PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES OF ACADEMIC ENTITLEMENT
BEHAVIORS, BELIEFS, AND ACTIONS WITHIN THE BASIC
SKILLS STUDENT POPULATION AT THE
TWO-YEAR COLLEGE
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty
of
California State University, Stanislaus
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
of Doctor of Education
By
Myshel Pimentel
April 2011
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES OF ACADEMIC ENTITLEMENT
BEHAVIORS, BELIEFS, AND ACTIONS WITHIN THE BASIC
SKILLS STUDENT POPULATION AT THE
TWO-YEAR COLLEGE
Signed Certification of Approval Page is
On File with the University Library
by
Myshel Pimentel
__________________________________________ _____________________
Dr. Jim Riggs
Date
Professor of Community College Education
__________________________________________ _____________________
Dr. Nancy Jean Smith
Date
Professor of Teacher Education
__________________________________________ _____________________
Dr. John Spevak
Date
Community Affiliate Faculty Member
© 2011
Myshel Pimentel
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to Hudson. I thank you for your willingness to
work out in the yard with Daddy so I could finish. After graduation, I promise we’ll
spend every night and weekend together.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the members of my committee for their support,
especially Dr. Riggs for his dedication to seeing this project through to fruition.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Dedication .......................................................................................................
iv
Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................
v
List of Tables ...................................................................................................
ix
List of Figures..................................................................................................
xi
Abstract ...........................................................................................................
xii
CHAPTER
I. Introduction to Academic Entitlement...........................................................
1
Problem Statement ....................................................................
Purpose of Study.......................................................................
Operational Definitions .............................................................
Assumptions, Limitations, Scope, and Delimitations .................
Theoretical Framework .............................................................
Significance of Study ................................................................
6
10
12
13
15
16
II. Review of Literature....................................................................................
20
History of Community Colleges and Open Access ....................
Basic Skills ...............................................................................
Students’ Expectations and Entitlement Attitudes .....................
Theoretical Framework .............................................................
Summary ..................................................................................
21
28
32
41
42
III. Methodology..............................................................................................
43
Research Questions ...................................................................
Role of the Researcher ..............................................................
Setting ......................................................................................
Population, Sample, and Participants ........................................
Ethical Considerations ..............................................................
Method .....................................................................................
Stage I, step 1: Student surveys .....................................
Stage I, step 2: Student interviews .................................
Stage II: Faculty surveys ...............................................
Data Collection .........................................................................
45
46
47
48
51
51
52
54
56
57
vi
Data Analysis ...........................................................................
Summary ..................................................................................
58
59
IV. Results .......................................................................................................
60
Data Collection .........................................................................
Student surveys .............................................................
Student interviews .........................................................
Interrater reliability .......................................................
Demographics and Other Descriptors ........................................
Student surveys .............................................................
Student interviews .........................................................
Faculty surveys .............................................................
Student survey: Open-ended survey questions ...............
Student interviews .........................................................
Faculty surveys .............................................................
Conclusion................................................................................
61
61
61
62
63
63
67
69
77
79
86
98
V. Interpretations and Recommendations .........................................................
99
Summary of Findings................................................................
Student surveys .............................................................
Student interviews .........................................................
Faculty surveys .............................................................
Interpretation of the Findings ....................................................
Research question 1: How is “academic entitlement”
defined by basic skills students and faculty? ..................
Research question 2: To what extent do academic
entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions exist in the
basic skills student population? .....................................
Research question 3: What do faculty perceive to
constitute academic entitlement behaviors? ...................
Research question 4: What do faculty perceive to
cause and/or facilitate student academic entitlement
behaviors and actions in basic skills? .............................
Research question 5: What do faculty believe could/
should be done to address students academic
entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills? ..........
Conclusions ..............................................................................
Limitations ...............................................................................
Recommendations ....................................................................
Recommendations for Further Study .............................
Summary ..................................................................................
100
100
102
105
112
vii
112
114
116
117
118
120
122
122
127
128
References .......................................................................................................
130
Appendices ......................................................................................................
139
A. Academic Entitlement Scale ............................................................
B. Oral Interview Protocol for Students ................................................
C. Protocol for Pilot Testing Faculty Survey Items ...............................
D. Protocol for Pilot Testing Student Interview Questions ....................
E. Key Points for Evaluating Questions in Interviews (Adopted
From Ulrich 1999)................................................................................
F. English 81 Course Outline ................................................................
G. English 84 Course Outline ...............................................................
H. IRB Approval From California State University, Stanislaus .............
I. Merced College IRB Form ................................................................
J. Directions to English 81 and 84 Faculty ............................................
K. Student Consent Form (Permission to be Contacted for an
Interview).............................................................................................
L. Student Consent Form (Interviews) ..................................................
M. Student Interview Questions ...........................................................
N. Student Consent Form .....................................................................
O. Faculty Consent Form (Electronic Survey) ......................................
P. Student Interview Codes...................................................................
140
143
145
148
viii
150
151
155
158
159
161
163
165
167
168
170
172
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1.
English Sequence of Courses and Student Placements ..........................
50
2.
Student Survey: Gender ........................................................................
64
3.
Student Survey: Age Range ..................................................................
64
4.
Student Survey: Semester in College ....................................................
65
5.
Student Survey: High School Educational Attainment ..........................
65
6.
Student Survey: Educational Goals .......................................................
66
7.
Student Interviewee Descriptors ...........................................................
68
8.
Faculty Survey: Breakdown by College ................................................
69
9.
Faculty Survey: Years Teaching Basic Skills ........................................
70
10.
Faculty Survey: Disciplines Taught ......................................................
71
11.
Faculty Survey: Faculty Status .............................................................
71
12.
Faculty Survey: Teaching Experience ...................................................
72
13.
Faculty Survey: Teaching Load ............................................................
73
14.
AES Frequency of Scale Responses......................................................
74
15.
AES Means and Standard Deviations ...................................................
75
16.
AES Frequency of Scale Responses: Strongly Agree ............................
76
17.
AES Frequency of Scale Responses: Strongly Disagree........................
76
18.
Comparison of AES Items ....................................................................
81
19.
Faculty Survey: AES Items by Frequency ............................................
88
20.
Responses to Faculty Survey Questions 10-12 ......................................
90
ix
21.
Academic Entitlement Connotation ......................................................
91
22.
Frequency of Responses for Faculty Rating of Pervasiveness of
Academic Entitlement in Basic Skills Population .................................
92
Faculty Ranking: Reasons for Student Academic Entitlement
Attitudes...............................................................................................
93
Weighted Analysis of Faculty Ranking: Reasons for Student
Academic Entitlement Attitudes ...........................................................
93
Faculty Ranking: Solutions for Addressing Students’ Academic
Entitlement Attitudes............................................................................
95
Weighted Analysis of Faculty Ranking: Solutions for Addressing
Students’ Academic Entitlement Attitudes............................................
96
27.
Comparison of AES Items ....................................................................
103
28.
Faculty Survey: AES Items by Frequency ............................................
107
29.
Comparison of Means: Student Survey and Faculty Survey ..................
109
30.
Responses to Faculty Survey Questions 10-12 ......................................
110
23.
24.
25.
26.

x
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1.
PAGE
Sequencing of sequential mixed methods exploratory research
design. ..................................................................................................
45
2.
Themes from student interviews. ..........................................................
86
3.
Themes from faculty survey. ................................................................
97
4.
Chart showing frequency of reasons selected by faculty. ......................
111
5.
Chart showing frequency of solutions selected by faculty. ....................
113
xi
ABSTRACT
This two-stage multistep exploratory study focused on academic entitlement
behaviors, beliefs, and actions of basic skills students enrolled in the two-year
college. The study utilized a constructivist framework to explore the concept of
academic entitlement. The mixed methods design incorporated use of an instrument
measuring academic entitlement behaviors and actions as well as interviews with
students enrolled in the target basic skills courses at one California community
college and surveys of basic skills faculty from three California community colleges.
The researcher did not note many significant differences between traditional students
and re-entry students. All students, regardless of status as traditional or re-entry,
expected fairness and equality from their instructors. Additionally, all students
expected good grades based on what they reported as “effort.” Furthermore, neither
grouping of students was comfortable defining the phrase academic entitlement. The
common theme amongst the faculty responses was that academic entitlement is a
phrase that is used to describe a phenomenon where students believe they are
deserving of a grade or a degree without having put in the effort to earn the grade or
degree. Almost 70% of faculty surveyed reported that they feel academic entitlement
is a problem among the basic skills student population; however, the reported
perceptions of students and faculty did not align.
xii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO ACADEMIC ENTITLEMENT
An article published in the New York Times recently discussed the issue of
student entitlement. The professor featured in the article, Marshall Grossman,
asserted that students now see the “default grade as an ‘A’.” Professor Brower, from
the University of Wisconsin, offered a novel idea in that students need to “read for
knowledge and write with the goal of exploring ideas.” One of his goals, as indicated
in the article, is to “re-teach students about what education is.” The article cited a
common thread found by researchers concerning amount of effort exerted and quality
of work. Among students surveyed, almost two-thirds felt that hard work should
equal a high grade, regardless of level of quality or mastery of material (Roosevelt,
2009, p. 1). For example, a UC Urvine study recently found almost half of students
polled felt they ought to receive a B simply for completing the mandatory readings
for a class (Roosevelt, 2009, p. 1). Although largely anecdotal, this article references
instructors and professors from universities and colleges across the nation, thereby
identifying this trend in student attitudes as a national problem.
Education, within the context of current society, has become a route to
achieving the American Dream. For centuries, literacy has been used as a way to
mobilize and restrain the masses. During the twentieth century, schooling, and even
more importantly, college, became the advertised route to achieve the success often
rumored in stories of those who had reached the American Dream. In years past, the
1
2
“family, the workplace, and various social institutions acculturated and trained the
young” (Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p. 3). This belief, that education is the cure-all for
society’s ills, has led mainstream society within the United States to push the notion
of college for all (Perkinson as cited in Bills, 2004, p. 32; Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p.
3). However, as Bills (2004) stated, “education is neither a foolproof inoculation
against economic hardship nor an ironclad guarantee of a good life” (p. 31).
Equal opportunity is one of the building blocks of this nation, as is the belief
that college should be accessible to everyone who desires to further his or her
learning. Certain entitlements exist for all citizens; the opportunity to further one’s
education is an example of an entitlement that extends to all. The majority of people
in society, even “social scientists,” readily embrace the assertion that “in a good
society, a fundamental purpose of school should be to help people move up the
socioeconomic ladder” (Bills, 2004, p. 34). A 2004 poll by the Job Shadow Coalition
and Harris Interactive reported that of almost 700 teenagers surveyed, approximately
70% believed higher education is a necessary element in attaining the American
Dream (Job Shadow Coalition, 2009). However, Asera (2008) asserted that many
students enroll in college because they have been trained to believe that an education
will provide the route to a “better job, but they [students] have little sense of the
pathways to work or how particular classes advance their career goals” (p. 11).
In 1960, California’s Master Plan for Higher Education promised free higher
education for all (California State, Dept. of Education, 1960). Community colleges
throughout the state were to open their doors to anyone capable of profiting from
instruction offered (California Ed Code, Section 76000-76002). Expanding on the
3
beliefs set forth in the 1960 Master Plan, California Community College Chancellor
Jack Scott recently claimed it is “the community college that fulfills the American
ideal enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal”
(Scott, 2009, p. 3). Community colleges, with open enrollment policies and fairly low
costs, provide the perfect opportunity to students who believe, possibly with good
reason, that education will allow them upward mobility. Consequently, community
colleges are facing a quandary. They promise open doors and welcome any and all
students, yet increasingly, students are less prepared academically for the rigors of
higher education (Oudenhoven, 2002; Barr & Schuetz, 2008).
