and peers is a
civic skill that has also been found to lead to greater cognitive engagement (Zukin et
al., 2006). When teachers and campuses encourage open discussions about politics,
students’ levels of engagement increase. The next section discusses the important of
the college environment in the development of civic engagement.
College Environment
The environments, to which individuals are exposed while growing up, as well
as in high school and college, is considered to be an important element of civic
engagement (Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Zukin et al., 2006). Zukin et al. found that
students who attended schools that provided civic training in the classroom or
38
rewarded service opportunities are more involved than students whose schools did not
provide opportunities for engagement. The authors (2006) noted that just requiring
students to pay attention to politics did not result in greater civic engagement; rather,
when teachers and campuses encouraged open discussions about politics, facilitated
volunteer work, and made it a requirement, students’ levels of engagement increased.
Kahne and Sport (2008) similarly found that the environment to which students
are exposed plays a role in their civic development. They found that high school
juniors who reported their community as one in which adults cared about youth and
made the community better were more likely to report high levels of commitments to
civic participation. In addition, students who experienced their peers as supportive of
academic achievement by helping others and sharing the commitment to do well in
school were more likely to express commitments to civic participation. The authors
(2008) surveyed 4,057 students at 52 high schools in Chicago between 2003 and 2005
and found a specific set of civic learning opportunities that fostered notable
improvements in students’ commitment to civic participation: discussing civic and
political issues with one’s parents, participating in extracurricular activities other than
sports, and living in a civically responsive neighborhood. Some of these are consistent
with previous research. The authors acknowledged that African Americans were
underrepresented in their sample.
Sax (2004) examined the influence that various factors related to the college
environment had on students' civic values and behaviors. Analyzing a large national
39
longitudinal data set of college students collected by the Cooperative Institutional
Research Program (CIRP), she conceptualized civic engagement as composed of three
related values and behaviors. The values included commitment to social activism and
a sense of empowerment, while the behaviors included community involvement. Sax
(2004) found that elements of an institution's peer environment were some of the most
significant predictors in each of the three components of civic engagement. With
regard to values, being on a campus where other students reported being committed to
social activism had a strong positive correlation on one's own commitment to social
activism. The students who expressed a commitment to social activism also expressed
greater community involvement (Sax, 2004) than students with less of a commitment
to social activism. Students who attended institutions that had student bodies that
were wealthier and better educated experienced greater gains in their belief that
individuals had the ability to affect change in society as well as their behaviors as
expressed through community involvement.
Research shows that the college environment matters to the development of
values and behaviors that lead to civic engagement. When teachers and the college
campus promote the values associated with civic engagement, such as committing to
improving the community through volunteer and community work, as well as the
behaviors, such as encouraging or requiring political and community-based
engagement on campus and in the community, civic engagement increases.
Additionally, campuses that embrace ethnic and cultural diversity foster in their
40
students the values (sense of empowerment) and behaviors (community involvement)
necessary for civic engagement.
Living, Working, and Enrollment Status. Researchers have found that students
at four-year colleges who enroll full-time (Bueschel, 2009), live on campus (Tinto,
1997), and work only part-time (CCCSE, 2008) have positive gains in their level of
student engagement. As community college students largely live off campus and
commute to school, these students have less exposure to on-campus activities than
students who spend all of their time on campus (Tinto, 1997). Since enrolling fulltime, living on campus, and hours worked have been linked to student engagement,
this study explored whether the same factors are linked to civic engagement.
Sense of Community. When the college community focuses on civic
engagement by providing opportunities to participate, by encouraging participation,
and by making it mandatory, students are more likely to participate. Kahne and Sporte
(2008) found that a sense of community is important to the development of civic
engagement. Minkler (2001) found that community colleges often lack a sense of
community that can lead to greater civic engagement due to their varying missions and
part-time and non-resident student population.
One way colleges can develop a sense of community on their campus is
through learning communities (Tinto, Russo, & Kadel, 1994). Though, some research
findings are in conflict about the impact of learning communities on the social
41
integration of community college students (Maxwell, 1998) because these students are
not engaged on their campuses at the same rate as four-year residential students.
Peer Networks. The development of social networks within the campus
environment is also strongly linked to civic engagement (Van Stephenson, 2010) as
well as being one of the most influential of campus factors (Tinto, 1993). Networks
with faculty and staff lead to greater student engagement which, over time, leads to
better persistence rates, increased academic performance, and a sense of belonging on
campus (CCSSE, 2008). Verba et al. (1995) similarly found that the development of
peer networks is an important element in the recruitment and invitation into
community-based and political groups. The more robust peer and faculty networks
students have the more information to which they are exposed in regard to activities
and invitations to participate.
How is Civic Engagement Measured?
Now that an understanding of the path to civic engagement is drawn, an
understanding of how the literature measures civic engagement is necessary. It is
clear that civic engagement is complex and multifaceted from the multiple definitions
and multiple theories. Following this complex trajectory, there are many political and
community-based activities in which individuals can participate and thus, multiple
ways to measure them. Some researchers focused on observable and measureable
behaviors while others focused on the values that may lead to civic engagement in the
42
future. Behaviors are activities in which individuals participate through observable
and measureable means, as opposed to beliefs, feelings, commitments, or thoughts
individuals may have about engagement. Behaviors are easier to measure than values
because behaviors are operational and observable, where values are more nebulous.
Sydney Verba and Norman Nie (1972), in their seminal work on civic
engagement targeted four behaviors in which people engage: voting, election
campaign activity, contacting public officials, and cooperative activity (such as
working informally with others to solve a community problem). Their research was
one of the first to categorize community-based behaviors as activities outside of
political engagement. Brady (1999) later made the distinction between electoral
(voting and campaign activity) and non-electoral activities. Brady categorized nonelectoral activities into “conventional” and “unconventional” behaviors where
conventional behaviors included informal community work, contacting elites,
organizational memberships, and attending meetings. Unconventional behaviors
included signing petitions, participating in demonstrations, or boycotts. Putnam
(2000) made the distinction between cooperative and expressive forms of behavior.
Putnam measured cooperative behaviors much in the same way as Verba and Nie
(1972) (i.e., community involvement with others and joining clubs or groups with a
shared purpose) but included expressive behaviors, which he defined as behaviors that
express an individual’s beliefs and values such as writing letters or discussing political
43
affairs. Further building upon these distinctions, Keeter et al. (2002) developed a
comprehensive measurement of civic engagement as displayed in Table 2.
Keeter et al.’s work categorized civic engagement into civic, electoral, and political
behaviors. To measure each of the categories, the authors developed indicators that
fell within each group. Scott Keeter later teamed up with Cliff Zukin, Molly
Andolina, Krista Jenkins, and Michael Delli Carpini in 2006 to elaborate upon the
measurement put forth by Keeter at al. (2002) by further breaking down civic
engagement into civic, political, political voice, and cognitive behaviors.
Each of the four indicators are considered behaviors, not values. Their
measurement complements Thomas Ehrlich’s (2000) definition of civic engagement
since both efforts focus on political and civic activities in which individuals can
engage alone or with others to influence their community. Zukin at al.’s (2006)
measures also include many of the variables that comprise the many factors leading to
increased civic engagement. Throughout the rest of this study, I referred to civic
indicators as community-based indicators as to not confuse the specific activities with
the overarching term of civic engagement, which encompasses all three indicators.
44
Table 2
Civic Engagement Indicators
Community-based
Community problem solving
Indicators
Regular volunteering for a non-electoral organization
Active membership in a group or association
Participation in fundraising run/walk/ride for charity
Political Indicators
Regular voting
Persuading others
Displaying buttons, signs, or stickers,
Campaign contributions
Volunteering for a candidate or political organization
Political Voice Indicators
Contacting officials
Contacting the print or broadcast media
Protesting
Petitioning
Boycotting or buycotting
Canvassing
Cognitive Engagement
Following the government and public affairs
Indicators
Talking with family and friends about politics
Political knowledge
Paying attention to the news media
45
Figure 1 diagrams the connection between Ehrlich’s (2000) definition of civic
engagement and Keeter et al.’s (2006) civic engagement measures. As displayed, the
definition directly leads to the measurements. For example, “working to make a
difference in the civic life of our community” links to community-based engagement,
political engagement, and cognitive engagement measures, while the development of
knowledge, skills, values and motivation links to all measures of civic engagement—
as it is an essential part of engagement. Improving the quality of life in our
communities through political and non-political processes clearly links to the
measures of community-based and political engagement.
Figure 1
Ehrlich’s (2000) Definition of Civic Engagement Linked to Keeter et al.’s
(2002) Measures of Civic Engagement
Ehrlich’s (2000) Definition of Civic
Engagement
Working to make a difference in
the civic life of our communities
and developing the knowledge, skills,
values, and motivation to make that
difference.
Keeter et al.’s (2006)
Measures of Civic Engagement
Political Activities
Community-based
Activities
Cognitive Activities
Improving the quality of life in a
community through political
processes,
And non-political processes
Political Voice
Activities
46
As shown, the indicators developed by Zukin et al. (2006) nicely complement
the definition of civic engagement used in this study as well as the many variables
discussed above that lead to increased civic engagement.
Conclusion
The definition of civic engagement used in this study and the multiple factors
linked to civic engagement lead to the inclusion of variables explored in this
dissertation. However, the inclusion of variables was limited to the variables available
in the data. Table 3 summarizes the factors linked to civic engagement and the factors
available in the data for current student and adults. Enrolling full-time, living on
campus, and hours worked on or off campus have been linked to student engagement
but have not yet been linked to civic engagement. These variables were used to
explore whether enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on or off
campus are linked to the civic engagement of current students.
The variables I included from the data were based on the civic indicators
developed by Zukin et al. (2006). The indicators include a wide range of activities in
which individuals can engage either individually or collectively to influence the
political system or improve their communities.
47
Table 3
Summary of Variables Linked to Civic Engagement and Available in the Data
Factors
Variables
Current Students
Adults
Background
Family education, income;
Income; gender;
Income; gender;
Characteristics
ethnicity; citizenship;
ethnicity; native
ethnicity;
gender
English speaker
citizenship;
High School
Volunteering; member of
Not available in
Not available in
Activities
community group;
the data
the data
Volunteering; political
Not available in
Not available in
discussions at home;
the data
the data
Writing letters; group
Not available in
Not available in
membership; planning or
the data
the data
newspaper; yearbook;
political club; student
government
Socialization
service learning programs
Civic Skills
chairing a meeting;
making speeches or
presentations;
College
Diverse students; high
sense of
Not available
Environment
socioeconomic status;
community; peer
in the data
campuses that foster
networks; political
engagement; peer
discussions;
networks; commitment to
enrolling full-
social activism; political
time; living on
discussions
campus; hours
worked on campus
48
The authors’ (2006) community-based, political, and cognitive indicators were
used as the framework for the inclusion of variables available in the data used to
explore the relationship between current two- and four-year students’ civic
engagement while controlling for background characteristics, enrolling full-time,
living on campus, and hours worked on or off campus. The indicators were also used
to measure the level of civic engagement of individuals with only a high school
diploma, an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree. By including both populations,
I was able to get a richer understanding of their civic engagement.
The research reviewed in this chapter showed that while current adolescents
may be disengaged in regards to political activities, they increasingly engage in
community-based activities, and, in some cases, are more engaged than adults. The
level of engagement is attributed to the idea that adolescents prefer to participate in
activities they can do in concert with others to directly affect change within their
communities (Sax et al., 2003). While community-based activities are an important
element in the process, political engagement, such as voting and contacting political
figures, are also necessary for a pluralistic society. Therefore, the aim of this study
was to explore both the community-based and political participation of community
college students and graduates, a population far underrepresented in the literature.
An extensive search of literature specific to community college student civic
engagement found only a handful of studies and just one study showing that
community college students are less civically engaged than four-year students.
49
Therefore, the results of this study will contribute to the limited research available on
the civic engagement of two-year college students and graduates.
50
Chapter 3
METHODS
This chapter begins by developing a conceptual model used in this dissertation
based upon the work of Zukin et al. (2006). Zukin et al.’s measures of civic
engagement have become the most widely accepted measures in the literature for
operationalizing and measuring adolescent civic engagement. Drawing upon their
work, this study focused on the development and testing of a conceptual model that
identified key experiences and characteristics that foster civic engagement in college.
The chapter is divided into 2 sections: students currently enrolled in college and adults
no longer enrolled in any educational institution. It begins with the conceptual model
for both groups then discusses the research questions and hypothesis, sample,
measures, method of analysis, and limitations for current students followed by adults
who attained their ultimate level of education.