Some students enroll in community colleges with no clear goals in mind;
school has become a part of their reality, so the natural step was to enroll in college
because they know nothing else (Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p. 55). A pervasive belief
about community college students is that they are not as interested in academics and
the nature of learning as their counterparts at four-year universities (Cohen & Brawer,
2008, p. 56). Furthermore, unlike other missions of the community college, basic
skills is not generally a destination for students; students often do not enroll in college
to only improve their basic skills in English and math (Kozeracki & Brooks, 2006, p.
63). Many students who enroll in community colleges find their aspirations delayed
because of necessary remediation. So, many students begin their college careers in
one or more basic skills courses, facing a long and oftentimes ill-fated road to success
in college-level courses.
In recent years, community college enrollments have increased, and the
numbers of underprepared students has also increased (Miller & Murray, 2005). This
4
growth in basic skills offerings has been increasing since the 1970s (Guffey, Rampp,
& Masters, 1998). Findings from the Basic Skills Initiative affirmed that the basic
skills segment of the community college mission is a huge undertaking:
with 70 to 80% of students in the California Community Colleges needing
work in developmental mathematics and English courses. Even with only
slightly more than one in every three entering students actually enrolling in a
basic skills class, this translates into nearly one-half million students enrolling
in English and mathematics classes considered below college level, with
additional enrollments in basic skills reading and English as a Second
Language (ESL) courses. (Center for Student Success, 2007)
The Center for Student Success (2007) has defined basic skills as “those
foundation skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and English as a Second
Language, as well as learning skills and study skills, which are necessary for students
to succeed in college-level work” (p. 4). The influx of students placing into basic
skills courses has received much attention. Cohen and Brawer (2008) cite a myriad of
factors that may have contributed to the decrease in student preparedness that was
noticed as early as the 1960s, including,
the coming of age of the first generation raised on television, a breakdown in
respect for authority and the professions, a pervasive attitude that the written
word is not as important as it once was, the imposition of various other-thanacademic expectations on the public schools, the increasing numbers of
students whose native language is other than English, and a decline in
academic requirements and expectations at all levels of schooling. (p. 284–5)
Many endeavors, such as supplemental instruction, learning communities, and firstyear experiences, have attempted to alleviate this problem facing community colleges
throughout the state (Asera, 2008, p. 6). While successful, many of these innovations
have been “boutique” programs, meaning they were relatively small-scale offerings
not found on all community college campuses (Asera, 2008, p. 12). In a report for the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Bond (2009) asserted that
5
one barrier is the cost associated with institutionalizing these best practices (p. 20). A
question that continually rises to the surface is: How do community college educators
best serve the basic skills population and provide these students the tools they need to
succeed in college-level courses?
Having taught basic skills English courses at a community college in a rural
area in the heart of California’s San Joaquin Valley for nine years, the researcher has
made several observations of basic skills students. First of all, basic skills students
cross all boundaries; there is no one definitive feature that classifies a basic skills
student. One class may include students recently graduated from high school, students
returning to school after a long hiatus, and students recently emigrated from another
country, to mention a few scenarios. Oudenhoven (2002) found this population of
students differed with regards to socioeconomic status, culture, and exposure to
education. Although the make-up of the basic skills population is varied, there is one
common feature that is consistent throughout the state; basic skills as a whole has
lower success rates when compared with the overall success rates of community
colleges. Success rate, as typically defined by community colleges, and in this paper,
is the percentage of students earning credit in a course with an A, B, C, or CR in a
course. Likewise, retention refers to the percentage of students remaining in a class at
the end of the semester; this number is calculated using the class enrollment at first
census and last census. Data from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office (CCCCO) reported statewide basic skills retention and success rates for spring
2009 as 77.61% and 54.78%, respectively (CCCCO, 2010b, Program
retention/success rates). Retention here is defined as the percentage of students who
6
remain in the class from the first census through the end of the course, whereas
success is defined as the percentage of students retained who pass the class with a
grade of C or higher. Non-basic skills students had higher retention and success rates
(83.74% and 67.52%) for the same term (CCCCO, 2010b, Program retention/success
rates).
Problem Statement
Complicating the implementation and success of educational innovations are
the perceived attitudes of students. Instructors often share stories that indicate
students feel entitled to a passing grade. A clinical definition of entitlement explains
the concept as “a set of attitudes about what a person feels he or she has a right to and
can expect from others both as an individual and as a member of a social group”
(Steil, McGann, & Kahn, 2001, p. 404).
Entitlement in and of itself is not pejorative; the purpose of this study is to
focus on the negatively-connotated academic entitlement, the phenomenon of
students expecting passing grades and degrees and/or certificates without having put
in sufficient effort so as to master the skills and/or content outlined in each course or
contained within each program. A student in the researcher’s class recently
exemplified this issue of academic entitlement. This particular student admitted he
was in college because he had been laid off from his job and basically needed
something to do. This student attended class every day, yet up until the time of the
discussion, had completed no homework and had failed each test. The honesty with
which he was willing to divulge the fact that he was not really interested in working
towards earning a passing grade was intriguing. Why had this student attended most
7
class periods and actively participated in class discussions if only to inadvertently fail
the course?
While this student is not representative of the entire student population, there
are many students who appear to feel a certain entitlement is due to them. Similar to
students mentioned in the UC Irvine study of whom almost one-third expressed
expectations of a “B” because they had attended all lectures (Roosevelt, 2009, p. 1),
there are those students at all colleges who complete absolutely no homework, refuse
to participate in group/class work and discussions, and fail tests, yet they continue to
attend class every period. Then, at the end of the semester, these same students are
surprised when they do not receive a passing grade.
Although it is a generalization that most instructors were good students
themselves, they most likely knew how to be good students. At the very least, current
faculty had probably learned how to be good students at some point in their own
college careers because they had acquired enough cultural capital to master the
“college student role” (Collier & Morgan, 2007). If so, why do faculty have a difficult
time defining or connecting to current students’ motivations? Is student motivation
driven by society? Or, is something else causing this trend in students’ attitudes?
Researchers from a 2008 UC Irvine study made an insightful observation about the
use of the phrase, “sense of entitlement”; the number of references to the phrase in
newspapers in 2005 reached almost 500, which was a drastic increase from a little
over one hundred references in 1995 and almost 300 references in 2000 (Greenberger,
Lessard, Chen, & Farruggia, 2008). While this alone does not identify academic
entitlement as a new trend, it does suggest that the issue of academic entitlement has
8
garnered growing attention in recent decades. Several educators have proffered
theories concerning the root of this issue, including forces outside the educational
institution, but there are also some theories pointing towards enabling tendencies of
some aspects of the institution itself (Roosevelt, 2009, p. 1).
Levine and Cureton (1998a) reported that the most important reason students
in college during the later 1990s cited attending college was to prepare for a career (p.
115). Almost 80% of students polled in 1996 identified procuring a “better” job as
their top priorities for attending college (p. 116). Interestingly, high priority goals of
students in the 1960s such as learning to communicate well with others and
determining the “values and goals of one’s life” moved to the lowest priority for
today’s students (p. 116). Additionally, in 1969, only 49% of students reported
exhibiting a hard work ethic; in comparison, 87% of modern day students indicated
perceptions of hard work (p. 123). Generationally, today’s students do not value
learning simply for gaining knowledge; their educational goals are “instrumental” in
nature (p. 124). Consequently, Levine and Cureton concluded that in the students’
eyes, spending time on something equates to achievement; quantity and quality have
come to have similar meanings for these students (p. 124). However, this belief may
be partly to blame on the rise of grade inflation. In 1993, 26% of grades received by
college students were As; in 1969, this number was a low as 7% (Levine & Cureton,
1998a, p. 124). So, while the level of preparedness of students has decreased, the
grades earned by these students have increased.
In order to best address the needs of the basic skills population, it is first
necessary to understand how these students perceive the roles of education in their
9
lives and their perceptions of entitlement to education. Oftentimes instructors make
assumptions about student beliefs concerning education, but how often do instructors
truly understand what students believe and why they have certain conceptions about
the role education plays in their lives? Assumptions are often made and heard in the
hallways of academia that students at all levels feel they are entitled to an education
and should not have to work hard to earn an education, but this is merely conjecture.
The issue of student academic entitlement is one that can be easily misconstrued if
not correctly identified. Do students feel inappropriately entitled to an education, or is
there another explanation? Are there factors in the institution itself that contribute to
this attitude? Furthermore, do students’ attitudes merely reflect their upbringing in a
society that focuses too much on the individual, resulting in a generation of people
who feel that it is within their unalienable rights to attend college, regardless of how
diligently they are willing to work for that education?
Perhaps entitlement, although perceived by educators to be problematic, does
not exist. Perhaps the problem is the division between faculty and students. Do
faculty perceive students’ behaviors and attitudes correctly? If certain behaviors and
actions are classified as academic entitlement attitudes by faculty, are these same
behaviors perceived the same way by students? According to Collier and Morgan
(2007), success in college is not simply based on a student’s ability to demonstrate his
or her academic ability (p. 430). Rather, a great amount of a student’s success is
based on his or her understanding of faculty expectations and his or her ability to
react to those expectations (Collier & Morgan, 2007, p. 430). This study will explore
10
this issue from both the student and faculty perspectives in an effort to understand the
issue of academic entitlement more fully.
Educators often make assumptions that can create obstacles in establishing an
open learning environment. Faculty also often fault students if the students do not
place their classes as top priority; students nowadays encompass many roles, and the
role of student is oftentimes competing with basic needs such as food and shelter
(Collier & Morgan, 2007, p. 435). While academic entitlement attitudes have been
perceived by faculty of students at all levels, determining the extent of this problem is
more important at the basic skills level because students are struggling to acquire and
improve basic skills in reading, writing, and math that will enable them to become
more active participants in the world around them.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the issue of students’ academic
entitlement attitudes, particularly focusing on students entering college in basic skills.
The results of the study will provide educators with a more accurate picture of
students’ beliefs and perceptions about education and how students value and
understand the role education plays in their lives. Additionally, the results of this
study will also provide educators with a perspective of faculty perceptions related to
students’ academic entitlement behaviors and actions. Because most teachers make
assumptions about students, and students do the same concerning teachers, it is
difficult to say that the sense of entitlement students have as perceived by teachers is
accurate. Instructors should not discriminate based on perceived student motivations,
11
but often perceptions about students affect how instructors respond to students,
thereby affecting student engagement (Cross, 1998).
The results of this study will assist basic skills faculty at the community
college by providing them a clearer picture of students’ beliefs concerning education,
the factors in their lives that have influenced those beliefs, and the values students
place on the role education plays in their lives. The researcher will explore students’
definitions of education through the qualitative research method of interviews,
including what students believe to be the purpose of education. Additionally,
quantitatively, students will be asked to respond to a scale designed to assess
academic entitlement attitudes. An integral component of this study is the inclusion of
surveying basic skills faculty because students’ behaviors and actions are interpreted
by faculty, and those interpretations can affect learning environments. The
characteristics contributing to academic entitlement behaviors will also be explored
and cataloged based on survey responses from basic skills faculty at three community
colleges. The research questions include the following:
•
RQ1: How is “academic entitlement” defined by basic skills students and
faculty?
•
RQ2: To what extent do academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and
actions exist in the basic skills student population?
•
RQ2A: How do students explain their beliefs and/or actions?
•
RQ3: What do faculty perceive to constitute academic entitlement
behaviors?
12
•
RQ4: What do faculty perceive to cause and/or facilitate student academic
entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills?
•
RQ5: What do faculty believe could/should be done to address student
academic entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills?
Operational Definitions
This paper utilizes several definitions that may vary according to context, so
the definitions have been provided. As defined earlier, success rate is the percentage
of students earning credit in a class, typically denoted as an A, B, C, or CR on a
transcript. Retention rate refers to the percentage of students who remain in a class
and receive a grade. This definition was garnered from the college the student
participants attended. This definition can differ among schools because of the grades
that are factored into the formula. For example, this college uses grades of A, B, C, P,
D, F, NP, and I in the numerator and grades of A, B, C, P, D, F, NP, W, FW, MW,
RD, and I in the denominator (L. Flores, personal communication, June 29, 2010).
As used in this study, basic skills refers to those students requiring
remediation in math or English upon entrance into a California community college.
The student participants in this study are enrolled in a course two levels below
transfer at one medium-sized community college (see Chapter III for a course
sequence chart). Entitlement, as defined earlier, is “a set of attitudes about what a
person feels he or she has a right to and can expect from others both as an individual
and as a member of a social group” (Steil et al., 2001, p. 404). If the word academic
is added to entitlement, then the definition becomes confined to a certain context.
Informally, academic entitlement refers to attitudes of students expecting passing
13
grades based on a myriad of factors, but not necessarily mastery of student learning
objectives or outcomes. Chowning and Campbell (2009) defined academic
entitlement as “the tendency to possess an expectation of academic success without
taking personal responsibility for achieving that success” (p. 982).
Traditional students are herein defined as those students who transition from
high school to college in a relatively short amount of time. As utilized in this study,
traditional students are categorized according to age; a traditional student is one who
is 24 years of age or younger. Re-entry students are those students who enroll in
college after several years away from school, many having worked or raised families.
For use in this study, re-entry students will be classified as students who are 25 years
of age and older. As reported to the state for the 2008–2009 academic year, the
college that is the site of the student sample had 10,357 students in the 24 years or
younger category, and 10,725 students 25 years or older for the 2008–2009 (CCCCO,
2010c, Student demographics).
Assumptions, Limitations, Scope, and Delimitations
Studying motivations is difficult because the researcher must rely on answers
from individuals with already established perceptions and belief that may cloud their
responses to the questions (Merriam, 2002, p. 5). As Merriam (2002) asserted, instead
of ridding the “human instrument” of these “biases” on the part of the researcher and
the participants, the researcher must recognize them and incorporate them in the
analysis of data (p. 5). The researcher must assume the participants understand what
is being asked of them and that they are answering honestly. Using both qualitative
14
and quantitative data to measure students’ academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors,
and actions will control for this limitation.
Stage I of the study is focused on one medium-sized community college out of
112 throughout the California Community College System. The population of
students at the College is representative of the overall population of community
college students statewide. However, the researcher is limiting the study to basic
skills students, so the results will not be indicative of all students.
Another limitation in this study is the closeness of the researcher to the data.
Coghlan (2007) asserted that inside researchers “may assume too much and so not
probe as much as if they were outsiders or ignorant of the situation” (p. 297).
However, the nature of a doctoral dissertation controls for this occurrence because of
the second person practice involved in the dissertation process (Coghlan, 2007, p.
300). The researcher has regularly scheduled meetings with her faculty sponsor. In
the process of identifying the constructivist framework for this study, the researcher
has also delved into first person inquiry-practice aimed at understanding her
assumptions surrounding the basic skills population.
The researcher will also use interrater and coder reliability to maintain
consistency when coding the transcripts of student interviews and open-ended faculty
survey questions. This will be done by first creating a taxonomy of codes and
applying those codes to a transcript. The researcher will explain the taxonomy to a
second coder and ask him or her to code the same transcript. These will be compared
and adjustments, if any, will be made. The researcher will also check coder reliability
15
throughout the process of coding by coding one transcript, walking away from it for
one week, and then coding a clean copy of the same transcript.
Because this study is focused on the basic skills population, the results of the
study cannot be generalized to all students. Furthermore, this study focuses only on
basic skills students at community colleges, so the results of the study may not extend
to basic skills students at four-year colleges and universities.
A limiting factor when surveying faculty may be the availability of faculty.
The researcher has designed the study to include an electronic survey so faculty will
be able to submit responses easily. Additionally, surveying basic skills faculty from
three community colleges will provide a larger sample.
Theoretical Framework
This study is grounded in constructivist theory. As identified by Cresswell
(2004), social constructivism operates on assumptions that
individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work.
They develop subjective meanings of their experiences-meanings directed
toward certain objects of things. These meanings are varied and multiple,
leading the researcher to look for the complexity of views rather than
narrowing meanings into a few categories or ideas. (p.8)
Additionally, within the framework of social constructivism, knowledge is contextual
and socially generated, so the backgrounds of the participants must be acknowledged
because these experiences help to shape how the individual interprets reality
(Cresswell, 2004, p. 8). Furthermore, the purpose of the researcher becomes focused
on understanding the “meanings others have about the world;” social constructivism
offers a way for the researcher to produce a “theory or pattern of meaning”
(Cresswell, 2004, p. 9). Crotty (1998) claimed that the “process of qualitative
16
research is largely inductive, with the inquirer generating meaning from the data
collected in the field” (as cited in Cresswell, 2004, p. 9). Because of this, the
researcher has chosen to survey students and faculty midsemester to provide a
purposeful snapshot of the issue.
Little empirical research has been completed on academic entitlement beliefs,
behaviors, and actions of basic skills students at the community college. What has
been done focuses primarily on academic entitlement attitudes of students at fouryear universities. Also, little is known about which aspects of the college environment
shape a basic skills student’s initial experiences in college and how the college
environment impacts the student’s ability to succeed in college.
Significance of Study
Recent movements have focused on implementing innovations to “solve” the
problem of remediation (Asera, 2008, p. 6); this study hopes to contribute to the work
that has been done in understanding the basic skills population. As reported in
“Change and Sustain/Ability: A Program Director’s Reflections on Institutional
Learning” from the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
innovations such as learning communities and supplemental instruction have become
common offerings on several community college campuses throughout the state of
California (Asera, 2008, p. 6). But until community college educators understand the
motivations behind students’ decisions to pursue a college education and how they
view education, in particular their rights to pursue an education and how they believe
an education will benefit them and their expectations regarding entitlement, these
innovations will provide only small-scale solutions to an increasing problem.
17
Community college educators know many things about basic skills students,
including retention and success rates, percentages of students receiving financial aid,
and the demographic make-up of the basic skills population, but they do not
necessarily understand what these students think about education. What does
education mean to them? Why did they choose to walk through the “open door” of
the institution? Oftentimes, educators assume their beliefs and perceptions about
education are true for all students, but this is not necessarily the case.
If the results of this study prove there is a mismatch between student and
faculty perceptions, and students do not feel a sense of academic entitlement and the
concept is a misnomer, then educators need to determine an accurate diagnosis for
their observed behaviors. If, on the other hand, students do report high levels of
academic entitlement behaviors, educators need to devise strategies for halting these
beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes from encroaching in the classroom and hindering
learning. Regardless of findings, this study will provide an important link that will
help faculty to understand the basic skills student—an understanding that will
translate into improved relationships among the institution, faculty, and students and
will allow for increased learning to occur.
The study occurred in two stages. This first stage involved surveying basic
skills students from one medium-sized California community college. Following the
student surveys, the researcher utilized the data analysis from the surveys to create
interview questions for 12 students from the basic skills population at the same
college; however, to strengthen the research design, the students interviewed were not
students who had participated in the survey. The AES scale focuses on the
18
microlevel, within the classroom; the survey questions developed by the researcher
were designed to focus on a more holistic view of academic entitlement beliefs,
behaviors, and attitudes. Following the student surveys and interviews in Stage I, the
researcher created a faculty survey that was distributed to basic skills faculty at three
California community colleges. The three colleges, one of which was the site of the
student sample, have similar Fulltime Equivalent Student (FTES) numbers based on
data reported to the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. This stage
resulted in the creation of a taxonomy of student academic entitlement behaviors
based on faculty responses to an electronic survey; this stage established dialogic
validity. Surveying basic skills faculty supported the researcher’s observations of
student academic entitlement behaviors that led to development of this study.
Stages I and II occurred in fall 2010 and involved student participants from a
California community college who were enrolled in either a reading or writing course
two levels below transfer. The results of each step in the study contributed to the next
step in the study; primarily, the study was designed in this manner to control for
insider bias of the researcher as a member of basic skills faculty. A visual diagram of
the research design is included in Chapter III (see Figure 1). The researcher measured
basic skills students’ academic entitlement attitudes using an academic entitlement
scale (AES) developed by Achacoso (2002). The timing of the student AES survey
and interviews occurred mid-way through the fall 2010 semester. This was done to
provide a purposeful snapshot; students had settled into their courses by this time, and
faculty had gotten to know their students beyond simply a name on a roster.
19
This mixed methods study was exploratory in nature. Stage I of the study
involved basic skills students from one medium sized California community college,
and Stage II involved basic skills faculty from three California community colleges.
This dissertation is presented in five parts, beginning with Chapter I which introduces
the mixed methods study, states the problem to be explored as well as the purpose of
the study, provides the theoretical framework for the study, and describes the purpose
of the study. Chapter II will provide an overview of the relevant literature associated
with student academic entitlement attitudes and behaviors. Chapter III details the
research design and methods included in both stages of the study. Chapter IV will
describe the findings of the data. Finally, Chapter V will provide analysis of the
findings and provide recommendations for action and future research in the basic
skills student population with regards to academic entitlement behaviors.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
As outlined in Chapters I and III, this study focuses on academic entitlement
behaviors, beliefs, and actions of basic skills students attending California community
colleges. A mixed methods design will provide views of academic entitlement from
both students and faculty in an effort to understand the issue fully. One cannot begin
to understand the concept of academic entitlement without first understanding the
history of community colleges in California. The development of a large system of
open-access higher education has forever changed the profile of the “traditional”
student. As larger numbers of students from nontraditional higher-educational
backgrounds are entering community colleges, colleges are witnessing tremendous
numbers of students underprepared for the rigors of college-level coursework. For
years the focus has been on access to education; however, now that so many students
have access, the focus has shifted to helping those who do have access to succeed.
Remedial programs throughout the state have sought to solve the problem of
underpreparedness, yet students are still struggling to find success in California
community colleges.
This study, as alluded to in the research questions outlined in Chapters I and
III, delves into a topic in education that has been discussed in many hallways but has
not been the topic of many educational studies. Entitlement attitudes, particularly
academic entitlement, is often thrown around as a catchphrase by faculty; as
20
21
evidenced in much of the literature, most references are anecdotal. However, the few
studies were found have been published in recent years, leading one to believe that
this topic is relatively current in academia. The focus of this study, basic skills
students’ academic entitlement behaviors, beliefs, and actions, is an area that has not
been studied thus far but will contribute to the discussion of basic skills that has
caught the attention of the nation.