As explored in Chapter 2, the development of civic engagement is influenced
by multiple factors. In linking the complex concepts of college enrollment at a two- or
four-year college, background characteristics and the role of enrolling full-time, living
on campus, and hours worked on or off campus, as well as past literature on civic
engagement, I put forth a conceptual model that attempts to include the key factors
that lead to increased civic engagement.
51
Conceptual Model
Students come to college with individual background characteristics which
provide a baseline in their development and influence the activities they participate in
while in school. In Figure 2, the relationship between civic engagement and students
and adults family socio economic status, socialization experiences, background
characteristics, and involvement in extracurricular activities in high school are
displayed.
Figure 2
Individual Background Characteristics and Experiences that Impact Civic
Engagement
Parents’ SES at home
Socialization
Ethnicity
Gender
Levels of Civic Engagement
Native English speaker
Citizenship
Activities in High School
Discussing Politics
Students also enroll at institutions with varying cultures and different
opportunities for engagement that may affect their level of civic engagement while in
college and later in life. Some students also have less time to devote to on-campus
activities due to other responsibilities, such as supporting and caring for a family.
52
Figure 3 displays the relationship between the time students have to devote to civic
engagement activities and the opportunities available to them to engage in activities
that affect the development of their civic engagement.
Figure 3
Time and Opportunities Leading to Increased Civic Engagement
Time Available to
Opportunities to
Levels of Community-based,
Devote to Engagement
Engage in Activities
Political and Cognitive
Activities
Engagement
The background characteristics students bring with them to college form the
starting point in their development. The time and opportunities students have to
engage in activities affect their development of civic engagement. The type of student
that enrolls at either school as well as the culture of the school also affect time and
opportunities for engagement. Therefore, levels of civic engagement will be different
for two- and four-year students as well as two- and four-year graduates, as displayed
in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Conceptual Model of Factors Leading to Increased Civic Engagement
Background
Characteristics
and
Experiences
Time and
Opportunities
Current Students
Adults - HS
AA or BA
Communitybased,
Political and
Cognitive
Engagement
53
Based upon the conceptual model, the following section explores the research
questions, hypothesis, data, methods, and analysis for current students followed by
adults who obtained their ultimate level of education.
Research Questions for Current Students
Two-year students most likely arrive at college predisposed to lower rates of
civic engagement when compared to four-year students. This is due to the fact that the
majority of community college students come from low socio economic and minority
backgrounds, groups that have been found throughout the literature to exhibit low
rates of civic engagement (Foster-Bey, 2008). Due to these findings, I was interested
in the differences between two- and four-year students to better understand their civic
engagement. With the variables available in the data, I wanted to explore the
differences between two- and four-year student’s community-based engagement,
engagement in political protests, and engagement in political discussions controlling
for background characteristics, enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours
worked on or off campus. Therefore, the first research question was:
R1: Are there significant differences in the engagement of current two- and
four-year college students in community-based activities, political protests, and
discussing politics when controlling for background characteristics, enrolling
full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on and off campus?
54
I also wanted to drill down further to explore the civic engagement of just two-year
students to see if the differences in their engagement can be explained simply by their
background characteristics, which may predispose them to lower rates of civic
engagement, or, if enrolling-full time, living on campus, and hours worked on or off
campus helped to explain the differences in their engagement. Therefore, I explored
the following research question:
R2: When isolating two-year students, are enrolling full-time, living on
campus, and hours worked on or off campus significant predictors of two-year
students’ engagement in community-based activities, political protests, and
discussing politics?
Hypotheses for Current Students
The literature states that individuals from less educated backgrounds exhibit
lower rates of civic engagement compared to individuals with higher educational
levels. Research also shows that two-year students enroll part-time, live off campus,
and work off campus at a higher rate than four-year students (Minkler, 2001), resulting
in them spending less time on campus. This may limit the time they have available to
engage on campus. Therefore, I hypothesized that:
H1: Two-year college students’ civic engagement will be significantly lower
than students enrolled at four-year colleges even when controlling for
55
background characteristics, enrolling full-time, living on campus and hours
worked on or off campus.
The literature on student engagement has found that the more time students spend on
campus, such as studying, participating in on-campus activities, enrolling full-time,
and living on campus, leads to increased student engagement (Astin, 1999). Based
upon these findings, I also hypothesized that:
H2: Enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on or off campus
will be significant predictors of two-year students’ community-based
engagement, engagement in political protests, and discussing politics.
Analysis for Current Students
I first ran a cross tabulation of the civic engagement variables with two- and
four-year enrollment to analyze the types of activities in which current students are
engaging which was used to frame the research questions. This was followed by a set
of regression analyses used to answer the research questions. In the first model, I
simply tested the impact of the type of college a student attended, two- or four-year,
on community-based activities, engagement in political protests, or political
discussions. In the second model I added controls for background characteristics to
see if it changes the impact of two- or four-year college attendance. Research has
found that individuals from minority backgrounds and non-native English speakers
exhibit lower rates of civic engagement when compared to non-minority individuals
56
and native English speakers, and these students are overrepresented in two-year
colleges (Foster-Bey, 2008). Therefore, I wanted to see if these variables explained
any of the differences in the civic engagement of two- and four-year students. In the
third model, I added controls for full-time enrollment, living on campus, and hours
worked on or off campus to determine if these variables explained any of the
differences between two-year and four-year students’ engagement. The addition of
these variables was based on the work of Astin (1999) and Tinto (2006) who found
that students were more engaged on their campus when they spent more time on
campus through studying, participating in activities, interacting with faculty and other
students, enrolling full-time, and living on campus.
I then used an additional set of regression analyses in order to isolate two-year
students to explore which independent variables were the strongest predictors of twoyear students’ civic engagement. Background characteristics, enrolling full-time,
living on campus, and hours worked on or off campus were entered in to model one.
In order to explore the differences in community-based engagement and twoand four-year students, an ordinary least squares regression analysis was appropriate
for this index since the index is continuous and has a linear relationship with the
independent variables. To explore current students’ engagement in political protests
and discussing politics, binary logistic regression analyses were best suited since the
dependent variables were dichotomous.
57
The standardized coefficients and adjusted R-squared values were reported for
the ordinary least squares regression analyses while the odds ratios were reported for
each of the binary logistic regressions. An odds ratio of 1 means the odds are the
same for two- and four-year students, an odds ratio greater than one indicates an
increase in the likelihood of two-year students participating in political protests and an
odds ratio less than one represents a decrease in the likelihood. The pseudo-R-squared
values were also reported, in binary logistic regressions, the Nagelkerke R-square
adjusts the pseudo R-square so that the range of possible values extends to 1 in order
to more closely match the scale of a linear regression R-square.
Data for Current Students
Data used in this study for current students are from the “Your First College
Year” (YFCY) survey (HERI, 2009b). The YFCY survey is administered by the
Center on Institutional Research and Policy housed at the Higher Education Research
Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles. All postsecondary institutions,
private and public, are invited to participate and voluntarily choose to participate in
the survey. The cost to participate in the survey includes a flat fee of $775 plus an
additional fee of $3 per survey returned for analysis by HERI. For example, if a midsized college administered the survey to their students resulting in 10,000 surveys
returned to HERI for analysis, the college would be charged $30,775. Approximately
58
5 two-year colleges and 110 four-year colleges participated in the surveys used for this
study (survey years 2002, 2003, 2004).
The two-year colleges that participated in the survey between 2002 and 2004
included: a large public community college in central California enrolling 13,555
students comprised largely of Hispanic and White students; a large public community
college in Southern California enrolling 35,232 students largely from minority
backgrounds (Asian, Hispanic, African American); a rural public community college
in Kentucky enrolling 5,190 students with a small minority population; a small private
Methodist community college in South Carolina enrolling largely African American
and White students.; and a small private women’s college in Missouri enrolling 350
students. Since the number of community colleges that participated in the survey for
the years included in this study was small, the data are aggregated across years
therefore analyzing the data by year was not possible.
The YFCY survey is administered from March to June to target students at the
end of their first year of college. By administering the survey at the end of the year,
students have had time to develop networks and practices on their campus and
participate in a range of activities throughout their first year, which would then be
captured in the survey results.
HERI provided a sample of two- and four-year students who participated in
the survey over the three year period. HERI matched the two-year students to the
four-year students based on their ethnicity, year entered college, enrollment status, and
59
grade point average. All two-year students were included in the sample except for
students with a missing on race, year entered college, college GPA or enrollment
status. For every two-year student, 4 four-year students were included with matching
student types to those of the two-year student. The resulting population was largely
White, enrolled full-time, entered college prior to 1997 and reported a grade point
average between 2.75 and 3.24. The two-year sample resulted in 3,620 students and
9,723 four-year students for a total sample of 13,343 two- and four-year students over
the three years.
The colleges that participated in the survey exhibited a wide variety of campus
environments and student populations that are reflective of the variety of community
colleges in the United States, however because the two-year sample was so small and
was over representative of full-time and White students the findings cannot be
generalized to the U.S. college population. In addition, the White and full-time
students are overrepresented in the sample for both two- and four-year students.
Therefore, the findings from this sample were used for exploratory research to inform
further research in this area.
The results of the sample, as shown in Table 4, indicate that the YFCY sample
of two-year students was more White (81%) than the U.S. two-year population (60%),
and Black and Hispanic students were underrepresented in the sample compared to the
U.S two-year population. However, Asian and American Indian students were well
represented in the sample compared to the U.S. two-year population.
60
Table 4
YFCY Sample Compared to National College Population
National
Two-Year
Background Characteristics
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
American Indian
Female
Male
(NCES, 2009)
60%
15%
14%
5%
1%
58%
42%
YFCY
Two-year
Sample
81%
8%
3%
4%
3%
49%
51%
National
FourYear
65%
13%
11%
7%
1%
43%
57%
YFCY
Four-year
Sample
81%
7%
3%
7%
2%
61%
49%
In addition, the two-year sample contained more males (51%) than the U.S.
two-year population (42%). The four-year sample was also more White (81%) than
the U.S. college population (65%) and Black and Hispanic students were
underrepresented, though Asian and American Indian students were equally
represented in the sample compared the U.S. four-year student population. Female
students were overrepresented in the four-year sample (61%) compared to the U.S.
four-year population (43%).
Based upon the data available, noted caveats include: the two- and four-year
sample is over representative of students enrolled full-time; White students were over
represented; Black and Hispanic students are underrepresented; and a small number of
community colleges participated in the survey resulting in findings that can be used
for exploratory purposed to inform future research.
61
Community-based Engagement Indicators
The community-based engagement activities that were included in the
regression analysis were measured using seven questions from the YFCY data focused
on: participation in a service learning program since entering this college; perform
volunteer work since entering this college; community service linked to course work;
participation in athletics since entering this college; participated in community service
since entering this college; participation in student clubs or groups since entering this
college; learning community linked to a course. Each of the questions were
appropriate to measure community-based activities as they were included in Zukin et
al.’s (2006) measures of civic indicators and include a variety of activities used to
measure community-based engagement. Three additional questions were used solely
in the descriptive statistics to better understand the development of peer networks for
two- and four-year students but were not included in the regression analyses. I did not
include them in the regression analyses because they are student perceptions that may
or may not lead to civic engagement and I only wanted to capture actual student
behaviors associated with civic engagement. These variables included: belief there is
an overall sense of community on campus, ability to develop close friends with
faculty, and ability to develop close friends with students.
The indicators that asked about participation were dichotomous as participated
(yes = 1, no = 0). While participate in clubs or groups was a categorical variable
which measured participation in hours per week: none, less than 1 hour, 1-2, 3-5, 6-10,
62
11-15, 16-20, and over 20, I recoded the variable into a dichotomous variable as
participated in clubs or groups (yes = 1, no = 0). I recoded the variables in order to
measure whether or not students participated in this activity rather than the hours they
participated because I believe whether or not they participated in an activity is more
important than the hours they participated. The variables for participate in intramural
sports as well as participate in intercollegiate sports were combined into one
dichotomous variable (yes = 1, no = 0) because they both relate to participation in
sports and past research has found no significant distinctions between intramural and
intercollegiate athletics participation. These variables were combined to create an
additive index each with the same weight and together comprised the communitybased engagement index.
Political Protest Indicator
Political protests were measured using one question from the YFCY data
focused on participating in political protests which was dichotomous (1 = yes if ever
participated in a political protest since entering this college, 0 = never participated in a
political protest since entering this college). While only one question within this data
set directly addressed political activities, political protests are an important proxy for
this measure because adolescents have been found to exhibit lower levels of political
engagement, though they have been found to participate in political protests (Longo &
Meyer, 2006) at a higher rate than other measures of political engagement, such as
voting. While young people have been found to participate in political protests at a
63
higher rate than other non-electoral activities, it is still a limited measure due to the
less conventional (Brady, 1999) and more confrontational nature of the participation.