Chapter II of this dissertation will include a discussion of the history of
community colleges and open access, basic skills, and academic entitlement. For the
purposes of clarity, the topics in this review of literature are categorized thematically,
first providing an overview of the development of community colleges and how the
institution has evolved into its current status with basic skills as a primary function of
its mission. Next, the researcher will offer an in-depth look at basic skills instruction
in California community colleges. Then, the researcher will explore literature
pertaining to the issue of academic entitlement and related areas. Finally, the
researcher will provide literature supporting the decision to select a constructivist
framework and mixed methods design.
History of Community Colleges and Open Access
The community college, as it exists in its current form, was founded on a
minimum of “seven sources of educational innovation” (The History of CC, 2010,
para. 1). Beginning in the latter part of the nineteenth century, societal movements of
“community boosterism and the rise of the research university” played a part in the
development of community colleges (The History of CC, 2010, para. 1). Later, during
the Progressive Era in the early twentieth century, three movements contributed to the
22
creation of community colleges: the “advent of universal secondary education, the
professionalization of teacher education, and the vocational education movement”
(The History of CC, 2010, para. 2). Finally, at the end of WWII, two more
movements emerged predominantly: “open access to higher education, and the rise of
adult and continuing education and community services” (The History of CC, 2010,
para. 2).
The expansion of community colleges in the 1900s played an important role in
the augmentation of higher education in the United States during this same time
period (Levinson, 2005, p. 19). In 1999, almost 70% of United States’ citizens had
achieved some status of higher education; in contrast, this number for the year 1940
was only 18% (p. 19). Several states, including California, viewed community
colleges as increasingly important following the end of WWII (Levinson, 2005, p.
56). In fact, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, or GI Bill, was passed in 1944.
During the period between 1944 and 1951, more than 8 million veterans benefited
from this law (Levinson, 2005, p. 45). The Master Plan for Higher Education,
following the guidelines set forth by California Education Code, made community
colleges the destination for anyone at least 18 years of age who was “capable of
profiting from instruction” (California Ed Code, Sec. 76000-76002).
During the 1960s, community colleges grew drastically nationwide, increasing
by 487 to total 909 community colleges within this ten-year span (Levinson, 2005, p.
45). Prior to the GI Bill, the first “large-scale financial-aid package,” only “one young
person in seven went to college, and most students were from the middle and upper
classes” (Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p. 25).
23
Zwerling (1986) claimed that the community college’s role in higher
education “reflects the ambiguity of how they [community colleges] were originally
cast” (p. 10). According to Zwerling, there were two strands of thought from which
the community college developed. The first asserted that the freshman and sophomore
years in college were equitable to the last two of “secondary education in the
European systems” (p. 10). Following this thought strand, the purpose of community
colleges was to maintain the purity of the university; in essence, community colleges
were viewed as the gatekeepers to higher education. Contrary to this idea, the other
thought from which community colleges developed was that these colleges would
serve “as grand doorways through which Everyman would pass en route to his own
realization of the American dream” (p. 10). Basically, the community college would
serve the community and the people who lived in it, and it would “provide
educational opportunity for large numbers of Americans denied direct entry into the
traditional colleges and universities” (p. 10). Zwerling stated that both these strands
are evident in the evolution of community colleges; many students use community
colleges as stepping stones to the “senior system,” but community colleges filter out
the undesirables and send on only those students who fit the “values and styles” of the
four-year institutions (Zwerling, 1986, p. 11).
Similarly, Brint and Karabel (1989) claimed that the community college has
been “founded on a paradox;” yes, community colleges provide a link to four-year
institutions, but they also work to limit the numbers who actually transfer (p. 10).
Furthermore, the authors proffered the premise that the two-year college zeroed in on
its transfer function during the primary years because these two-year colleges needed
24
to prove they were “real” colleges, and the best way to accomplish this was by
offering transfer courses (p. 10). Furthermore, Brint and Karabel (1989) stated that
the two-year college was designed to “divert” students from entering universities and
into an “extension of the high school” (p. 25).
Educational institutions are also businesses, and any successful business must
find a niche in the market. Leonard Koos was one of the primary two-year college
leaders to help establish community colleges as leaders in vocational education (Brint
& Karabel, 1989, p. 37). Following the model set by Koos, universities would
maintain their status as producers of workers for high-level professional and
managerial jobs, but community colleges could serve as training meccas for semiprofessional jobs (p. 38). According to Brint and Karabel (1989), these semiprofessions were often labeled as “terminal curricula” or “terminal functions”; while
these terms do have a negative connotation, they do accurately reflect the educational
attainment of students’ enrolling in these programs (p. 41).
By the close of the twentieth century, two-year colleges, whether gatekeepers
or equal opportunity educational providers, enrolled almost six million students,
almost 100% of whom attended public community colleges (The History of CC,
2010). Today, community colleges offerings comprise a broad spectrum: “general and
liberal education, vocational and technical education; adult, continuing and
community education; developmental, remedial, and college-preparatory education;
and counseling, placement, and student development services” (The History of CC,
2010, Conclusions section, para. 1).
25
As noted in Cohen and Brawer (2008), community colleges hold several
curricular missions. Among these are academic transfer, vocational/technical,
continuing education, remedial education, and community service (p. 23–24). One of
the original intents of the transfer function, to alleviate the pressures of serving
freshman and sophomores at the university level, was not realized because
universities did not want to give up their lower level classes (p. 21). However,
universities were able to be more selective of the freshman and sophomores they
chose to enroll as underclassmen. Interestingly, as study from 1950 reported that
more than half of upperclassmen at UC Berkeley, as indicated by the registrar, were
graduates of various colleges, especially junior colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p.
22). Vocational/technical education has long been in existence, but for many years it
did not have equal footing with academic transfer; however, the decade of the 70’s
saw “career educational” programs finally equal collegiate programs in numbers
(Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p. 23). Likewise, continuing education has also been a longstanding part of community colleges. Community service as a function of the
community college grew out of the fact that many colleges acted as the “cultural
centers for their communities” (Cohen & Brawer, 2008, p. 23).
Community colleges are the most directly responsible for opening the higher
education system to a new wave of students: “minorities, women, people who had
done poorly in high school, those who would otherwise never have considered further
education” (Cohen & Brower, 2008, p. 28). This new student population dictated the
direction of the institution; by accepting those who were not welcomed by “traditional
higher education,” community colleges had to revisit their missions, and the basic
26
skills or developmental mission was propelled to the forefront (Cohen & Brawer,
2008, p. 30). Remedial education, which will be discussed at length in the next
section of this review, grew as the gap between the abilities of students entering
community college and students at four-year colleges widened (Cohen & Brawer,
2008, p. 23). In fact, in 1983, the California Community College Board of Governors
added remedial and basic-skills education to the already encompassing list that
constitutes the CCCs mission (EdSource, 2005, p. 2).
According to Levin (2007), two general categories of students exist:
traditional and nontraditional. Most commonly, traditional students are those who are
first and foremost fulltime students. These students have quickly transitioned from
high school to college, so they fall into the late teenage range. Additionally, a
traditional student may be defined as one who has earned a high school diploma, is
not the first in his or her family to attend college, and who speaks English as a first
language (p. 6). Therefore, a nontraditional student would be a student on the
opposite end of the spectrum from a traditional student; however, Levin claims that
there is a “new nontraditional student” as well and that the characteristics defining
each type of student are varied (p. 6). He also posits that community college students
fall more into the nontraditional category than the traditional one (p. 6). In fact, only
25% of students in 1970 were nontraditional; by 1999, this number had jumped to
73% (p. 23). Identifying the students served by a community college is necessary
because, as Levin states, the “condition” of students at an institution helps to define
and guide its purpose (p. 11).
27
Even though community colleges are credited for opening higher education to
students who before would never have attended college, there is a disconnect between
students and the institutions serving them (Levin, 2007, p. 83). Levin claims that
increases in enrollments and the recognition of entrance for groups of disadvantaged
students may lead to problems in matching the goals of the institution and student
needs (p. 83). For example, some colleges separate remedial students “physically and
educationally from mainstream college students” (p. 83). Hence, the students with the
lowest abilities academically and the greatest challenges socially are the students who
must rely on fewer resources than higher functioning students (p. 83).
Shaw, Valadez, and Rhoads (1999) posited that community colleges have
provided opportunities for those who do not fit into the classification of “white” and
“middle-class.” However, the authors also stated that while access for groups other
than the status quo has increased, there is still ambiguity over whether or not
community colleges truly increase upward social movement of these students (p. 1).
Because of the wide range of community college students’ backgrounds, a much
greater likelihood exists that the values of these students will conflict with
institutional values. These differences in cultural capital, including “cultural
knowledge, skills, norms, and linguistic facilities,” are evident amidst persons from
different ethnicities and different societal groups (p. 2). So, students are left to choose
if they will adopt the values of the status quo as represented in community colleges or
if they will challenge these same values (p. 2).
Shaw (1999) reported the findings of an ethnographic study focusing on
students’ perceptions of identity. Her primary finding was that student’s identities
28
were multi-dimensional and complex. However, most institutions attempt to define
students in very black and white simplistic terms. Shaw argued the colleges that are
willing to acknowledge the varied roles and responsibilities that define our student
populations will be more successful in engaging students and promoting success.
Even though there are conflicting theories about the purposes of community
colleges, one cannot deny that community colleges occupy an important role in the
United States’ educational system. Furthermore, the varied functions of the
community college diffuse its ability to focus all its efforts on any one goal; basic
skills is one of the areas that struggles to find a footing in the mission of the two-year
college.
Basic Skills
A paper published by the California Budget Project in 2009 and updated in
2010 stated that alarm is escalating in society because as the baby boom generation
leaves the workforce, the generation entering the workforce has decreased
educational levels compared to the generation prior (Lovell & Baran, 2010, p. 3).
Large numbers of students exiting high school and many people already laboring in
the workforce have low levels of rudimentary math and English skills that would
prevent them from procuring better job opportunities (p. 3). The large population of
students requiring remediation is, as expected, very expensive. A 2008 study
estimated the yearly price of remediation as approximately 2 billion dollars at
community colleges (Bailey, 2009, p. 21).
Although this a problem nationwide, Moore, Schulock, Ceja, and Lang (2007)
reported that California has higher numbers of students requiring at least one course
29
in basic math or English; in California, 70% of assessed students must take a basic
skills English course, and 90% of students assessed require a basic skills math course.
Almost 100% of community colleges provide courses in basic skills English, math, or
reading (Kozeracki & Brooks, 2006, p. 63). Bond (2009) claims that because of the
pervasiveness of basic skills students in the community college system, basic skills
education cannot be viewed as the purview of a few departments on campus; all
faculty come into contact with basic skills students in all classes (p. 2). Adding to
large numbers of basic skills students in the system is the low number of content
courses, aside from the English or math disciplines, with prerequisites (Kozeracki &
Brooks, 2006, p. 63). Even though many students take placement tests upon
enrollment, they can choose to enroll in college-level courses; in effect, the
remediation is not mandated (Bailey, 2009, p. 13).
Barr and Schuetz (2008) define underprepared as including a myriad of
influences that combined, “indicate that a student is not yet emotionally, socially, or
academically prepared for college-level work” (p. 8). Lack of preparation is now
viewed not only as an academic deficit, but is considered in the context of many
different social and personal characteristics (p. 8).