The political protest variable was the only dependent variable entered into the model
for political protests and was regressed against the independent variables.
Discussing Politics Indicator
Cognitive engagement was measured using one question from the YFCY data
focused on discussing politics within the last year. The variable is dichotomous as
discuss politics (1= yes, since entering this college, 0 = had not discussed politics
since entering this college). This indicator directly addressed an individual’s cognitive
engagement as defined by Zukin et al. (2006) where the authors include discussing
politics as a cognitive activity. Adolescents who discuss politics with faculty and
peers have been found to exhibit higher rates of cognitive engagement (Zukin et al.,
2006) than adolescents who discuss politics less frequently. This is still a limited
variable as it measures only one form of cognitive engagement. The discuss politics
variable was the only dependent variable entered into the model for discussing politics
and regressed against the independent variables. Table 5 presents the list of the YFCY
variables.
64
Table 5
List of YFCY Survey Variables
Variable Name
Description
Background Variables
Two-year enrollment
1 = yes, 0 = no
Enrolled full-time
1 = yes, 0 = no
English native language
1 = yes, 0 = no
Live on campus
1 = yes, 0 = no
0 = None, 1 = < 1 hour, 2 = 1-2 hours, 3=
Hours worked for pay on campus
3-5 hours, 4 = 6-10 hours, 5 = 11-15
hours, 6 = 16-20 hours, 7 = over 30 hours
0 = None, 1 = < 1 hour, 2 = 1-2 hours, 3=
Hours worked for pay off campus
3-5 hours, 4 = 6-10 hours, 5 = 11-15
hours, 6 = 16-20 hours, 7 = over 30 hours
Gender (male)
1 = yes, 0 = no
Black
1 = yes, 0 = no
Asian
1 = yes, 0 = no
Hispanic
1 = yes, 0 = no
American Indian
1 = yes, 0 = no
Community-based Engagement Variables
Belief there is an overall sense of
1 = yes, 0 = no
community among students
Participated in community service
1 = yes, 0 = no
Community service linked to coursework 1 = yes, 0 = no
Performed volunteer work
1 = yes, 0 = no
Participate in athletics
1 = yes, 0 = no
Enrolled in learning cluster
1= yes, 0 = no
Field experience/internship linked to
1 = yes, 0 = no
course
Participation in student clubs or groups
1 = yes, 0 = no
Political Protest Variable
Participated in organized demonstrations 1= yes, 0 = no
Discussing Politics Variable
Discussed politics in the past year
1= yes, 0 = no
65
Background Characteristics, Enrollment Status, Living, and Working
Stemming from the conceptual framework, additional variables were included
which enabled greater exploration of factors that might influence civic engagement.
Background characteristics were largely included as controls, they included: gender as
male (1 = yes, 0 = no), ethnicity (1 = the stated ethnicity, 0 = not the stated ethnicity)
and Hispanic (1 = yes, 0 = no), as well as native English speaker (1 = yes, 0 = no).
The ethnicities included White, Black, American Indian/Alaskan Indian, Asian, and
Pacific Islander. These variables are valid measurements of background
characteristics as they have been found in previous research to be linked with civic
engagement and are consistently used for controls in studies of civic engagement. It
should be noted that variables such as family income, parent’s education, high school
extracurricular participation, and socialization experiences have also been found in the
literature to be predictors of civic engagement, though these variables are not available
in the data.
The variables used to explore full-time enrollment, living on campus, and
hours worked on or off campus include: full-time enrollment (1 = yes, 0 = no), living
on campus (1 = yes, 0 = no), hours spent working on campus, and hours spent working
off campus, which are categorical variables (0 = None,1 = < 1 hour, 2 = 1-2 hours, 3
= 3-5 hours, 4= 6-10 hours, 5 = 11-15 hours, 6 = 16-20 hours, 7 = over 30 hours).
These variables are appropriate for measuring the college environment as
depicted in the conceptual model since research shows that students who spend more
66
time on campus tend to exhibit higher levels of student engagement than students who
spend less time on campus. Additional measures of the college environment, such as a
diverse student body, the socio economic status of the student population, and
opportunities for engagement have been linked to increased civic engagement, yet are
not available within the data. The background variables were added into the
regression analyses as a block followed by the college environment variables.
Limitations of the Study for Current Students
This study has several limitations. The limitations include a limited timeframe
in which to measure participation of current students, limited measures for
participation, no way to capture transfer students, risks associated with self-reported
data, and the risk of an unrepresentative sample.
The YFCY data were limited to first-year students at the end of their first year.
Research argues that individuals develop the capacity for, commitment to, valuation
of, and behaviors consistent with civic engagement over a longer time period (e.g.,
Verba et al., 1995). It may be possible that the data used may only capture a fraction
of engagement of current students, and their engagement may increase as they proceed
through college. On the other hand, other studies argue that the first year in general,
and the college years overall, are well suited for investigation since the college
experience has a significant impact on the development of civic engagement (Kuh,
1991). This timeframe is considered to be important in the development of civic
67
engagement because students are exposed to new ways of thinking, new peer groups,
new environments, and new opportunities for socialization that help develop their
capacity for civic engagement. In addition, the years in which two-year colleges
participated in the survey were limited, resulting in a limited timeframe to capture data
on current students. A more robust sample of students may include students at the end
of their college career rather than beginning to capture the full range of activities they
participated in while in college.
The YFCY data were also limited in measures of civic engagement where it
only contained one indicator for political engagement (political protests) and one
cognitive engagement indicator (discuss politics), and no electoral variables. In
addition, the political protest variable may not be the best measure of political
engagement due to the less conventional nature of this activity (Brady, 1999). The
limited measures included in this study impede the conclusions that can be drawn
regarding cognitive and political engagement. The limited measures give us only a
snapshot of activities, not the fuller range of measures that that were defined by Keeter
et al. (2006). In addition, other measures that have been linked to increased civic
engagement, such as family socio economic status and participation in extracurricular
activities in high school were not available in the data, therefore limiting the variables
that were included that have been found to lead to greater rates of engagement for
current students.
68
There is no way to determine whether two-year students have the intention of
transferring to a four-year university, thus becoming four-year students. Research has
found that community college students with the intention of transferring to a four-year
college are almost equal to bachelor’s degree holders in rates of volunteering and
registering to vote (Lopez & Brown, 2006). It may be that community college
students with the intention of transfer would exhibit higher rates of engagement in
other activities as well, though the data were not disaggregated to explore this factor
within this study.
All the variables rely on self-reported information. There is always a
possibility that there may have been some misreporting. Students may inflate their
responses in an attempt to present themselves as more engaged than they may be in
actual practice. If there was any systematic misreporting for the variables, the validity
of the data can be questioned. Since self-reported data are common in research,
especially on college students (e.g., by national surveys such as the Cooperative
Institutional Research Program as used in this study), I do not believe that selfreported data will impact the results of the study.
In addition, the two-year sample was more White and included more full-time
students than the U.S. college population. Thus, the two-year sample more closely
resembles the characteristics of four-year students than two-year students when
comparing them to the U.S. two- and four-year student population. The sample also is
limited in that it included a small sample of two-year colleges. The costs associated
69
with participation may have been a limiting factor in some colleges’ decision to
participate in the survey. The costs associated with participation may have resulted in
the underrepresentation of public colleges as well as two-year colleges who may not
have the money to participate in the survey. In addition, since the survey is voluntary,
only those colleges that have the resources to pay for the survey and are interested in
knowing more about their student population are measured through the YFCY survey.
This is the only national survey I have found on civic engagement that disaggregates
the results for two- and four-year students. Considering the numerous limitations to
the data, the findings for current students in this study were purely exploratory and
used to inform future research on civic engagement of two-year students. The
following section discusses the research question, hypothesis, method of analysis, and
data for adults who attained their ultimate level of education.
Research Question for Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education
In addition to exploring the differences in civic engagement of two-year students, I
wanted to explore the differences in civic engagement of adults who are no longer
enrolled in any type of educational environment. To do this, I explored the differences
in community-based engagement and political engagement of adults with only a high
school diploma, an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree while controlling for the
influence of background characteristics. Thus, the following research question was
explored:
70
R3: Are there significant differences in the engagement of adults who attained
a high school diploma, an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree in
community-based and political engagement activities when controlling for
background characteristics?
Hypothesis for Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education
Since research shows that civic engagement is cumulative, in that as education
increases, civic engagement increases as well, and that education is one of the
strongest predictors of civic engagement, I hypothesized that:
H3: Adults who graduated from a two-year college will exhibit significantly
lower levels of civic engagement than adults who graduated from a four-year
college even after controlling for background characteristics.
Analysis for Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education
I first ran a cross tabulation of the civic engagement variables with educational
attainment (high school diploma, associate’s degree, or bachelor’s degree) to analyze
the types of activities in which adults who attained their ultimate level of engagement
are engaging in as well as to frame the research question. A set of regression analyses
were then used to answer the research question for adults who were not currently
enrolled in any educational environment. In the first model, I simply tested the impact
of educational attainment, either a high school diploma or an associate’s degree, on
71
community-based and political activities. Then I added controls for background
characteristics since research shows that low socio economic and minority individuals
exhibit low rates of civic engagement To explore the relationship between adults who
attained their ultimate level of education and the community-based engagement index,
an ordinary least squares regression analysis was best suited since the dependent
variable was continuous. I also used an ordinary least squares regression analysis to
explore the relationship between educational attainment and the political engagement
index. Ordinary least squares regression was again appropriate since the dependent
variable was continuous.
Data for Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education
Current Population Survey data were used to answer the research
question for adults who attained their ultimate level of education, “are there significant
differences in the engagement of adults who attained a high school diploma, an
associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree in community-based and political
engagement activities when controlling for background characteristics?” The CPS
data included the Volunteer Supplement survey for September 2008 (U.S. Bureau of
the Census, 2008b) and the Civic Engagement Supplement Survey for November 2008
(U.S Bureau of the Census, 2008a), both nationally representative samples. The CPS
Volunteer supplemental survey is administered yearly to a sample of respondents in
conjunction with the annual CPS survey. The Civic Engagement supplemental survey
72
was administered in 2008. Since survey data were only available in 2008 for this
survey, the 2008 sample for the Volunteer Supplement was used to include
respondents within the same timeframe.
The survey questions were asked of a sample of the U.S. population. The data
offers information on community-based and political indicators, though cognitive
indicators were not available. Background characteristics available in the data
included highest level of school completed or degree received, gender, ethnicity,
citizenship status, and family income. The survey respondents used in this study
indicated their highest level of education was a high school diploma, an associate’s
degree, or a bachelor’s degree. Adults who were currently enrolled in any type of
school were removed from the data.
As displayed in Table 6, the distribution of ethnicity was rather consistent
across education levels when compared to the U.S. population. However, there were
more females respondents with associate’s degrees than in any other group and
slightly more Black adults in the population than represented in the sample. Since the
CPS data are a nationally representative weighted sample, conclusions from the data
can be applied to the U.S. adult population.
73
Table 6
CPS Sample Compared to U.S. Population of Adults
U.S.
CPS
U.S
CPS
U.S.
CPS
Background
High
High Associate’s Associate’s Bachelor’s Bachelor’s
Characteristics School School
Degree
Degree
Degree
Degree
White
84%
83%
67%
83%
72%
85%
Black
10%
11%
12%
8%
7%
6%
Asian
4%
3%
5%
3%
5%
5%
Hispanic
8%
7%
12%
10%
8%
7%
American Indian 1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Female
52%
51%
62%
57%
56%
52%
Male
48%
49%
38%
43%
44%
48%
(NCES, 2009)
Community-based Engagement Indicators
The four questions from the CPS data used to measure community-based
engagement were: participate in a service or civic organization in the past year;
participate in a sports or recreational club in the past year; volunteer in the past year;
participate in a religious organization in the past year; and participate in any other type
of service organization in the past year. The variables are representative of Zukin et
al.’s (2006) civic indicators. The community-based indicators are dichotomous as
participated or not (yes = 1, no = 0). These variables were combined into an additive
community-based index each having the same weight.
Political Engagement Indicators
The political engagement indicators were measured using four questions from
the CPS data which were: attend a political meeting in the past year; boycott or
74
buycott a product in the past year; attend a rally or protest in the past year; and support
a political candidate in the past year. These questions are based upon Zukin et al.’s
(2006) political indicators. Each of the political indicators are dichotomous (1 = yes, 0
= no). An additive index was created using the four dichotomous political variables,
each with the same weight.
Background Characteristics
Based upon the conceptual model, background characteristics were added to
each model as controls. The variables were: ethnicity (1 = the stated ethnicity, 0 = not
the stated ethnicity) as African American, American Indian/Alaskan Indian, Asian,
and Pacific Islander with White as the reference group; Hispanic (1 = yes, 0 = no);
gender (male) (1 = yes, 0 = no); U.S. citizen (citizen = 1, non-citizen = 0); family
income (1 = less than $5,000, 2 = $5,000 to $7,499, 3 = $7,500 to $9,900, 4 =
$10,000 to $12,499, 5 = $12,500 to 14,999, 6 = $15,000 to $19,999, 7 = $20,000 to
$24,999, 8 = $25,000 to $29,999, 9 = $30,000 to $ 34,999, 10 = $35,000 to $39,99, 11
= 40,000 to $49,000, 12 = $50,000 to 59,000, 14 = $60,000 to $74,000, 14 = $75,000
to 99,999, 15 = $100,000 to $149,000, 16 = more than $150,000). Table 7 presents
the variables used in the study for adults who attained their ultimate level of education.
75
Table 7
List of CPS Survey Variables
Variable Name
Description
Background Variables
High school diploma
1 = yes, 0 = no
Associate’s degree
1 = yes, 0 = no
African American
1= yes, 0 = no
Hispanic
1= yes, 0 = no
Asian
Pacific Islander
American Indian
Gender (Male)
Citizenship status
1 = yes, 0 = no
1 = yes, 0 = no
1 = yes, 0 = no
1 = yes, 0 = no
1 = citizen, 0 = non citizen
1 = < $5,000, 2 = 5,000 to 7,499, 3 = 7,500
to 9,999, 4 = 10,000 to 12,499, 5 = 12,500 to
14,999, 6 = 15,000 to 19,999’ 7 = 20,000 to
24,999, 8 = 25,000 to 29,999, 9 = 30,000 to
34,999, 10 = 35,000 to 39,999, 11 = 40,000
to 49,999, 12 = 50,000 to 59,999, 13 =
60,000 to 74,999, 14 = 75,000 to 99,999, 15
= 100,000 to 149,999, 16 = over 150,000
Community-based Engagement Variables
Participated in any organization
1 = yes, 0 = no
Participated in a service organization
1 = yes, 0 = no
Family income
Participated in sports or recreational org.
1 = yes, 0 = no
Participated in church or synagogue
1 = yes, 0 = no
Political Engagement Variables
Attend a march or rally
1 = yes, 0 = no
Support a political candidate
1 = yes, 0 = no
Participate in a political organization
1 = yes, 0 = no
Boycott or buycott a product
1 = yes, 0 = no
76
Limitations of the Study for Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education
This study has several limitations for adults who attained their ultimate level of
education. First, the CPS Civic Engagement Supplemental Survey was only
administered in 2008, limiting the timeframe of data available on the civic engagement
of adults from this survey. Of the data available in the 2008 survey, only a limited
number of measures for civic engagement were available; no electoral or cognitive
indicators and a limited number of political indicators were available. Therefore, the
overall conclusions that can be drawn about the civic engagement of adults who
attained their ultimate level of education are limited to the measures included in this
study. Additional variables that have been linked to civic engagement, such as
parent’s education and income, participation in extracurricular activities in high
school, socialization experiences, and elements of the college environment were not
available in the CPS data, thus limiting the variables that can be included in this study
that are linked to increased civic engagement of adults.
Even though the CPS data are large, weighted, representative samples of the
U.S. population, there is always a concern about generalizing the results on a wide
scale. Since it is a representative sample, one would think the findings can be
generalized to the United States, but I would be hesitant to generalize to individuals
outside of the United States that attended educational systems dissimilar to our own. I
have confidence that the results from the CPS data can be applied to the national
context since U.S. Census Bureau data has been used to generalize about the U.S.
77
population for centuries. Lastly, the variables included rely on self-reported
information which may result in over reporting. Since self-reported data are common
in research, especially in the use of U.S. Census Bureau data, this limitation can be
applied to many other surveys and therefore is not just a limitation of this study.
78
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
This chapter answers the research questions using two different data sets, first
by looking at students in college using the YFCY survey data, and second, by looking
at adults who finished their education with either a high school diploma, an associate’s
degree, or a bachelor’s degree. The first section of this chapter focused on the
descriptive statistics for students currently enrolled in college and described their level
of engagement in community-based, political protests, and discussing politics, in order
to frame the research questions. This was followed by a discussion of the results of
the regression analyses which isolate the relationship between two- and four-year
enrollment and civic engagement with controls for background characteristics and
enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on or off campus.
The following section explores the civic engagement of adults who attained
their ultimate level of education, first by presenting the results of the descriptive
statistics then by presenting the results of the regression analyses. The use of two
different data sets provided different perspectives on education and civic engagement,
though the different data sets cannot be compared from one population to the other.
Together, the data sets provided additional insight on the civic engagement of
community college students and graduates.
79
Current College Students
Descriptive Statistics
To better understand the level and rate of civic engagement exhibited by
college students enrolled at a two- or four-year college, I looked at each civic
engagement variable to make comparisons between the groups. Consistent with the
literature, the descriptive statistics showed that first-year community college students
exhibit lower rates of civic engagement than first-year students at a four-year
institution in all community-based activities, political protests, and discussing politics.
However, engagement in political protests was only one percentage point lower for
two-year students than four-year students.
The conceptual model in Chapter 3 predicted that the opportunities students
have within their college to enroll full-time, live on campus, and hours they work on
or off campus lead to varying levels of civic engagement. Since community college
students spend less time on campus than four-year students (Bueschel, 2009), I
expected that community college students would exhibit lower rates of civic
engagement than four-year students. Using the civic engagement indicators developed
by Keeter et al. (2006) and available in the data, Table 8 displays the results of the
cross tabulations.
80
Table 8
Differences in Civic Engagement of Current Students
Two-year
Community-based Engagement Variables
Developing relationships with faculty
84%
Developing close friends with students
80%
Belief there is an overall sense of community
on campus
42%
Participation in a service learning program
28%
Perform volunteer work
43%
Community service linked to course work
39%
Participate in athletics (intramural or varsity)
24%
Participated in community service
23%
Participate in clubs or groups
10%
Learning community linked to course
4%
Political Protest Variable
Participate in organized demonstrations?
34%
Discussing Politics Variable
55%
Living, Working, and Enrollment Status
Enroll full-time
87%
Enroll part-time
12%
Live on campus
31%
Hours worked on campus (No hours)
84%
Hours worked on campus (1-2 hours)
2%
Hours worked on campus (6-10 hours)
6%
Hours worked on campus (16-20 hours)
3%
Hours worked on campus (over 30 hours)
2%
Hours worked off campus (No hours)
42%
Hours worked off campus (1-2 hours)
3%
Hours worked off campus (6-10 hours)
6%
Hours worked off campus (16-20 hours)
10%
Hours worked on campus (over 30 hours)
18%
Discussed politics
Four-year
79%
80%
49%
72%
59%
39%
38%
35%
40%
10%
35%
72%
91%
8%
76%
73%
3%
10%
3%
2%
71%
2%
5%
5%
5%
Though not an indicator of civic engagement as defined by Keeter et al.
(2006), developing relationships with faculty and students as well as an overall sense
81
of community on campus have been linked to civic engagement (Astin, 1993) and
included in previous research as important elements of the development of peer
networks. The peer network variables showed that community college students
reported higher success rates in developing relationships with faculty (84%) when
compared to four-year students (79%). Eighty percent of two- and four-year students
reported they were successful in developing close friendships with students.
Respondents also reported on their satisfaction with the overall sense of community
among students on their campus with more four-year students (49%) reporting a
higher rate of satisfaction than two-year students (42%). These variables provide
additional information regarding the development of peer networks and the overall
sense of community at two- and four-year colleges. Though these variables have been
linked to civic engagement in the literature, they are not included as indicators of civic
engagement as defined by Keeter et al. (2006), therefore they were not included in the
regression analyses as discussed in the following section.
The indicators used to measure community-based engagement, and later
included in the regression analyses, showed that students who participated in a service
learning program at a four-year college (72%) engaged in this activity at a higher rate
than two-year students (28%). Four-year student (59%) respondents also reported
higher rates of volunteering than two-year students (43%). The percentage of students
indicating they had enrolled in a course where community service was linked to the
course was the same (39%) for both groups. In regards to participation in athletics, the
82
results showed more four-year (38%) students than two-year students (24%)
participated in any form of athletics. Respondents were asked to report whether they
participated in community service. Four-year students (35%) reported higher rates of
participation than two-year students (23%). Four-year students (40%) also exceeded
two-year students (10%) in participation in student clubs or groups. Four-year
students spent a greater amount of time participating in clubs or groups than
community college students with 18% of four-year students spending one to two hours
a week and only 9% of two-year students participating one to two hours a week. A far
higher number of four-year students (13%) reported participating in clubs or groups
three to five hours per week than the 4% of two-year students who reported
participating three to five hours. Four-year students spent more time participating in
student clubs and groups in all other time brackets than two-year students ranging
from 3 to over 30 hours. Lastly, participation in learning communities linked to a
course was also higher for four-year (10%) than two-year (4%) students.
The results confirmed the limited findings of current literature outlined in the
conceptual model that show community college students exhibit lower rates of civic
engagement than four-year students, placing them at a disadvantage in a representative
democracy (Keeter et al., 2003; Lopez & Brown, 2006; Verba et al., 1995). In
addition, far more four-year students are participating in service learning programs
than two-year students which may suggest that these programs are offered more
readily at four-year colleges, or, it could be that two-year students choose not to
83
participate in service learning programs if they are available on their campus. These
results may also be a result of self-reported data where respondents report higher rates
than actually exhibited.
The one political variable, political protests, explored the rate at which
students participated in organized political demonstrations or protests. Four-year
respondents (35%) reported they participated in organized demonstrations at a
marginally higher rate than two-year students (34%). The small variation between
two- and four-year students in this activity may be contributed to the nature of the
activity. Other political activities can be done somewhat more discretely and may
result in higher engagement for one or both groups.
As for discussing politics, four-year (72%) students discussed politics at a
higher rate than two-year students (55%). This variable received a high level of
participation generally, which may indicate politics is widely discussed at both twoand four-year colleges, though at a lower rate at two-year colleges. The next section
focuses on the opportunities students have available that allow them to spend more
time on campus.
Living, Working and Enrollment Status. Tinto (1997) argues that the time
students have available to devote to engagement activities are a strong predictor of
actual engagement. Students who enroll full-time, live on campus, and work on
campus spend more time on campus and therefore, have more time to be engaged on
campus. Even though students who enroll full-time may have less time to devote to
84
campus activities because they are in class and studying more, research has found that
students who enroll-full time are more engaged on campus than those who enroll parttime (CCSSE, 2008). While this may be attributed to numerous factors, students who
are able to enroll full-time may have less obligations outside of school that take time
away from their engagement in on-campus activities. The enrollment status of
respondents resulted in 87% of two-year college students attending full-time with 12%
attending part-time. Consistent with the literature, more four-year students attended
full-time (91%) and less attended part-time (8%) when compared to community
college students. Of the U.S. college population at both two- and four-year colleges,
61% of students enrolled full-time and 39% enrolled part-time (NCES, 2007).
Therefore, the two-year student sample is enrolled full-time at a higher rate than the
U.S. population. Any conclusions regarding full-time enrollment of two-year students
should consider that the sample is more highly representative of students enrolled fulltime than the U.S. population.
More four-year (76%) than two-year (31%) students reported living on campus
in their first year, consistent with the research that states the majority of two-year
college students commute to college (Tinto, 1997) resulting in less time available to
spend on campus. As for working, two-year students worked for pay 6-10 hours off
campus (6%) at a slightly higher rate than four-year students (4%). Four-year
respondents tended to work on campus 6-10 hours (10%) at a higher rate than twoyear respondents (6%). The results were consistent with current literature, which
85
states that two-year students spend less time on campus since they tend to live and
work off campus at a higher rate than four-year students.
Regression Analysis
The results of the descriptive statistics used to frame the research questions for
current students showed that community college students participate in communitybased engagement activities and discuss politics at a lower rate than four-year students
and engage in political protests at a rate 1% lower than four-year students. They also
spend less time on campus as expressed through living on campus, and hours spent
working on and off campus. This section expands upon these findings and attempts to
answer the research questions for current students: “are there significant differences in
the engagement of current two- and four-year college students in community-based
activities, political protests, and discussing politics when controlling for background
characteristics, enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on or off
campus; when isolating two-year students, does enrolling full-time, living on campus,
and hours worked on or off campus explain the differences between two-year
students’ engagement in community-based activities, political protests, and discussing
politics?”