Even though large numbers of students require basic skills courses upon
college entrance, very few students enroll with the intent of simply improving basic
skills (Kozeracki & Brooks, 2006, p. 65). To highlight this point, Kozeracki and
Brooks (2006) provided the results of a survey completed by the 113, 000 students
enrolling in the Los Angeles Community College District in fall 2005. Only 3% of
students identified “improving basic skills in English/reading/math” as their primary
30
motivation for enrolling (p. 65). In contrast, almost one third of students polled
identified transfer as a primary goal, and slightly more than one third identified
vocational preparation as their main priority for enrolling (p. 65). Furthermore, while
community colleges have entrance tests to determine students’ placements, these tests
are not required (EdSource, 2005, p. 2).
A 2005 study developed by the California Community College Chancellor’s
Office reported than less than 30% of the 650,000 students who had taken a basic
skills course in 2001-02 had enrolled and succeeded in a subsequent course by 2004
(Kozeracki & Brooks, 2006, p. 66). This problem is not specific to California alone;
findings from a study in North Carolina found only 22% of students in a basic skills
course had proceeded to enroll in a higher level course during the 2003-04 year (p.
66). Success rates for basic skills courses are relatively low and have plateaued for
the last several years; approximately 60% of students earn a grade of “C” or better in
basic skills English courses, and the number is lower for mathematics at 54%
(Illowsky, 2008, p. 83). Additionally, fewer than 30% of students in a basic skills
course during 2001–02 had reached graduation or transferred to a four-year institution
five years later (p. 83).
The discussion of access and completion has gained attention as the numbers
of students in basic skills programs have increased. Shulock and Moore (Feb. 2007)
reported that California community colleges, while providing access to college, are
not offering enough support to increase numbers of degree completion (p. 4). In fact,
they proffer that providing “access without completion gives California’s college
students a false sense of opportunity and could jeopardize the state’s competitive edge
31
in the global economy (p. 4). For example, of the more than 500,000 students entering
CCCs in 1999–2000, 60% were “degree-seekers.” Of these 314,034 students, 76%
had not completed a degree within six years (p. 2).
Asera (2008) advocated understanding students’ backgrounds and designing
programs that account for the “complexity of students’ lives and learning” (p. 11). In
contrast to the student population, the faculty and administration are comprised of
mostly Caucasians who are nearing retirement (p. 11). Asera continued to point out
that, in general, community college faculty have known academic success in their
lives, most likely throughout their graduate school experiences (p. 11). Asera’s
purpose in identifying the differences between faculty and student populations was to
show that community colleges need to make it a priority to understand who their
students are: “this means learning about students’ backgrounds and cultures, their
prior experiences in school, and the ways they learn most effectively” (p. 11).
Furthermore, community colleges must strive to comprehend the roles students
embody in their whole lives, not only their lives as students (p. 11).
These claims by Asera are supported by research showing that student
success is strongly affected by the level of connectivity to the campus (McGrath &
Van Buskirk, 1999, p. 16). Likewise, Tinto (1997) has long been an advocate of
increasing student involvement as a means to increase student persistence and
success. However, basic skills students have been shown as least likely to become
involved in social activities outside the classroom (McGrath & Van Buskirk, 1999, p.
17).
32
Students’ Expectations and Entitlement Attitudes
Although discussions on the topic of academic entitlement are increasing, not
a tremendous amount of research has been completed at this point in time.
Furthermore, the research completed has focused primarily on four-year colleges; in
fact, the researcher has not discovered any material that focuses on academic
entitlement within the basic skills population. However, several studies published
fairly recently shed some light on this topic.
To begin, researchers from a 2008 UC Irvine study made an insightful
observation about the use of the phrase, “sense of entitlement;” the number of
references to the phrase in newspapers in 2005 reached almost 500, which was a
drastic increase from a little over 100 references in 1995 and almost 300 references in
2000 (Greenberger et al., 2008). This suggests the issue has become one of growing
concern in recent decades, but as the researchers indicate, not much research has been
done in this area of study. This study utilized a recently created scale to analyze
academic entitlement. Within the parameters of the study, the researchers considered
several variables, including ethnicity, generational status, and parental educational
attainment. The scale included several statements students were asked to rate between
1 and 6, with 1 meaning strongly disagree and 6 meaning strongly agree. A
surprising number of students (66.2%) agreed with the statement, “If I have explained
to my professor that I am trying hard, I think he or she should give me some
consideration with respect to my course grade” (Greenberger et al., 2008). Slightly
more than 31% of students agreed with the statement “Teachers often give me lower
grades than I deserve on paper assignments.” The percentages of students agreeing to
33
each statement dropped steeply as the statements became more ridiculous (at least to
a professor), but still almost 10% of students polled agreed that “a professor should
let me arrange to turn in an assignment late if the due date interfered with my
vacation plans.”
The second part of this study analyzed whether parental practices could
explain some of the variance in academic entitlement. The researchers did not find a
strong relationship between the two variables; the link was significant, but modest.
However, contributing directly to the variance in AE was students’ anxiety to do well
and their focus on the extrinsic rather than intrinsic rewards.
Thomas Benton, in the Chronicle of Higher Education (2006), offered an
interesting take on academic entitlement. He argued that part of the problem is the
“de-professionalization” of college professors. According to the article, the
percentages of adjunct faculty have increased greatly; the number of adjunct faculty
in 1971 was roughly one fifth of the faculty population, and in 2003, that number had
climbed to almost half. Benton claims professors, especially non-tenured professors,
are encouraged to “process” as many students as possible without causing strife for
the institution. Benton’s solution is to cease viewing college as a business; he asserted
that students are “not customers;” likewise, faculty members are not “employees.”
Ultimately, his argument centers on the preservation of tenure, but he made a salient
point in that faculty and students both have lowered expectations, albeit for different
reasons. However, he also indicated only one side is required to stop the downward
spiral and reinstate high standards in higher education.
34
A comparative study by Hwang (1995) delved into the differences between
Asian-American students and non-Asian American students, including an
examination of home environments and beliefs regarding education. While the author
cites some who perceive students are not achieving due to a poorly constructed
educational system, Hwang asserted that since some groups of students are excelling,
this is not an accurate statement. In fact, Asian-American students have been proven
to thrive in schools where students from other backgrounds do not (Capian, Choy, &
Whitmore as cited in Hwang, 1995). Hwang identified “lack of self-responsibility”
and “false self-esteem” as the two largest problems confronting American youth.
Oftentimes, when a student is not successful, parents are quick to find fault with the
school system; the failure is hardly ever placed on the student. Hwang claimed that
this “victimization” creates a “safety net,” thereby never allowing the student to claim
his own actions and actively participate in the learning process. Furthermore, Hwang
discussed how the continual stream of praise bestowed upon students as a means of
increasing self-esteem actually represses students’ natural inclinations for selfimprovement. Hwang asserted that at the end of the day, the problem of student
apathy has been created by the very culture that is now attempting to reform schools
because students are not performing as they should.
A study by Abowitz (2005) set out to determine if today’s four-year college
students believe “hard work and education are the means by which individuals
achieve success and social standing” (p. 1). In essence, Abowitz wanted to determine
if students hold fast to the ideals found in the American Dream. Students were asked
to respond to a brief survey where items were ranked using a Likert scale.
35
Conclusions from the study indicated students do believe in the American Dream.
Likewise, they also believe that “success and social standing” are gained through the
work of the individual, not through familial ties. Important to note is that nine tenths
of the sample identified themselves as white. Furthermore, approximately eight tenths
reported having fathers engaged in middle–upper class occupations.
Levine and Cureton (1998b) compared student expectations of higher
education to that of a consumer (p. 2). The expectations of students revolve around
four key components: “convenience, quality, service, and cost” (p. 2). Levine and
Cureton asserted that students, as the customer, have the right to demand what they
want from faculty, not necessarily what they earn. With regards to academics,
students nowadays have a very utilitarian view of education; they will do only what
they need to in order to get a job without extra effort (p. 5). However, even though
students view college as integral to finding a good job and enter the institution with
high expectations, many are also entering unprepared for the level of academic work
expected by the institution (p. 6). Additionally, Levine and Cureton reported
differences in learning environments between students and faculty as researched by
Charles Schroeder. On one hand, students favor the “practical and the immediate,”
whereas faculty value the “global to the particular; are stimulated by the realm of
concepts, ideas, and abstractions; and assume that students, like themselves, need a
high degree of autonomy in their work” (Levine & Cureton, 1998b, p. 6). Levine and
Cureton cite these differences in expectations between students and faculty as
contributing to the faculty belief that students are increasingly underprepared and the
student belief that classes are unintelligible (Levine & Cureton, 1998b, p. 8).
36
Lippman, Bulanda, and Wagenaar (2009) outline many causal issues relating
to student entitlement on both the part of the students and the institution (p. 202). On
the student side, the authors discuss the growth of a consumer mentality that has
manifested itself in the students viewing themselves as customers and grades
something they “deserve as a matter of course and as part of the exchange, not
something to be earned through diligent and insightful work” (p. 199). Additionally,
grade inflation is included in the researchers’ discussion as a continuing problem that
may influence students’ expectations, notably with regards to the “quality of their
work and about the amount of work expected of students” (p. 199). Lippman,
Bulanda, and Wagenaar (2009) also cite generational changes as contributing to
entitlement attitudes (p. 199). Institutionally, there has been a connection between the
increase in student entitlement and the growth in the ratio of adjunct faculty (p. 202).
The authors assert that faculty need to be very explicit in establishing their
expectations; furthermore, the authors offer the idea that requests for grade reviews
should be allowed, but it should be made clear that during the process, points may be
added or subtracted (p. 201). The authors also advocate providing examples of
outstanding work that students can use as comparisons to their own, possibly inferior,
work. Perhaps most importantly, Lippman, Bulanda, and Wagenaar support
“resocializing students and faculty” (p. 201); faculty have a responsibility to socialize
students in the classroom, and faculty also need to socialize themselves so they are
familiar with today’s students and understand the context of student expectations.
In a recent study, Ciani, Summers, and Easter (2008) sought to explore
whether differences existed between men and women with regards to academic
37
entitlement attitudes. The researchers chose to focus on three factors: “gender, year in
college and classroom context” (p. 333). The study participants were from an
undergraduate research university located in the Midwest. Ciani, Summers, and
Easter (2008) found that across all classes, men reported higher levels of academic
entitlement than women. Additionally, their findings did not indicate year in college
to explain much of the variance in academic entitlement, but they did note that
seniors exhibited higher levels of entitlement to negotiate a grade than first year
students. The researchers posited that this may be due to the enabling tendencies of
the institution itself.
Limitations of the study included unknown consequences; the researchers did
not know the ramifications of men exhibiting higher levels of academic entitlement
than women. Furthermore, the increase in academic entitlement attitude between each
year in college was negligible. The researchers suggested that a larger sample size
may have provided more explanation. Also, because this study was limited to gender
as an explanation of academic entitlement, the researchers are as yet unsure of the
influence that other factors may have on students’ academic entitlement attitudes
(Ciani et al., 2008, p. 341).
Correa (2006) explored the current student culture of “entitlement learning,”
including ways faculty and students could shift the pendulum back to learning.
Borrowing on Paulo Freire’s title, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Correa titled her
article “Pedagogy of the Obsessed Shifting the Focus.” The idea of students as
consumers is again mentioned here; Correa discusses the ramifications of the
consumer mindset of students. Because of the end-product focus of education with
38
the recent emphasis on outcomes, Correa argued that education has become a
marketable service. Correa claimed that the emphasis on the economic side of
education may lead the “development of pedagogy particularly in relation to
assessment” to be “compromised” (Student section, para. 2). Correa also stated that
within the “culture of entitlement learning,” many students’ beliefs that they should
earn high grades for merely complying with the rules has, in turn, led teachers to
standardized methods of assessment that harkens back to the “’banking system of
education” that Freire passionately opposed. To combat this from happening, Correa
advocated for “active dialogue and accountability” in the classroom (Deconstructing
section, para. 3).