Community-based Engagement. A linear regression analysis was used to
explore the relationship between community-based engagement and two- and fouryear students (Table 9).
86
Table 9
YFCY Community-based Index Regression Results for Models 1 -3
Variable
Two-year
(1)
(2)
+
Background
-.057***
(.033)
-.064***
(.033)
(3)
+ Full-time,
live on campus
& hours
worked
-.008
(.036)
.010
(.106)
-.041***
(.068)
-.022**
(.056)
-.009
(.180)
.002
(.093)
.004
(.085)
-.008
(.065)
.041***
(.030)
.006
(.105)
-.043***
(.068)
-.012
(.056)
-.009
(.178)
.003
(.092)
.003
(.084)
-.014
(.065)
.037***
(.029)
.007
13,340
.055***
(.049)
.100***
(.039)
.047***
(.008)
-.020
(.006)
.028
13,345
Background
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hawaiian
Latino
Other
English is native language
Gender
Enrolled full-time
Live on campus
Hours worked on campus
Hours worked off campus
Adjusted R-square
N
.003
13,342
Standardized coefficients, standard error in parentheses, p<.001 (***), p< .01(**), p< .05 (*)
87
As displayed, in Table 9, the results of the regression analysis of communitybased engagement with two- and four-year students and the addition of controls for
background characteristics, full-time enrollment, living on campus, and hours worked
on or off campus. In the first model, community-based engagement was significantly
lower for two-year students than four-year students; this difference remained
significant with the addition of controls for background characteristics. However,
when I added controls for enroll full-time, live on campus, and hours
Worked on or off campus, the differences were no longer significant. This indicates
that the differences between two- and four-year students’ engagement in communitybased activities stems at least in part from differences in enrolling full-time, living on
campus, and hours worked.
The R-square in these regressions explained between .03% and 3% of the
variance suggesting that other variables outside the scope of this study help explain the
variance. The models were significant at the .000 levels.
Since the differences between two- and four-year students and communitybased engagement disappeared with the addition of controls for full-time enrollment,
living on campus, and hours worked, I wanted to explore further the relationship
between these variables and community-based engagement for two-year college
students specifically.
88
To do this, I ran a regression with only the two-year students and entered the
controls for background characteristics, full-time enrollment, live on campus, and
hours worked to explore which variables were significant for two-year students.
The regression showed, as displayed in Table 10, that enrolling full-time, living on
campus, and working more hours on or off campus were all significant predictors of
two-year students’ community-based engagement. Full-time enrollment was the
strongest predictor with a standardized coefficient of .141, followed by living on
campus and working on campus, both with a standardized coefficient of .065. This
suggests that we would expect students enrolled full-time to be .141. standard
deviations more engaged in community-based activities, and students who live on
campus to be .065 standard deviations more engaged than students who live off
campus, and for every 3 hour increase in working on campus, two-year students’
community-based engagement will increase by .065 standard deviations. The Rsquare explained 5% of the variance in this model and was significant at the .000
level.
89
Table 10
YFCY Community-based Index Linear Regression Results for Two-Year Students
Variable
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hawaiian
Latino
Other
Native English
Gender
Enroll full time
Live on campus
Hours worked on
campus
Hours worked off
campus
Adjusted R-square
N
.019
(.222)
-.024
(.181)
.023
(.113)
.000
(.400)
.010
(.118)
-.027
(.175)
-029.
(.150)
.046**
(.062)
.141***
(.095)
.065***
(.073)
.065***
(.019)
.060**
(.019)
.046
3,495
Standardized coefficients, standard error in parenthesis,
p<.001 (***), p< .01(**), and p< .05 (*)
Political Protest. A binary logistic regression analysis was used to explore the
relationship between political protest and two- and four-year students with the addition
90
of controls for background characteristics, enrolling full-time, living on campus, and
hours spent working. The results of the binary logistic regression are presented in
Table 11 and display the results of two- or four-year students with the addition of
controls for background characteristics, enrolling full-time, living on campus, and
hours worked on or off campus with the political protest variable. The results show
that initially two-year students are not significantly different from four-year students
in their engagement in political protests, this pattern continued with the addition of
controls for background characteristics. When I added controls for whether the
student enrolled full-time, lives on campus, and hours worked on or off campus, twoyear students were significantly more likely to participate in political protests than
four-year students (odds ratio of 1.165). The Nagelkerke R-square in this model
ranged from 0% to .25%, which suggests that other variables explain a proportion of
the variance outside the scope of this study although the overall models were
significant at the .000 level.
Since a significant difference between two- and four-year students’
engagement in political protests resulted when I controlled for full-time enrollment,
living on campus, and hours worked, I wanted to explore the relationship between
these variables and only two-year students, these results are presented in Table 11.
91
Table 11
YFCY Political Protest Binary Logistic Regression Odds Ratios for Models 1 - 3
Variable
Two-Year
(1)
(2)
+
Background
.933
(.042)
.945
(.042)
Background
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hawaiian
Latino
Other
English is native language
Gender
.972
(.134)
.968
(.085)
1.221**
(.070)
1.182
(.221)
1.058
(.116)
1.075
(.107)
.746***
(.079)
.905**
(.038)
.918
(.135)
.962
(.086)
1.305***
(.111)
1.194
(.223)
1.056
(.118)
1.077
(.108)
.711***
(.080)
.897**
(.038)
1.441***
(.072)
1.460***
(.051)
1.071***
(.010)
1.002
(.008)
.004
13,343
.025
13,343
Enrolled full-time
Live on campus
Hours worked on campus
Hours worked off campus
Nagelkerke Rsquare
N
.000
13,343
(3)
+ Full-time,
live on campus
& hours
worked
1.165***
(.048)
Odds ratios, standard error in parenthesis, p<.001 (***), p< .01(**), and p< .05 (*)
92
The regression showed that full-time enrollment was the strongest predictor of
two-year student’s engagement in political protests with an odds ratio of 1.924,
followed by living on campus (1.681), and hours worked on campus (1.122). Hours
worked off campus was not a significant predictor of two-year student’s engagement
in political protests. This suggests that two-year students who enroll full-time are
almost twice as likely to engage in political protests than two-year students who enroll
part-time, almost three quarters more likely to engage in political protests than twoyear students who live off campus, and one tenth more likely to engage in political
protests than students who work less hours on campus, after controlling for
background characteristics, enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked.
The Nagelkerke R-square explained up to 6% of the variance in this model and the
model was significant at the .000 level. Table 12 presents the results of the regression
for two-year students.
93
Table 12
YFCY Political Protest Binary Logistic Regression Odds Ratios for Two-Year
Students
Variable
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hawaiian
Latino
Other
Native English
Gender
Enroll full time
Live on campus
Hours worked on
campus
Hours worked off
campus
Nagelkerke Rsquare
N
.664
(.245)
1.081
(.214)
1.471**
(.386)
1.234
(.472)
.830
(.242)
.966
(.215)
.657**
(.177)
.890
(.075)
1.924***
(.133)
1.681***
(.086)
1.122***
(.022)
.994
(.012)
.059
3,620
Odds ratios, standard error in parenthesis,
p<.001 (***), p< .01(**), and p< .05 (*)
Discussing Politics. The final binary logistic regression for current students
explored the relationship between discussing politics and two- and four-year students
94
with the addition of background characteristics, enrolling full-time, living on campus,
and hours worked on or off campus, the results are displayed in Table 13. With no
controls, two-year students were significantly less likely to discuss politics than fouryear students. This pattern remained with the addition of controls for background
characteristics and full-time enrollment, living on campus, and hours worked. This
suggests that these controls do not explain the differences between two- and four-year
students’ engagement in political discussions, therefore factors outside the scope of
this study help explain the differences. The Nagelkerke R-square explained 4% to 5%
of the variance in this model and the overall model was significant at the .000 level. I
did not need to explore these variables further by isolating two-year students since
there were not significant differences when the controls were added. Table 13
presents the results of the binary regression analysis.
95
Table 13
YFCY Discussing Politics Binary Logistic Regression Odds Ratios for Models 1 - 3
Variable
Two-Year
(1)
(2)
+
Background
.458***
(.041)
.439***
(.042)
Background
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hawaiian
Latino
Other
English is native language
Gender
Enrolled full-time
Live on campus
Hours worked on campus
Hours worked off campus
1.535**
(.150)
.854
(.008)
.879
(.073)
1.011
(.239)
1.141
(.125)
1.766***
(.126)
1.425***
(.082)
1.245***
(.039)
(3)
+ Full-time, live on
campus& hours
worked
.421***
(.047)
1.535**
(.150)
.864
(.088)
.857*
(.073)
1.007
(.239)
1.118
(.125)
1.767***
(.126)
1.452***
(.082)
1.261***
(.040)
1.036
(.015)
.911
(.051)
1.061***
(.011)
1.011
(.008)
Nagelkerke Rsquare
.038
.048
.052
N
13,343
13,343
13,343
Odds ratios, standard error in parenthesis. p<.001 (***), p< .01(**), and p< .05 (*).
96
Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education
Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive statistics showed that adults who attained an associate’s degree
exhibited lower rates of civic engagement than adults who attained a bachelor’s
degree, but higher rates of civic engagement than adults who attained only a high
school diploma. I found this to be the case in all variables available within the data for
community-based and political engagement, no cognitive indicators were available in
the CPS data. The distribution of engagement also resulted in associate’s degree
holders engaging in community-based and political engagement activities at a lower
rate than bachelor’s degree holders but at a higher rate than high school graduates.
The type of organization individuals volunteer with varied by education level.
The largest majority, over 70% of all education levels, did not volunteer at all. Of the
respondents who did volunteer, individuals with a high school diploma volunteered
with religious organizations at the highest rate (7%), followed by children’s
educational or sport organizations (3%), and social and community service
organizations (2%). Of the respondents with an associate’s degree, 10% volunteer
with religious organizations followed by children’s educational or sport organizations
(6%), and volunteering with a social and community service organization (3%), as
displayed in Table 14.
97
Table 14
Differences in Civic Engagement of Adults who Attained their Ultimate Level of
Education
High School Associate
Community-based Engagement Variables
Volunteer
11%
Attend a church or synagogue
9%
Participate in a sports or recreational
4%
organization
Participate in a service/civic
3%
organization
Participate in clubs or groups
3%
Political Engagement Variables
Support a political candidate
6%
Boycott or buycott a product
4%
Participate in a political organization
3%
Participate in a political march or rally
1%
Bachelor
16%
16%
8%
28%
18%
11%
6%
7%
4%
6%
10%
6%
6%
2%
16%
10%
10%
3%
Bachelor’s degree holders volunteer at the same organizations as high school
and associate’s degree holders but at a slightly higher rate – largely at religious
organizations (11%), children’s educational or sport organizations (7%), and social
and community service organizations (6%). As for the number of hours respondents
reported they volunteer per week, 1% of respondents in each educational attainment
level reported they volunteered 1 hour or more per week, which can be considered a
low rate of engagement.
Attending a church or synagogue, 9% of respondents with a high school
degree, 16% of associate’s degree holders, and 18% of bachelor’s degree holders
stated they attended a church or synagogue on a weekly basis. The results of this
98
analysis showed that adults with a bachelor’s degree attended religious services at the
highest rate.
The distribution of engagement with a sports or recreational organization was
4% of high school, 8% of associate’s, and 11% of bachelor’s degree holders being a
member of such group. The distribution of individuals who participated in a service or
civic organization was highest for bachelor’s degree holders (7%), followed by high
school graduates (6%), and associate’s degree holders (3%). The overall participation
in clubs or groups resulted in bachelor’s degree holders engaging in this activity at the
highest rate (6%), followed by associate’s degree holders (4%), and high school
graduates (3%).
The distribution of engagement in political activities follows the same pattern
as the community-based indicators in which bachelor’s degree holders exhibited the
highest rate of engagement followed by associate’s degree holders then high school
graduates. Survey respondents who report they supported a political candidate within
the last 12 months were bachelor’s degree holders (16%), associate’s degree holders
(10%), and high school graduates (6%). Respondents reporting they boycotted or
buycotted a product, bachelor’s degree holders once again participated at the highest
rate (10%), followed by associate’s degree holders (6%), and high school graduates
(4%). Of the respondents with a degree who reported they participated in a political
organization, bachelor’s degree holders made up the largest percentage (10%),
followed by associate’s degree holders (6%) and high school graduates (3%).
99
Respondents reporting they attended a political march or rally within the last 12
months also increased as their education level increased with 1% of high school
graduates, 2% of associate’s degree holders, and 3% of bachelor’s degree holders
attending a political march or rally. No educational level exceeded 5% of the
population that engaged in such a political activity. This suggests that attending a
political march or rally is not a frequently used form of political engagement within
this population, nor is there much variance between the groups, similar to the
distribution of current students in this activity. These findings were consistent with
the literature which shows that individuals with no college experience exhibit lower
levels of engagement in all areas when compared to individuals with higher levels of
education (Lopez & Brown, 2006).
Regression Analyses
Regression analyses were used to answer the research question for adults who
obtained their ultimate level of education: “are there significant differences in the
engagement of adults who attained a high school diploma, an associate’s degree, or a
bachelor’s degree in community-based and political engagement activities?”
Community-based Engagement. A linear regression analysis was used to
explore the relationship between community-based engagement and high school
graduates, associate’s degree holders, and bachelor’s degree holders. In the first
model, community-based engagement, with no controls, shows that adults who
attained an associate’s degree were significantly less likely than bachelor’s degree
100
holders to engage in community-based activities and adults with a high school
diploma were significantly less likely to engage in community-based activities than
bachelor’s degree holders.
Significant differences between the groups remained with the addition of
controls for background characteristics which indicates that background characteristics
do not explain the differences between the groups and their engagement in
community-based activities. The standardized coefficients in the first model without
controls show that associate’s degree holders were 0.035 standard deviations less
likely to engage in community-based activities, the standardized coefficient for high
school graduates was greater, at 0.170, indicating they are less likely to engage in
community-based activities than bachelor’s degree holders as well as associate’s
degree holders. The adjusted R-square explained between 2.5% and 6% of the
variance in the model. In addition, the overall relationship was significant at the .000
level. Table 15 displays these results.
101
Table 15
CPS Community-based Engagement Index Regression Results for Models 1 - 2
Variable
(1)
High School
Associate’s Degree
-.170***
(.000)
-.035***
(000)
(2)
+ Background
-.139***
(.000)
-.033***
(.000)
.025
150,799
.003***
(.000)
-.078***
(.000)
-.045***
(.000)
-.007***
(.000)
-.060**
(.000)
.040***
(.000)
.018***
(.000)
-.031***
(.000)
.136***
(.000)
.059
150,799
Background
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hawaiian
Latino
Other
Citizenship
Gender
Family Income
Adjusted R-square
N
Standardized coefficients, standard error in parentheses. Significant at the p<.001 (***), p<
.01(**), and p< .05 (*).
Volunteer Index. As displayed in Table 16, the second linear regression
analysis was used to explore the relationship between the volunteer index and adults
with a high school diploma, an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree. With no
102
controls, high school graduates and adults with an associate’s degree were again less
likely to engage in volunteering activities than adults with a bachelor’s degree.
Table 16
CPS Volunteer Index Regression Results for Models 1 - 2
Variable
(1)
High School
Associate’s Degree
-.191***
(.066)
-.096***
(.098)
Background
American Indian
-.008
(.207)
-.020
(.153)
-.031*
(.084)
.000
(.296)
-.028
(.009)
.012
(.338)
.027
(.110)
-.029**
(.052)
.059***
(.0004
Asian
Black
Hawaiian
Latino
Other
Citizenship
Gender
Family Income
Adjusted R-square
N
(2)
+
Background
-.173***
(.068)
-.094***
(.098)
.026
150,799
Standardized coefficients, standard error in parentheses,
significant at the p<.001 (***), p< .01(**), and p< .05 (*).
.035
150,799
103
This pattern remained with the addition of controls for background characteristics
again indicating that background characteristics do not explain the differences in
volunteering between the groups. The adjusted R-square explained 3% to 4% of the
variance within this model and the overall relationship was significant at the .000
level.
Political Engagement. The last linear regression explored the relationship
between political engagement and the educational attainment of adults. The results are
consistent with the two previous models where adults with a high school diploma or
an associate’s degree are less likely to engage in political activities when compared to
adults with a bachelor’s degree. This pattern continued with the addition of controls
for background characteristics. The adjusted R-square explained between 2% and 4%
of the variance within the model and the overall relationship was significant at the
.000 level. Table 17 displays the results of the regression.
104
Table 17
CPS Political Index Regression Results for Models 1 - 2
Variable
(1)
High School
Associate’s Degree
-.171***
(.000)
-.065***
(.000)
Background
American Indian
.002***
(.000)
-.051***
(.000)
-.012***
(.000)
-.002***
(.000)
-.045***
(.000)
.001***
(.000)
.034***
(.000)
-.020***
(.000)
.127***
(.000)
Asian
Black
Hawaiian
Latino
Other
Citizenship
Gender
Family Income
Adjusted R-square
N
(2)
+ Background
-.146***
(.000)
-.065***
(.000)
.024
150,799
Standardized coefficients, standard error in parentheses,
significant at the p<.001 (***), p< .01(**), and p< .05 (*).
.048
150,799
105
Chapter 5
CONLCUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Two-year students arrive at college predisposed to lower rates of civic
engagement when compared to four-year students, largely due to the fact that the
majority of community college students come from low socio economic and minority
backgrounds, groups that have been found throughout the literature to exhibit low
rates of civic engagement (Foster-Bey, 2008). I wanted to explore the differences
between two- and four-year students. With the variables available in the data, I was
able to explore the differences between two- and four-year student’s community-based
engagement, engagement in political protests, and engagement in political discussions.
I also wanted to know if the differences in engagement between the two groups could
be explained by students’ background characteristics or whether the student enrolled
full-time, lived on campus, and the hours they worked on or off campus. I was then
able to drill down further to explore whether these same variables explained the
differences in engagement of only two-year students.
Once I explored the relationship between current students and civic
engagement, I was able to explore the differences in civic engagement of adults with a
high school diploma, an associate’s degree, or a bachelor’s degree to determine if
differences exist in their civic engagement when controlling for background
characteristics.
106
This study only minimally addressed the many factors linked to civic
engagement of current students and adults who attained their ultimate level of
education. As discussed in the conceptual model, there are many factors that lead to
increased civic engagement. The process begins at birth where a child is predisposed
to background characteristics that are liked to civic engagement later in life. This
includes: non minority ethnicities, U.S. citizenship status, and English as a native
language (Burns, Schlozman, & Verba, 2001; Foster-Bey, 2008; Jenkins, 2005; Kahne
& Sporte, 2008; Marcelo, Lopez & Kirby, 2007a; Nie et al., 1996; Verba et al., 1995).
The process continues at home with parents with high socio economic status and
parents who provide a rich and vibrant home environment. Children in this
environment are socialized to civic engagement early on through political discussions
at home, opportunities to engage in community service, and seeing their parents
volunteer (Gaeke, 2009; Keeter et al., 2002; Zukin et al., 2006).
The process continues when children progress through school where they learn
the civic skills necessary to be engaged (Kirlin, 2003b; Verba et al., 1995). They also
begin to develop peer networks which may lead to being recruited to engagement
activities and are exposed to different school environments that foster engagement
(Sax, 2004; Zukin et al., 2006). These environments include: a campus that embraces
a shared commitment to social activism and promotes and fosters civic engagement in
students (Astin, 1993; Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Prentice, 2007; Sax, 2004; Zukin et al.,
2006). As adolescents progress through high school, they continue to develop their
107
civic skills but now have the opportunity to engage in extracurricular activities and
continue to build social networks (Astin, Sax, & Avalos, 1999; Keeter et al., 2002;
Kirlin, 2002; Verba et al., 1995; Youniss, McLellan, & Yates, 1997). As adolescents
enter college, they are exposed to different college environments, varying student
populations, and varying opportunities for engagement that influence their civic
engagement in college and later in life (Kahne & Sporte, 2008; Sax, 2004).
It is clear that the path to civic engagement is complicated and multifaceted. In
this dissertation I only focused on the college element, specifically community
colleges, which is only a small piece of the puzzle. While I would of liked to have
painted a broader picture of civic engagement and included a wider range of civic
engagement indicators as well as a greater variety of factors that have been found to
influence civic engagement, I was limited to the variables available in my data sets.
In drawing conclusions from the data, the data for current students was not
representative of the U.S. population since it was more White and contained more fulltime students than the U.S. population, and the overall sample of community college
students was small. Therefore, the results for current students were exploratory and
used to inform future research in this area. The data for adults on the other hand, were
a nationally representative sample of the U.S. population. Therefore the findings were
applied to community colleges in the U.S. However, it should still be considered that
the measures of civic engagement and factors linked to increased civic engagement
were limited. The factors available in the study and those linked to civic engagement
108
are presented (Table 18) to tie them back to the findings, implications, and further
research.
Table 18
Factors Linked to Civic Engagement and Variables Available in the Data
Factors
Variables Known to Increase
Variables used in
Variables
Civic Engagement
Current Students
used in
Analysis
Adults
Analysis
Background
Family education; income;
Income; gender;
Income;
Characteristics
ethnicity; citizenship status;
ethnicity; native
gender;
gender
English speaker
ethnicity;
citizenship;
High School
Volunteering; membership in
Not available in the
Not
Activities
community organizations;
data
available in
newspaper; yearbook; political
the data
clubs; student government
Socialization
Volunteer opportunities; political
Not available in the
Not
discussions at home; service
data
available in
learning programs
Civic Skills
the data
Writing letters; membership in
Not available in the
Not
groups; planning/chairing a
data
available in
meeting; making speeches or
the data
presentations; decision making
College
Diverse students; environments
sense of community;
Not
Environment
that foster civic engagement; peer
peer networks;
available in
networks; shared commitment to
discuss politics; full-
the data
social activism; political
time; live on
discussions
campus; hours
worked
109
Numerous factors including participation in extracurricular activities in high
school, socialization experiences while growing up, the development of civic skills,
and the college environment in which they are exposed are linked to civic
engagement, though these factors were not available in the data and therefore they
should be included in future research.
The full range of community-based, political, and cognitive indicators were not
available in the data which may have impacted the outcome of the regression analyses.
As discussed in the conceptual model, I based the inclusion of the civic engagement
activities on past research as well as the 19 indicators for civic engagement developed
by Keeter et al. (2006). All 19 indicators were not available in the data since no
electoral indicators and a limited number of political and cognitive indicators were
available. Further research may include a wider variety of indicators to explore the
civic engagement of current community college students and graduates.
Based upon the variables available in the data and included in this
study, a summary of the results stemming from these variables for current students
then adults who attained their ultimate level of education are discussed. This is
followed by implications for community colleges stemming from the findings for
adults and suggestions for future research for both groups based upon the limitations
of this study.
110
Current Students
The linear regression analyses for current students showed there are significant
differences between two- and four-year students in regards to their community-based
engagement, where two-year students were less likely to engage in these activities
than four-year students. The differences between two- and four-year students were
found to partially stem from differences in enrolling full-time, living on campus, and
hours worked. When isolating two-year students, enrolling full-time, living on
campus, and hours worked on or off campus remained significant predictors of twoyear students’ engagement in community-based activities.
I hypothesized that community college students would exhibit lower rates of
civic engagement than four-year students when controlling for background
characteristics, enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on or off
campus. I based this hypothesis on past literature that states two-year students must
work and attend college part-time, largely live off campus, commute to school, and
work off campus (Minkler, 2001). Due to these factors, I hypothesized that two-year
students would spend less time on campus, thus increasing the likelihood that they will
exhibit lower rates of civic engagement than four-year students. This conclusion was
drawn based on the literature on student engagement which found a link between time
on campus and student engagement (Tinto, 1997), therefore, I believed it would also
apply to civic engagement. Though, this was not the case for two-year students in this
sample who enrolled full-time at a higher rate than the U.S two-year college
111
population. While these students may spend more time on campus by enrolling fulltime, they still exhibited lower rates of community-based engagement when compared
to four-year students, which is consistent with past literature.
These findings are important because they show that community-based
engagement of two-year students is lower that of four-year students. If our democracy
is concerned with the participation of their citizens in community-based engagement,
these findings should draw attention to the fact that students who attend a community
college have lower rates of community-based engagement than students who attend a
four-year college. These findings should serve to mobilize community colleges in
focusing greater attention on how they can increase the community-based engagement
of their students.
This is also informative to future research that can more comprehensively
explore why two-year students who enroll full-time and are largely White, still exhibit
lower rates of community-based engagement than four-year students. This should be
done with a more representative sample than the one used in this dissertation.
The binary logistic regression showed that initially there were no significant
differences between two- and four-year students and their engagement in political
protests, which is somewhat consistent with previous research that found no difference
in engagement in political protests for individuals with some and no college (Lopez &
Brown, 2006). However, when I controlled for background characteristics, full-time
112
enrollment, living on campus, and hours worked on or off campus, two-year students
became significantly more engaged in political protests.