Collier and Morgan (2007) reported differences in how first generation and
traditional college students make sense of faculty expectations. Their study, set at a
large public university in the Pacific Northwest, included participants from the faculty
and student populations; 15 undergraduate faculty were chosen as well as 63 students,
comprising eight student focus groups. A common finding between both groups,
students and faculty, was the importance of bettering the communication between
students and faculty as a means of increasing the opportunities for student success.
However, there was not as much accord when asked to identify the party accountable
for opening the lines of communication (p. 434). The faculty believed the
communication obstacle occurred when students failed to share problems as they
happened.
Both groups of students, traditional and firstgeneration, agreed on time
constraints; they felt the prioritization of their time should consider how much time
39
they (the students) had, not necessarily how much time the faculty expected was
needed to achieve the stated outcomes of the course (Collier & Morgan, 2007, p.
435). The overall findings of the study indicated that not only is there a division
between faculty and student expectations, but also that these misunderstandings can
affect student success academically (p. 441). This problem was compounded for first
generation college students who do not possess prior experiences to help them
understand the role of “student.”
Chowning and Campbell (2009) validated a self-report scale measuring
academic entitlement through the completion of four studies. Although the
researchers were able to validate the newly created instrument, they had several
recommendations for future study. One suggestion was to focus on the effects of
“high levels of academic entitlement on students’ expected exam grades and term
evaluations of instructors and courses” (p. 995). Apart from course evaluations, the
authors also suggested that academic entitlement may be a factor in student retention,
success, and graduation (p. 995). The authors recommend a study to determine if
students’ entitlement beliefs about college work are affected by year in school.
Additionally, Chowning and Campbell (2009) stated that faculty would benefit from
understanding academic entitlement because this understanding would better prepare
them in their workings with students (p. 996). Basically, understanding academic
entitlement would allow faculty to predict student behaviors; in turn, faculty could
confront these behaviors before they surfaced by establishing a clear understanding of
the parts the student and the instructor play in the learning process and establishing
clear guidelines (p. 996).
40
A dissertation by Achacoso (2002) focused on the creation of a scale to
measure students’ academic entitlement attitudes. The final scale resulted in 12 items,
broken into two categories: entitlement beliefs and entitlement actions. When
studying academic entitlement, Achacoso (2002) stated that it is important to separate
academic entitlement from other behaviors that may be mistaken for entitlement. For
example, students inquiring about grades may be viewed as entitled, but may in fact
simply be conscientious students; on the other hand, students may avoid instructors
entirely, but this may be because they have low levels of assertiveness (p. 93).
Achacoso’s main recommendation was to implement whole campus programs that
would target academic entitlement behaviors of students and focus on techniques to
lessen the prevalence of these behaviors.
In Generation Me, Twenge (2006) discussed the self-esteem movement and
generational comparisons between Generation Y and previous generations. While not
directly related to academic entitlement, the work done by Twenge is relevant to the
discussion of academic entitlement and student expectations. Twenge stated that
schools have moved away from rewarding students who perform well in favor of
equalizing all students out of harming self-esteem; trends have been to encourage
self-esteem at the expense of academic performance (p. 62). Perhaps because of this
trend, American students reported very high perceptions of their mathematical
abilities. Realistically, students’ actual performances were not as high as their
perceptions of their abilities (p. 64). Promoting self-esteem is not necessarily bad, but
“valuing self-esteem over learning and accomplishment is clearly harmful” (p. 68).
41
In summary, some educational research has attempted to navigate the topic of
academic entitlement. All literature discovered for this literature review was farily
recent, indicating that the topic of academic entitlement is one of recent interest.
Theoretical Framework
This mixed methods explorative study is grounded in constructivist theory. As
identified by Cresswell (2004), social constructivism operates on assumptions that
individuals seek understanding of the world in which they live and work.
They develop subjective meanings of their experiences—meanings directed
toward certain objects of things. These meanings are varied and multiple,
leading the researcher to look for the complexity of views rather than
narrowing meanings into a few categories or ideas. (p. 8)
Additionally, within the framework of social constructivism, knowledge is contextual
and socially generated, so the backgrounds of the participants must be acknowledged
because these experiences help to shape how the individual interprets reality (p. 8).
Furthermore, the purpose of the researcher becomes focused on understanding the
“meanings others have about the world;” social constructivism offers a way for the
researcher to produce a “theory or pattern of meaning” (p. 9). Crotty (1998) claimed
that the “process of qualitative research is largely inductive, with the inquirer
generating meaning from the data collected in the field” (as cited in Cresswell, 2004,
p. 9).
A main component of constructivist theory holds that the participant’s
worldview is important within the context of the study; where previous research had
removed the participant from natural environments, the constructivist method
considers how one views educational matters within a given context, such as a
classroom (Creswell, 2002, p. 49). Another aspect of the constructivist method that is
42
relevant for the purposes of this study is the ability of the researcher to reflect on her
principles regarding the subject matter (Creswell, 2002, p. 446). Additionally, the
researcher does not have to attempt to place data into fixed categories; the purpose of
the study is to better understand the construct of academic entitlement from both the
student and faculty perspectives.
Summary
There is a tremendous amount of literature concerning the state of basic skills
in California community colleges. The problem is not unique to California, but is a
topic of concern nationwide. Historically, community colleges did not include basic
skills in their mission, but as time has passed and the numbers of underprepared
students entering two-year institutions have increased, community colleges have
affirmed basic skills as part of their essential core. More recently, the issue of
academic entitlement has gained attention in educational research, yet no known
studies have combined these two relevant issues.
This review of literature traces the development of the community college
during the twentieth century and discusses how basic skills has become one of the
major components of community college functions. Moreover, this chapter provides a
look at the work that has been done, but more importantly, shows gaps where
educational research is lacking. The application of constructivist theory to this study
is practical because of the focus on understanding others’ perceptions and
incorporating the worldview of the researcher into the research process. The next
chapter will outline the findings of the study, and Chapter V will present the
interpretations and recommendations of the study with a connection to the literature.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The main reason for educational research should be to close the gap between
faculty and student; research should provide “insights” to link faculty more closely to
the “world of our students” (Van Manen as cited in Stringer, p. 23). The research
design for this explorative study derives from the desire to learn more about basic
skills faculty members and students’ attitudes and perceptions regarding academic
entitlement in an effort to facilitate learning more efficiently. This study utilizes a
mixed methods approach, including interviews and survey, as a way to triangulate
data sources. According to Cresswell (2004), all research methods have restrictions,
and the goal of mixed methods research is to “neutralize or cancel the biases of other
methods” (p. 15).
The framework through which this study will be viewed is constructivist; as
identified by Cresswell (2004), social constructivism operates on assumptions that the
individual is an active participant in the research (p. 8). Additionally, within the
framework of social constructivism, knowledge is contextual and socially generated,
so the backgrounds of the participants must be acknowledged because these
experiences help to shape how the individual interprets reality (p. 8). Furthermore, the
purpose of the researcher becomes focused on understanding the “meanings others
have about the world”; social constructivism offers a way for the researcher to
produce a “theory or pattern of meaning” (p. 9). Crotty (1998) claimed that the
43
44
“process of qualitative research is largely inductive, with the inquirer generating
meaning from the data collected in the field” (as cited in Cresswell, 2004, p. 9).
This study was conducted in two stages. The first stage of the study involved
measuring basic skills students’ academic entitlement behaviors using an Academic
Entitlement Scale instrument created by Achacoso (2002). The AES instrument was
created to measure academic entitlement behaviors and actions; the final instrument
involves 12 statements that students respond to using a Likert scale response from 1
to 7, where 1 is strongly disagree and 7 is strongly agree. The researcher had also
developed a brief survey to be completed by participants that accompanied the AES.
The AES and survey questions can be viewed in Appendix A. Following this
quantitative element, qualitative student interviews were conducted. This aligns with
the sequential design procedures identified by Cresswell (2004) where the researcher
“seeks to elaborate on or expand the findings of one method with another method” (p.
16). In addition, this sequential procedure is consistent with the mixed methods
approach as outlined by Cresswell (2004, p. 18). The open-ended interview questions
were developed based on the analysis of student responses to the Academic
Entitlement Scale (AES). Stage II of the study included surveying basic skills faculty
from three California community colleges. The analysis of data from Stage I helped
to create the faculty survey utilized in Stage II of the study. Figure 1 below is
modified from Cresswell and Plano Clark (2007) to illustrate the sequencing of the
research.
In summary, this mixed methods explorative study involved two stages and
three separate collection data points.
45
Figure 1. Sequencing of sequential mixed methods exploratory research design.
Research Questions
•
RQ1: How is “academic entitlement” defined by basic skills students and
faculty?
•
RQ2: To what extent do academic entitlement behaviors, beliefs, and
actions exist in the basic skills student population?
o RQ2A: How do students explain their beliefs and/or actions?
•
RQ3: What do faculty perceive to constitute academic entitlement
behaviors?
•
RQ4: What do faculty perceive to cause and/or facilitate student academic
entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills?
•
RQ5: What do faculty believe could/should be done to address student
academic entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills?
46
Role of the Researcher
The researcher is an insider, both to the college in phase one of the study and
the basic skills population. However, the researcher was not an instructor of any
students participating in the study. The research practices described in this study with
the focus on inquiry are consistent with the “insider in collaboration with other
insiders” model as put forth by Herr and Anderson (Herr & Anderson, 2007, p. 31).
The researcher is aware of disadvantages to close proximity to data, including
assumptions that may prevent thoroughness (Coghlan, 2007, p. 297). However,
Coghlan (2007) asserted that this limitation may be prevented by “rigorous
introspection and reflection on experience in order to expose underlying assumptions”
(p. 297).
The first, second, and third person inquiry-practice developed by Tolbert will
be utilized in this study to engage in individual and collaborative inquiry that
culminates in “dissemination to the impersonal third party audience” (Coghlan, 2007,
p. 299). The second person inquiry-practice identifies the structure of doctoral
committees as important in providing an element of insider-outsider collaboration
because of the doctoral candidate’s interaction with faculty sponsors (Coghlan, 2007,
p. 300). Accordingly, Coghlan (2007) stated that this structure creates an environment
where researchers have to engage in “inquiry, reflection, action, and theorizing about
their project in their organizational setting,” and that “academic supervisors facilitate
the enactment of action research cycles on the action research project itself” (p. 300).
In fact, Coghlan asserted that utilizing the first, second, and third person inquiry-
47
practice model developed by Tolbert is the mechanism that provides insider action
research doctorates “their integrity” (p. 301).
Because this study is the focus of a doctoral dissertation, the researcher
worked closely with a faculty sponsor who was an outsider to the institutions
involved in the study and basic skills. This collaboration was the first way in which
the researcher controlled for insider bias. Additionally, the researcher utilized pilot
tests for the faculty survey, student survey, and student interview questions used in
the study. Several basic skills faculty and students were interviewed to ensure the
validity of these instruments; pilot testing protocol of the faculty survey, student
survey, and student interview questions were adapted from Rogers (n.d.) and are
outlined in Appendices B, C, and D. Additionally, student interview questions were
evaluated using a checklist of key points first suggested by Flick (2006). Please see
Appendix E for the list of Key Points for Evaluating Questions in Interviews.