When I isolated two-year students in an additional binary logistic regression
analysis, enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on campus were
significant predictors of two-year students’ engagement in political protests after
controlling for background characteristics, enrolling full-time, living on campus, and
hours worked on or off campus.
These findings show that two-year students exhibit higher rates of political
protests than four-year students when they enroll full-time, live on campus, and work
more hours on or off campus and that enrolling full-time, living on campus, and
working more hours on or off campus are predictors of two-year students’ engagement
in political protests. These findings should be used to inform future research that
explores, in greater depth and with a more representative sample, whether the
differences in civic engagement of two-and four-year students are in fact explained by
enrolling full-time, living on campus, and working more hours on or off campus, as
found in this dissertation with a small sample of two-year students.
If future research confirms that enrolling full-time, living on campus, and
working more hours on or off campus do explain the differences between two- and
four-year students’ engagement in political protests, community colleges should use
this information to: inform their policies and practices to educate students on the
benefits of enrolling full-time; provide greater opportunities for students to live on
113
campus; alter campus policies that may restrict the number of hours students can work
on campus; and provide greater opportunities for on-campus employment. Though
these findings are imperfect because of the limitations of the data, I do not see any
harm in community colleges assessing their current practices in order to evaluate
whether their students have opportunities available to them to enroll full-time, live on
campus, and work on or off campus. Since enrolling full-time, living on campus, and
working on campus have already been linked to increased student engagement (Tinto,
1998), they are not new implications, but rather options community colleges should
already be looking at in relation to student engagement. So why not apply them to
civic engagement as well?
The binary logistic regression initially showed that two-year students were less
likely to engage in political discussions than four-year students, even after the addition
of controls for background characteristics and enrolling full-time, living on campus,
and hours worked on or off campus,. Therefore, further research should explore
additional factors that could explain the differences that were not explained within this
study such as parent’s education and income and participation in high school
extracurricular activities.
Overall these findings are important because when I controlled for the
variables in this study, enrolling full-time, living on campus, and hours worked on or
off campus helped explain the differences in engagement of two- and four-year
students in community-based engagement and political protests. This indicates that
114
while community college students arrive at college already predisposed to lower rates
of engagement than four-year students, due to lower family income and parent’s
education resulting in lower rates of engagement. These differences may be reduced
by students spending more time in educational settings, by enrolling full-time, living
on campus, and working more hours on campus where they have access to a variety of
activities and greater opportunities to be recruited, encouraged, or required to
participate in civic engagement activities. Since the majority of two-year students in
this sample enrolled full-time, they may already be spending more time on campus but
still exhibit lower rates of civic engagement than four-year students who enroll fulltime. Therefore, factors other than enrolling full-time account for the differences in
civic engagement of two-and four-year students. These findings are important to
future research which should explore with a more representative sample, additional
factors associated with two-year students’ civic engagement. In the mean time,
community colleges should use these findings to explore the civic engagement of their
own student populations in order to determine if their students would benefit from
enrolling full-time, living on campus, working more hours on or off campus, as well as
benefit from greater exposure to civic training and civic engagement opportunities.
Adults who Attained Their Ultimate Level of Education
The linear regression analysis for the community-based engagement and
political engagement indexes showed high school graduates and associate’s degree
115
holders were less likely to engage in community-based activities and political
engagement activities than bachelor’s degree holders. These differences remained
when I controlled for background characteristics, indicating background
characteristics do not explain the differences in community-based engagement or
political engagement, rather, additional factors outside the scope of this study come
into play. Such as parent’s income and education, which could result in individuals
from higher socio economic backgrounds attending a four-year college and obtaining a
bachelor’s degree at a higher rate than lower socio economic status individuals. This
then results in a higher rate of engagement for those groups with higher socio
economic status who attained a bachelor’s degree. The variation in engagement by
education level may also be attributed to the cumulative nature of civic engagement,
where as education increases so does civic engagement. Even so, if individuals with
an associate’s degree are more likely to engage in activities than individuals with a
high school diploma, these findings have important implications for community
colleges concerned with the civic engagement of their graduates throughout their life
span.
Since adults with a bachelor’s degree have higher levels of civic engagement
than high school graduates and associate’s degree holders, community colleges may
be able to provide interventions to their students between high school and the
workforce that can serve to foster civic engagement in college and extend throughout
life. Community colleges may choose to promote policies, practices, and provide
116
strong leadership towards creating a culture of civic engagement on their campus. If
students are provided opportunities to engage in community-based, political, and
cognitive engagement activities while in college, they may develop the foundation
needed for future engagement, thus limiting their disadvantage in our democratic
system.
While this dissertation focused on community colleges, the findings have
implications for high schools as well. Since it was found that high school graduates
exhibit lower rates of community-based engagement and political engagement when
compared to associates’ degree holders and bachelors’ degree holders, high school
graduates are also at a disadvantage in our representative democracy. While civic
engagement has been found to be cumulative, in that as education increases so does
civic engagement, high school graduates with no advanced education may result in
lower rates of civic engagement due to the cumulative nature of civic engagement,
still, I believe high schools can play a role in increasing the civic engagement of their
graduates. One of the strongest predictors of civic engagement after family socio
economic status is participation in extracurricular activities in high school (Astin, Sax,
& Avalos, 1999; Keeter et al., 2002; Kirlin, 2002; Verba et al., 1995; Youniss,
McLellan, & Yates, 1997). High schools concerned with the civic engagement of
their students and graduates should encourage students to engage in extracurricular
activities. Examples include: volunteering; becoming a member of a community
organization; being part of the yearbook or newspaper; run for a student government
117
position; or join a political club on campus. It was made clear in this dissertation that
civic engagement is a complex, multifaceted puzzle, therefore American education
systems should come together to join forces towards increasing the civic engagement
of their students to jointly put the pieces of the puzzle together.
Many four-year and two-year colleges have already joined forces by
participating in the Campus Compact (2011), where 1,100 colleges and universities
have joined the commitment to fulfilling the civic purpose of higher education.
However, high school participation is limited in the Compact. High school leaders
should seek out membership in such organizations. Broader dialogue may result when
a larger number of educational institutions bring their pieces to the table. What may
result is a comprehensive pipeline where students receive civic engagement training
throughout their educational experience leading to life-long engagement.
In addition, future research should explore the additional factors outside of
background characteristics that are linked to the graduated levels of civic engagement
for adults outside of an educational setting. Parents’ education and income as well as
activities individuals engaged in while in high school were not included in this study
and have been found to be strong predictors of civic engagement while in school and
later in life. Therefore, future research should explore these variables and their link to
the civic engagement of associate’s degree holders.
Comparisons Across Groups. In addition to the findings stemming from the
regression analyses, the descriptive statistics allow for a few comparisons across the
118
data sets with the following caveats taken into consideration: current students and
adults surveyed were at different points in their life; there is no way to know if current
students or adults will achieve education higher than they currently posses; and not all
measures are the same across data sets. Taking these factors into consideration, the
following comparisons may be made between the two groups: first, participation in
organized demonstrations varied by only 1% for four-year (35%) students and twoyear (34%) students. Engagement of adults varies little in this measure as well, where
3% of bachelor’s degree holders, 2% of associate’s degree holders, and 1% of high
school graduates participate in a political march or protest.
Additional variables included in both data sets that may be compared between
current students and graduates include: performing volunteer work and participation in
clubs or groups. Fifty-nine percent of four-year and 43% percent of two-year students
performed volunteer work within their first year of college. As for adults, 28% of
bachelor’s degree holders, 16% of associate’s degree holders, and 11% of high school
graduates performed volunteer work in the past year. The percentage of current
students who engage in volunteer work surpasses that of adults who attained their
ultimate level of education. This finding may be attributed to current students having
greater opportunities than adults to engage in volunteer activities on their campus or
they may have greater access to volunteer activities through linkages to their course
work. Additionally, current students may have more time to devote to volunteer
activities where adults may have less time due to work and family obligations.
119
Focusing on the distribution of individuals who participate in clubs or groups,
40% of four-year and 10% of two-year students engage in clubs or groups, while 6%
of bachelor’s degree holders, 4% of associate’s degree holders, and 3% of high school
graduates participate in a club or group. These findings show that current students
exhibit higher rates of engagement than adults who attained their ultimate level of
education in the activities that can be compared across groups. While two-year
students exhibit lower rates of civic engagement when compared to four-year students,
their rates of engagement are higher than that of adults with a bachelor’s degree. It
seems that overall engagement decreases as individuals age or are removed from the
college environment. These variations may be attributed to greater opportunities
available to current students on their campus or more time available to devote to these
activities. Even so, community college students’ were shown in this study to exhibit
lower rates of engagement than four-year students and it is alarming that these
findings also show that associate’s degree holders’ level of engagement is lower than
that of current two-year students. Community college leaders should use these
comparative findings to better understand their student populations. Since the
engagement of two-year students is lower than that of four-year students and seems to
extend into adulthood, community colleges should provide greater support, training,
and opportunities to their students while they have them on campus. Additional
support and greater opportunities for civic engagement cannot do harm but may have
positive benefits for current students while in college and later in life; serving to lessen
120
the gap between current students’ and adults who attained their ultimate level of
education.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study only begins to explore the relationship between civic engagement
and community college students and graduates. The following are possible
suggestions for future research stemming from the limitations in the data.
To begin, a variety of community-based, political, and cognitive engagement
activities were not available in the data. For instance, electoral engagement was not
explored within this study and therefore should be included in other studies. There
were also a limited number of political and cognitive indicators which should be
explored further. Additional research would benefit from the inclusion of a wider
array of community-based, political, and cognitive indicators.
As displayed in Table 16, additional background characteristics such as family
income and education, participation in extracurricular activities in high school,
socialization experiences growing up, the development of civic skills, and elements of
the college environment have been linked to increased civic engagement but were not
available in the data. Further inquiry into this area should include a wider array of
these factors to better understand their linkage to two-year students’ and graduates’
civic engagement.
Any research design similar to the one used in this study should include a more
representative sample of current students to better understand the differences in their
121
civic engagement and the factors that may explain the differences. In addition, since
the YFCY survey was administered in the first year of their college career, further
research should include a sample population that is further along or at the end of their
college career to gain a broader perspective of the civic engagement of current
students with the influence of more years spent in college.
One of the only surveys available that includes a range of civic engagement
indicators was used in this study and includes only a small number of community
colleges compared to four-year colleges. As the YFCY survey has become widely
used at four-year campuses, fewer community colleges have chosen to participate –
likely due to the cost of participation. In addition, since the demographics of
community colleges are largely influenced by the demographics of their community, a
national survey of community college students may be limited in its generalizability
nationwide. Therefore, community colleges should conduct their own surveys of their
students to inform their policies, practices, and leadership in regard to civic
engagement on their campus.
The CPS civic engagement supplemental survey was administered only in
2008, leaving large gaps in the data available on the civic engagement of adults who
attained their ultimate level of education. Additional surveys of college graduates
should be administered by the U.S. Census Bureau to better understand the civic
engagement of adults who attained their ultimate level of education.
122
Additional inquiry should also include qualitative research to enrich the
literature through interviews and focus groups. While qualitative research does exist,
it largely focuses on four-year students. Qualitative research should include current
community college students as well as graduates from a wide variety of community
colleges across the country. Interviews and focus groups with community college
leaders would also be an additional area of inquiry. Research in this area could
explore community college leaders’ perceptions of their roles in creating a culture of
civic engagement on their own campuses as well as a discussion of the policies and
practices they have utilized and use these to develop best practices that other campuses
can implement.
An additional area not explored in this study due to limitations in the data
would be to explore the link between civic engagement and student success and
persistence. While literature is available on the benefits of student engagement
(CCSSE, 2008), large gaps exist in the literature on the link between civic engagement
and student success and persistence. Colleges could assess their own students by
looking at the success and persistence rates of students in programs that include a civic
engagement element compared to students in comparable courses without the civic
engagement element. This would provide colleges with one way to explore whether
or not civic engagement leads to greater success and persistence. Research in this area
should also be conducted on a national scale.
123
Closing Remarks
Harlacher and Gollattscheck (1992) express quite well the importance of civic
engagement, its impact on democracy at the macro level, and its impact on
communities at the micro level, as well as the role of the education system in bringing
it all together when they say:
A participatory democracy requires an informed and educated citizenry and
therefore, an educational system dedicated to the full empowerment of
ordinary citizens. Empowerment is not only vital to the achievement of full
potential on the part of the individual. It is also essential to the development of
communities and ultimately the preservation of democracy. (p. 33)
In conclusion, civically engaged citizens are necessary for the fulfillment of a
participatory democracy. As America’s democracy colleges, through their open door
policy and the promise of equality of opportunity, community colleges are in the
position to empower a majority of students to be advocates for their own beliefs, for
their communities, and for their country. There exist specific and strategic actions that
may be taken in the form of data-driven decisions, leadership, and policy changes,
with equity at the forefront, for colleges that wish to even the distribution of
engagement between current two- and four-year students and adults with a high school
diploma or an associate’s degree and adults with a bachelor’s degree.