Setting
The first stage of this study was conducted at a medium-sized public
community college located in the Central Valley of California. The college provides a
representative population of students attending California community colleges. The
area surrounding the college is rural; agriculture provides many jobs in the area. Most
students enrolled at the college during the 2007-2008 year identified themselves as
Hispanic (36%) and White, Non-Hispanic (36%) (CCCCO, 2010c, Student
demographics). Approximately 48% of students for this same school year were 24
years old or younger; 25% were identified as teens, and 23% were in the 20 to 24
category (CCCCO, 2010c, Student demographics). Additionally, the female
48
population was higher than the male population (58% vs. 37%) (CCCCO, 2010c,
Student demographics). Statewide, demographics for the same year identified
approximately twenty-nine% of students as Hispanic (CCCCO, 2010c, Student
demographics). The percentage of students aged 24 and younger was 51, similar to
the selected college’s percentage of 48; 26% of students fell into the 20 to 24 age
range, and 25% were in their teens (CCCCO, 2010c, Student demographics).
Additionally, the female population of community college students statewide equaled
54%, outnumbering males by approximately 10% (CCCCO, 2010c, Student
demographics). The demographics of students at the other two community colleges
involved in the study are similar; both reported higher numbers of female students,
both had high numbers of students identifying themselves as White or Hispanic, and
the largest numbers of students fell into the 24 years of age or younger category
(CCCCO, 2010c, Student demographics). All three colleges are in agricultural-based
counties with high unemployment rates and large percentages of students placing into
basic skills.
Population, Sample, and Participants
The populations this study focused on are the basic skills student population
and basic skills faculty. The college selected for the first phase of the study has credit
courses beginning four levels below transfer. Transfer level courses are defined as
college-level courses that transfer to four-year colleges and universities. The
sequence of remedial English courses begins with a course numbered English 90,
which is designed for students reading and writing at the fifth grade level. The next
level in the sequence in designed for students in the sixth–to–eighth–grade reading
49
level, and the third level in the sequence is for students entering the class at the ninth
grade reading level and exiting at the eleventh. The course directly below transfer
English is English A, pre-freshman composition. The sample for the study was the
basic skills student population two levels below transfer because the majority of
students entering the college place into the English sequence at this level. Placement
is determined by the Accuplacer test that is administered to students prior to first
registration at the college. Accuplacer is an Internet-based test that evaluates a
student’s abilities and helps a college determine if the student is ready for collegelevel courses, or if the student would benefit from remediation (Accuplacer Test,
2010). Colleges determine cut-scores, the range of test scores that help determine
which course a student should enroll in, on an individual basis, so cut scores may
vary from college to the next (Accuplacer Test, 2010).
English 81 and English 84 are equivalent in level (9th–11th grade), but 81 is
focused on reading and 84 on writing (see Appendix F & G for course outlines). The
following placement percentages in Table 1 are based on the timeframe from June 24,
2009 through February 24, 2010.
Research questions 3, 4, and 5 focus on faculty perceptions of basic skills
students’ academic entitlement behaviors and actions. To explore these questions, this
research study was expanded by surveying basic skills faculty at three community
colleges with similar demographics as the college from phase one. The three colleges
in Stage II reported similar basic skills FTES (Fulltime Equivalent Students) for the
fall 2009 semester (CCCCO, 2010a, Fulltime Equivalent Students). The study
sampled a large cross-section of basic skills faculty because oftentimes students who
50
Table 1
English Sequence of Courses and Student Placements
Course
number
Course title
Level
Grade level
equivalent
Students
placing at
this level
English 1A
College Composition &
Reading
College-level
Grade 13+
13%
English A
Foundations in
Academic Literacy
Pre-collegiate
Grade 12
40%
English 81 & Basic Reading Tactics
English 84
II/ Basic Writing
Skills II - Paragraph
To Essay
Basic Skills
Grades
9–11
45% (81)
English 80 & Basic Reading Tactics/
English 83
Basic Writing I Sentence to Paragraph
Basic Skills
Grades
6–8
11% (80)
English 90
Basic Skills
Grades
3–5
1%
Basic Language and
Learning Skills
39% (84)
7% (83)
Note. The percentages noted here represent a non-unique duplicated headcount
meaning that students are placed into reading and writing courses separately, so some
students are in more than one course. The total percentage will not add up to 100%
because some students are counted more than once.
place into basic skills English courses also place into other basic skills courses.
Expanding the population of faculty to include any basic skills faculty member, both
adjunct and fulltime, enlarged the sample and increased the number of basic skills
faculty participants in the study.
51
Ethical Considerations
The identites of the colleges, faculty, and students were treated with strict
confidentiality. A coding system was used to protect the confidentiality of all
information. All student interview transcripts and recordings and student surveys
provided were kept in a locked file cabinet. Any information stored electronically was
secured in a password protected data file. All data obtained for this study will be
destroyed one year after completion of the study. Only the researcher has access to
the data that can be linked to individual subjects.
There will be no costs to any of the colleges, faculty or students who
participated in this study. All publications, public distribution or presentations of the
findings from this study including, but not limited to, the researcher’s dissertation will
not reveal the identity of any students, faculty, administrators or others involved with
this study. In addition, the identity of colleges who were a part of this project will also
be protected. Pseudonyms were assigned as the names for all institutions and to
anyone who was mentioned in the study. All research protocols involving human
subjects were reviewed and approved by the CSU Stanislaus University Institutional
Review Board to assure compliance with all University regulations and applicable
laws before any data collection occurred for this research project (see Appendix H).
Method
Stage I of this mixed methods study utilized an instrument measuring
students’ attitudes of entitlement as well as individual interviews with 12 students.
The researcher classified two distinctive categories of students within the basic skills
population: traditional and re-entry students. Operational definitions of these terms
52
were provided in Chapter I; traditional students are those who transition from high
school to college within one to two years. Typically, students under 25 years of age
would be considered traditional students. Re-entry students are those students who
did not enter college directly after high school, but chose to follow other endeavors
before returning to school. Re-entry, as defined here according to age, would be those
students aged 25 and older.
Stage I, step 1: Student surveys. Student Academic Entitlement was
measured using a scale developed by Achacoso (2002). The AES scale consists of 12
items which students will respond to using a Likert Scale, where 1 is strongly
disagree and 7 is strongly agree. The items on the scale were classified as either
entitlement beliefs or entitlement actions. Achacoso (2002) reported sufficient
reliability for the instrument; Chronbach’s Alpha was .83 for the entitlement beliefs
portion of the scale and .91 for the entitlement actions segment. The statements on the
scale are provided in Appendix A. The researcher included survey questions to
accompany the AES (see Appendix A). These questions were pilot tested by four
English 81 and English 84 students and faculty prior to distribution of the instrument
to the participants. According to Gay, Mills, and Airasian (2006), “having three or
four individuals read the cover letter and complete the questionnaire will help identify
problems” (p. 169). Additionally, they encourage choosing individuals who are
comparable to the participants in the study (p. 169). The responses of the students in
the pilot group were included in the study. The pilot instrument protocol is available
in Appendix D.
53
Participants for this first step of Stage I were invited to participate in the study
based on their enrollment in English 81 or English 84. Prior to distribution of the
surveys, the researcher entered each section number of English 81 and 84 into
Microsoft Office Excel 2007. A random numbers chart was generated, and the
researcher contacted the instructors in the order that the section numbers appeared.
The researcher sampled 15 sections for the first step of the study; classes were capped
at 33 students, but enrollments varied from 20 students to 33 plus. Twenty students is
the minimum enrollment a class must have in order to be offered according to the
college’s contract between the faculty association and the governing board. Currently,
the class schedule for fall 2010 shows 20 sections of each course, totaling 40 sections
of English 81 and English 84 combined.
After receiving written administrative approval (Appendix I), the researcher
asked faculty to aid in the distribution of the survey based on the order that the
section numbers appeared on the random numbers chart. If a faculty member chose
not to participate in the distribution of the survey, the researcher contacted the faculty
in charge of the next section on the list. For the faculty members who agreed to allow
the survey to be completed in their classes, the researcher provided them with a
packet of materials, including the survey instrument, consent forms, pencils, and
written directions that the researcher will ask each faculty member to read aloud to
his or her class. These directions included a brief explanation of the study and
emphasized that participation was entirely voluntary and students would not be
negatively affected for their decisions to participate or not participate in the study
(See Appendix J). The researcher did not instruct any English 81 or English 84
54
classes during the fall 2010 semester, so she was not be the instructor of record for
any student participants.
The AES survey distribution occurred in mid-October 2010. By this time, the
semester had calmed down and students were accustomed to the routines of their
classes. Also, the first census had already passed, so students were not still adding
and dropping classes; class rosters were more stable at this point.
Stage I, step 2: Student interviews. During the second step in Stage I, the
researcher planned to interview six students from each category, traditional and reentry. The 12 representative cases were invited to participate in the interviews once
the student responses to the instrument had been assessed and evaluated. The process
by which the students were selected for interviews is as follows:
•
The researcher asked faculty teaching sections of English 81 and 84 who
were not involved in the AES survey to solicit volunteers from each of
their classes.
•
Students who agreed to be contacted for an interview signed a consent
form granting permission to be contacted for an interview, provided
contact information, self-identified himself or herself as either a traditional
student or re-entry student, and identified gender. Definitions of the terms
were provided (Appendix K).
•
Once the researcher had received the signed consent forms from the
faculty instructing the classes, the researcher separated the forms by the
identifier, traditional or re-entry.
55
•
The researcher invited six students from each category, making sure to
represent each gender within the two categories.
Each participant was asked to read and sign an informed consent form before
the interviews commenced (Appendix L). The 12 representative cases had not
participated in the AES survey; the researcher asked faculty to solicit student
participants from classes not participating in the AES survey.
Sufficient time was allotted for each interview so that the participants’
answers were not constricted by time limits; however, no interviews lasted beyond
one hour. Each interview was recorded using two tape recorders to ensure the safety
of the data. The interview questions were evaluated using a checklist of questions
suggested by Ulrich as presented by Flick (2006). Next, the interview questions were
piloted by a group of four to six students enrolled in the targeted courses and faculty
members teaching in basic skills, but who are not participating in the study.
According to Gay et al. (2006), “having three or four individuals read the cover letter
and complete the questionnaire will help identify problems” (p. 169). Additionally,
the authors encourage choosing individuals who are comparable to the participants in
the study (p. 169). The responses of the individuals asked to pilot the interview
questions were not included in the study. The pilot instrument is available in
Appendix B.
A total of nine interview questions were created (see Appendix M).
Participants were asked to clarify or expand on words and phrases the interviewer did
not understand as a means of ensuring clarity. The interviewer paid close attention to
supplemental questions in order to maintain the focus of the interview and not lead
56
the interviewee to a predetermined conclusion. When the interviewer perceived the
participant had fully articulated his or her experiences, the interviewer ended the
interview with a concluding question: “Is there anything else that you would like to
add that we haven’t already discussed?” Following any additional comments from the
participants, the interviews concluded.
Within one week following each interview, the interviews were transcribed
using Microsoft Word 2007 and then uploaded into Dedoose. Once all the interviews
had been transcribed, the researcher began coding the transcriptions. The researcher
utilized thematic coding as defined by Flick (2006). Thematic coding involves a case
description for each case (p. 307). According to Flick, this process allows for greater
“comparability of interpretations,” but, at the same time, the method “remains
sensitive and open to the specific contents of each individual case and the social
group with regard to the issue under study” (p. 310–311).