124
REFERENCES
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. Liberal Education, 79(4), 4-15.
Astin, A. W. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned.
Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 123-134.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-529.
Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service
participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 251-260.
Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long term effects of volunteerism
during the undergraduate years. Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 187-202.
Astin, A. W., Sax, L. J., & Avalos, J. (1999). Long-term effects of volunteerism
during the undergraduate years. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 187202.
Astin, A. W., Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., & Yee, J. A. (2000). How service
learning affects students. Higher Education Research Institute. University of
California, Los Angeles.
Astin, A., & Astin, H. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in
social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
125
Balsano, A. B. (2005). Youth civic engagement in the United States: Understanding
and addressing the impact of social impediments on positive youth and
community development. Applied Developmental Science, 9(4), 188-201.
Bennett, S., & Bennett, L. (2001). What political scientists should know about the
survey of first-year students in 2000. Political Science and Politics, 34, 295299.
Brady, H. E. (1999). Political participation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S.
Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of political attitudes. New York: Academic
Press.
Bueschel, A. C. (2009). Policies sand practice that support preparation and success.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 145, 1-10.
Burns, N., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action:
Gender, equity, and political participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cabrera, A. F., Burkum, K. R., & La Nasa, S. M. (2005). Pathways to a four-year
degree: Determinants of transfer and degree completion. In A. Seidman (Ed.),
College student retention: A formula for student success (pp. 155-214).
Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger Series on Higher Education.
126
California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2011). College listings –
Dormitories. Retrieved from
http://www.cccco.edu/CommunityColleges/CommunityCollegeListings/Colleg
eListingsDormitories/tabid/857/Default.aspx
Campus Compact. (2011). Who we are. Retrieved from
http://www.compact.org/about/history-mission-vision/
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003a). Educating citizens for
responsible citizenship. Change, 35(6), 41-48.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & Stephens, J. (2003b). Educating citizens:
Preparing America’s undergraduates for lives of moral and civic
responsibility. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement. (2008). Essential elements of
engagement: High expectations and high support. University of Texas at
Austin, College of Education.
Delli Carpini, M. X. (1989). Stability and change. In R. S. Sigel (Ed.), Political
learning in adulthood: A sourcebook of theory and research. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Donaldson, S. L., & Grant-Vallone, E. J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in
organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17,
245-260.
127
Ehrlich, T. (2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx
Press.
Finlay, A., & Flanagan, C. (2009, September). Making educational progress: Links to
civic engagement during the transition to adulthood. Working Paper, 67.
Medford, MA: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning
and Engagement.
Foster-Bey, J. (2008, December). Do race, ethnicity, citizenship and socio-economic
status determine civic engagement? Medford, MA: Center for Information and
Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Franco, R. W. (2002). The civic role of community colleges: Preparing students for
the work of democracy. The Journal of Public Affairs, 119-136.
Gaeke, M. A. (2009). Exploring student motivation toward civic engagement: An
application of expectancy-value theory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California.
Gatlin, S. J. (2009). Assets and access: How wealth affects who attends college and
who attends selective colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford
University.
Hanks, M., & Eckland, B. (1978). Adult voluntary associations and adolescent
socialization. The Sociological Quarterly, 19, 481-490.
Hanson, R. L. (1985). The democratic imagination in America: Conversations with
our past. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
128
Harlacher, E. L., & Gollattscheck, J. E. (1992). Building learning communities.
Community College Review, 20(3), 29-36.
Harwood, R., & Creighton, J. (1993). College students talk politics. Dayton, OH:
Kettering Foundation.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). (2009a). Higher Education Research
Institute research brief. Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). (2009b). Your First College Year”
(YFCY) survey. Los Angeles: University of California
Hodge, G., Lewis, T., Kramer, K., & Hughes, R. (2001). Collaboration for excellence:
Engaged scholarship at Collin County Community College. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 25(9), 675-690.
Jenkins, K. (2005). Gender and civic engagement: Secondary analysis of survey data.
College Park, MD: The Center for Information and Research on Civic
Learning and Engagement.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. (1981). Generations and politics. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Kahne, J. E., & Sporte, S. E. (2008). Developing citizens: The impact of civic learning
opportunities on students’ commitment to civic participation. American
Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 738-766.
129
Keeter, S., Zukin, C., Andolina, M., & Jenkins, K. (2002, September). The civic and
political health of the nation: A generational portrait. Medford, MA: Center
for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Kirlin, M. (2002). Civic skills building: The missing link in service learning
programs? PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(3), 571-576.
Kirlin, M. (2003a, March). The role of adolescent extracurricular activities in adult
political engagement. Working Paper 02. Medford, MA: Center for
Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Kirlin, M. (2003b, March). The role of civic skills in fostering civic engagement.
Working Paper 06. Medford, MA: Center for Information and Research on
Civic Learning and Engagement.
Kirlin, M. (2005). Understanding the relationship between civic skills and
participation: participation: Educating future public managers. Journal of
Public Affairs Education, 11(4), 305-314.
Kuh, G. (1991). Teaching and learning-after class. Journal on Excellence in
CollegeTeaching, 2, 35-51.
Levine, P. (2006, October). Higher education and civic engagement: Summary.
Medford, MA: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning
and Engagement. Fact Sheet.
130
Longo, N., & Meyer, R. (2006). College students and politics: A literature review.
College Park, MA: Center for Research and Information on Civic Engagement.
Working Paper 46.
Lopez, M. H., & Brown, B. (2006, October). Civic engagement among 2-year and 4year college students. Fact Sheet. Medford, MA: Center for Information and
Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Lopez, M. H., & Elrod, B. A. (2006, October). Civic engagement among recent
college graduates. Fact Sheet. Medford, MA: Center for Information and
research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Lopez, M. H., Levine, P., Both, D., Kiesa, A., Kirby, E. H., & Marcelo, K. B. (2006,
October). The civic and political health of the nation: A detailed look at how
youth participate in politics and communities. Medford, MA: Center for
Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Lopez, M. H., Pratap, K. V., & Conner, S. (2007, April). Religious service attendance
and civic engagement among 15 to 25 year olds. Fact Sheet. Medford, MA:
Center for Information and research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Lucey, C. A. (2002). Civic engagement, shared governance, and community colleges.
Academe, 88(4), 27-31.
Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R. W., Eccles, J. S. (2005). Organized activities as contexts of
development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community
programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
131
Marcelo, K. B. (2007, July). Volunteering among non-college youth. Fact Sheet.
Medford, MA: Center for Information and research on Civic Learning and
Engagement.
Marcelo, K. B., Lopez, M. H., & Kirby, E. H. (2007). Civic engagement among young
men and women. Washington DC: Center for Information and Research on
Civic Learning and Engagement.
Maxwell, W. E. (1998). Supplemental instruction learning communities, and students
studying together. Community College Review 26(2), 1-18.
McIntosh, H., & Munoz, M. A. (2009, September). Predicting civic engagement in
urban high school students. Fact Sheet. Medford, MA: Center for Information
and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Minkler, J. E. (2001). Learning communities at the community college. Community
College Review, 30(3), 46-59.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2007). The condition of education.
NCES 2007-064. Jessup, MD: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2009a). Enrollment in
postsecondary institutions, fall 2009; graduation rates, 2003 & 2006 cohorts;
and financial statistics, fiscal year 2009. NCES 2011-230. Jessup, MD:
Author.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2009b). Projections of education
statistics to 2009. NCES 2009-038. Jessup, MD: Author.
132
Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship
in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Park, H. M. (2003). Estimating regression models for categorical dependent variables
suing SAS, STATA, LIMDEP, and SPSS. Retrieved from
http://www.ikhebeenvraag.be/mediastorage/FSDocument/101/LogitProbit.pdf
Park, H. M. (2005). Categorical dependent variable regression models using STATA,
SAS, and SPSS. Retrieved from
http://www.iub.edu/~statmath/stat/all/cat/2003/CDVMs.pdf
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. (1980). Predicting persistence and voluntary dropout
decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 60-75.
Pascarella, E. T., Ethington, C. A., & Smart, J. C. (1988). The influence of college on
humanitarian/civic involvement values. Journal of Higher Education, 59(4),
412-437.
Perry, J. (2005). Recovering the civic in public affairs education. Journal of Public
Affairs Education, 11(4), 265-268.
Peterman, D. (2000). Service learning in community colleges. Community College
journal of Research and Practice, 24, 321-325.
Pickeral, T., & Peters, K. (1996). Campus community collaborations: Examples and
resources for community colleges. Campus Compac. National Center for
Community Colleges.
133
Prentice, M. (2007). Institutionalizing service learning in community colleges. Equity
and excellence in education, 40(3), 266-273.
Prentice, M., & Robinson, G. (2007). Linking service learning and civic engagement
in community college students. American Association of Community Colleges,
1-12.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Current,
373, 3-7.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American
community. New York: Touchstone.
Rendon, L. (2000). Fulfilling the promise of access and opportunity: Collaborative
community colleges for the 21st century. New Expeditions: Charting the
second century of community colleges. Issues paper no. 3. Washington, DC:
American Association of Community Colleges.
Saltmarsh, J. (2005). The civic promise of service learning. Liberal Education, 91(2),
50-55.
Sax, L. J. (2004). Citizenship development and the American college student. In J.
Dalton, T. Russell, & S. Kline (Eds.), Assessing character outcomes in
college: New directions for institutional research (pp. 65-80). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
134
Sax, L., Astin, A., Lindholm, W., Korn, W., Saenz, V., & Mahoney, K. (2003). The
American freshman: National norms for fall 2003. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute, UCLA Graduate School of Education and
Information Studies.
Skocopl, T. (2004). Civic transformation and inequality in the contemporary United
States. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 729-767). New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in
American civil life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma.
Smith, R. (2009). Civic engagement and community college students: The relevance of
learning communities and service participation. Paper presented at the
Midwest Political Science Association National Meeting, Chicago, IL.
Stepick, A., Stepick, C. D., & Labissiere, Y. (2008). South Florida’s immigrant youth
and civic engagement: Major engagement: Minor differences. Applied
Developmental Science, 12(2), 57-65.
Sullivan, J., & Transue, J. (1999). The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A
selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and
social capital. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 625-650.
135
Thomas, R., & McFarland, D. A. (2010, August). Joining young, voting young: The
effects of youth voluntary associations on early adult voting. Working Paper,
73. Medford, MA: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning
and Engagement.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence
seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167-177.
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What’s next? Journal of
Student Retention, 8(1), 1-19.
Tinto, V., Russo, P., & Kadel, S. (1994). Constructing educational communities:
Increasing retention in challenging circumstances. Community College
Journal, 64, 26-30.
Tocqueville, A. D. (1835). Democracy in America. London: Saunders and Otley.
Torney-Purta, J. (2002). The school’s role in developing civic engagement: A study of
adolescents in twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 203212.
Torney-Purta, J., Hahn, C., & Amadeo, J. (2001). Principles of subject-specific
instruction in education for citizenship. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Subject-specific
instructional methods and activities. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
136
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2008a). Current population survey. Civic engagement
supplement survey. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2008b). Current population survey. Volunteer supplement
survey. Washington, DC: Author.
Van Stephenson, E. (2010). Bridging the gap: The role of bridging social capital in
the development of civic engagement among first-year college students.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality, civic
voluntarism in American politics. New York: Harper and Row.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (2004). Political equality: What do we
know about it? In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 729-767). New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Vogelgesang, L. J., Ikeda, E. K., Gilmartin, S. K., & Keup, J. R. (2010). Servicelearning and the freshman year experience: Learning from the research.
Unpublished manuscript. Emailed by Vogelsang, September 16, 2010.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen? The politics of educating
for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 237-269.
Youniss, J., McLellan, J., & Yates. M. (1997). What we know about engendering civic
identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 620-631.
137
Zlotkowski, E. (2004). The community’s college: indicators of engagement at twoyear institutions. Campus Compact. (LB2328 Z56 2004).
Zukin, C., Keeter, S., Andolina, M., Jenkins, K., & Delli Carpini, M. (2006). A new
engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American
citizen. New York: Oxford University Press.
Astin, A. W. (1998). The changing American college student: Thirty-year trends,
1966-1996. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 115-135.
Engstrom, M. C., & Tinto, V. (2008). Learning better together: The impact of learning
communities on the persistence of low-income students. Opportunity Matter,
1, 5-21.