Stage II: Faculty surveys. Basic skills faculty from three California
community colleges were surveyed as a means of understanding faculty perceptions
of student academic entitlement behaviors and actions. The researcher utilized a
cross-sectional design aimed at gathering information from participants at one
established point in time. The survey was generated and distributed electronically
using Survey Monkey. Upon completion of Stage I of the study (involving student
participants), the researcher used the results of the data analysis to aid in the creation
of the faculty survey instrument. The faculty survey was piloted with a group of four
basic skills faculty members whose responses were not included in the study. This
was done prior to survey distribution to the basic skills faculty at the three sampled
57
colleges. The pilot testing instrument protocol for the faculty survey is available in
Appendix C.
Data Collection
Data collection occurred during the fall 2010 semester. The survey, which
included the Academic Entitlement Scale (Achacoso, 2002), was distributed to
students in mid-October. The researcher compiled packets for each section of English
81 and English 84 and distributed these packets to the respective instructors using the
campus mail system. Instructions were provided for the participating faculty to read
to their classes, as well as informed consent forms, copies of the instrument for each
student, and pencils. Prior to completing the scale and survey, all students were
required to sign informed consent statements (Appendix N). Students were not
penalized in any way for their decisions to participate or not participate in the study.
Two consent forms were required for Stage I of the study. The first
accompanied the student surveys, and the second accompanied the student interviews
(Appendices K & M). Both forms included the following statement: Participants
must be at least 18 years of age. The completed surveys and other supplied materials
were returned to the researcher using the campus mail system. The time frame for this
was two weeks; this time frame included distribution and return of the packets from
each instructor.
Interviews were conducted once the results from the surveys have been
assessed. The interview participants were compensated with $10 Starbucks gift card
for their time. Gift cards were purchased by the researcher. All interviews were
recorded and then transcribed within one week of completing the in-person interview.
58
The interview process was completed by the end of December. Using data from the
student interviews, the faculty survey was created and piloted with a group of basic
skills faculty (Appendix C). The faculty consent form (Appendix O) and survey was
distributed to faculty by mid-January, and the researcher assessed the number of
responses at the end of two weeks. The survey was left open for an additional two
weeks and a reminder was sent to faculty. Because each step of the study was
influenced by the prior step, the timing of the student surveys and interviews was
extremely critical.
Data Analysis
This explorative study followed a mixed methods approach of inquiry. The
researcher chose to use both qualitative and quantitative measures because of the
exploratory nature of the study and the research questions. Using both measures
created triangulation, which allows for a means to seek “convergence across
qualitative and quantitative methods” (Cresswell, 2004, p. 15). RQ1 (student
definition of academic entitlement) and RQ2A utilized student interviews as a means
to understand knowledge through “socially constructed knowledge claims”
(Cresswell, 2004, p. 15). According to Cresswell (2004), questions following the
constructivist framework operate most efficiently if they are very general and allow
the participant to “construct the meaning of a situation” (p. 8). The interview
questions were used to prompt participants, but were not used to lead the participants
to predetermined conclusions. RQ2 was evaluated using the AES as defined
previously.
59
RQ2 (faculty definition of academic entitlement), RQ3, RQ4, and RQ5 were
assessed using a survey to gauge faculty’s perceptions of academic entitlement
behaviors and actions. All data was entered into the Statistics Package for the Social
Sciences, v. 15.0. An alpha level of .05 was used for all analyses. The means,
standard deviations, and frequencies were reported for all items. For open-ended
survey questions, categories were created based on responses with like responses
being grouped together. Once the initial responses had been categorized, the
researcher revisited the categories to check for consistency. Dedoose was utilized for
coding the interviews and open-ended survey questions.
Summary
In conclusion, this exploratory mixed methods study utilized a constructivist
framework to understand academic student entitlement behaviors and actions within
the basic skills population of community college students. The study involved two
stages with three data collection points. Most importantly, the study included the
perspectives of basic skills students and faculty as a means to more fully understand
academic behaviors and actions.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This mixed methods explorative study researching academic entitlement
beliefs and actions occurred in two phases. The first stage involved student surveys
and student interviews; the second focused on faculty surveys. The purpose of this
study was to determine the extent to which academic entitlement behaviors, beliefs,
and actions exist within the basic skills population at one California community
college and compare those findings to basic skills faculty’s perceptions of student
academic entitlement beliefs, behavior, and actions at three California community
colleges with similar basic skills FTES. The study focuses on the following research
questions:
•
RQ1: How is “academic entitlement” defined by basic skills students and
faculty?
•
RQ2: To what extent do academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and
actions exist in the basic skills student population?
o RQ2A: How do students explain their beliefs and/or actions?
•
RQ3: What do faculty perceive to constitute academic entitlement
behaviors?
•
RQ4: What do faculty perceive to cause and/or facilitate student academic
entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills?
60
61
•
RQ5: What do faculty believe could/should be done to address student
academic entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills?
This chapter describes the demographics of the student and faculty populations
sampled, as well as the findings from the AES scale, student interviews, and faculty
surveys.
Data Collection
Student surveys. The data collection for this mixed methods explorative
study occurred between October 2010 and February 2011. The three data collection
points involved student surveys, student interviews, and an electronic faculty survey.
RQ1, RQ2, and RQ2a are connected to the student surveys and interviews. The first
step of the study involved surveying 15 sections of English 81 and English 84
students at one California community college. Pilot testing affirmed the survey was
understandable, so the researcher moved ahead with the survey protocol. Based on
instructor counts, 435 surveys were created. A 56% return was yielded; however, this
return percentage was based on the class rosters, not actual attendance in the class
period during which students were given the opportunity to participate in the study.
Only two surveys were discarded from this stage of the study because participants
had completed the AES scale incorrectly.
Student interviews. The student interviews occurred during the two weeks prior
to the end of the fall 2010 semester. The pilot testing of interview questions occurred
during the last week in November; three students and one faculty member completed
this step of the process (see Appendix B for pilot testing protocol). Question 9 was
62
edited following the pilot testing. Prior to the pilot test, the question read: What does
“academic entitlement” mean to you? The second part of the question, Does the
phrase “academic entitlement” have a positive, neutral, or negative meaning? was
added to allow students to offer their ideas on how the word sounds, even if they
could not vocalize a definition.
Students were contacted by phone and interviews were arranged around
students’ schedules. Two recording devices were used to record the interviews, and
the interviews were transcribed by the researcher within two days following the
interviews. The documents were uploaded into Dedoose for coding.
Faculty surveys. The third and final step of the study involved the creation
and distribution of a faculty survey. RQ1, RQ3, RQ4, and RQ5 are connected to the
faculty survey, which was distributed electronically using Survey Monkey. Faculty
were given two weeks to respond to the survey during the month of January 2011. A
total of sixty-four surveys were returned. Results were analyzed, and after
determining that more direct responses were needed to address two research
questions, a supplemental survey with three questions was sent out electronically to
gain more insight into faculty perceptions of the causes and solutions to students’
academic entitlement attitudes. Faculty were also given two weeks to respond to the
supplemental survey; forty supplemental surveys were returned.
Interrater reliability. Interrater reliability was determined with the help of a
second person. The researcher explained the process involved in coding the openended survey questions and the interview questions. An un-marked document was
given to the person and she was asked to code the document following the
63
researcher’s explanation. Comparisons were then made to the researcher’s document.
This was done once during each step of the research project: the student surveys, the
student interviews, and the faculty surveys. For the open-ended questions on the
student survey, an 85% accuracy rate was determined. The interrater reliability of the
student interview transcriptions was determined to be 87%, and the accuracy rate for
the faculty survey open-ended questions was 89%. Coder reliability was achieved by
the researcher coding a document, leaving it for one week, and then recoding the
same document; comparisons between the two coded documents were made to check
for consistency. The two documents exhibited reliable consistency.
Demographics and Other Descriptors
Student surveys. The first phase of this study involved student participants.
Fifteen sections were randomly selected for survey distribution. Class counts were
provided by each instructor; 435 surveys were created for distribution. Of these, 245
surveys were returned, resulting in a 56% return. Of the surveys returned, females
represented 62.4% (N= 153) and males represented 37.6% (N = 92; see Table 2).
Most students fell into the 19 or less age range, where N = 144, or 58.8% (see
Table 2). The next highest percentage of students identified themselves as 20–24
years of age. The numbers of participants in each age category decreased as the age
categories increased, stabilizing at 35–39 years of age (see Table 3).
Additionally, most participants indicated they were in their first semester of
college at the time of the survey. Table 4 shows the breakdown of students by
semester in college.
64
Table 2
Student Survey: Gender
Gender
Frequency
%
Male
92
37.6
Female
153
62.4
Total
245
100.0
Table 3
Student Survey: Age Range
Age Range
Frequency
%
19 or less
144
58.8
20-24
62
25.3
25-29
19
7.8
30-34
14
5.7
35-39
2
.8
40-49
2
.8
50 +
2
.8
Total
245
100.0
Approximately 90% of student participants indicated that they had earned a
high school diploma. Ten students reported that they had passed the GED/Certificate
of Equivalency; the remaining 5% of student participants identified with the
remaining options (see Table 5).
65
Table 4
Student Survey: Semester in College
Semester
Frequency
%
First
167
68.2
Second
35
14.3
Third
29
11.8
Fourth +
14
5.7
Total
245
100.0
Table 5
Student Survey: High School Educational Attainment
High School Attainment
Frequency
%
Received a HS diploma
210
85.7
Passed GED/Cert. of equivalency
10
4.1
Certificate of proficiency
3
1.2
Enrolled in adult school
2
.8
Foreign secondary school diploma
5
2.0
No high school diploma or equivalent
3
1.2
233
95.1
Total
The educational goal descriptor, along with the demographic information, was
written to mirror the college’s application for admission. The most frequent goal
indicated by students was to obtain a BA degree after completing an AA degree (see
Table 6).
66
Table 6
Student Survey: Educational Goals
Goal
Frequency
%
Obtain a bachelor's degree after completing an AA
95
49.2
Obtain a BA without completing an AA
19
9.8
Obtain a two-year vocational degree without transfer
13
6.7
Obtain a two-year AA without transfer
24
12.4
Discover/formulate career interest, plans goals
5
2.6
Prepare for a new career
7
3.6
Advance in a current job/career
5
2.6
Maintain certificate or license
3
1.6
Educational development/personal enrichment
1
0.5
Improve basic skills in English, Reading, Math
14
7.3
Complete credits for high school diploma or GED
1
.5
4 year college student taking courses to meet 4-year
college requirements
6
3.1
Total
193
100.0
In summary, the majority of students surveyed were younger than 25.
Additionally, more than half of the participants were female. The largest percentage
of students was also in their first semester of college. Furthermore, almost 86% of
students were high school graduates; the remaining 14% had varying level of high
school educational attainment. Lastly, the most frequently selected goal indicated by
students was to earn a BA degree after completing an AA degree.
67
Student interviews. The interview phase of this study originally detailed that
12 students would be interviewed, six traditional and six re-entry, with equal gender
representation. Due to complications contacting students and students failing to make
appointments, the researcher interviewed ten students. Table 7 shows the complete
descriptors of all interviewees; the last column was added to indicate whether or not
the interviewee was also a parent. This information was not asked for, but several
interviewees shared this information.
Six traditional students were interviewed (students aged 24 years or younger),
three males and three females. The three males interviewed were all first semester
college students; two were high school graduates and one had earned his
GED/Certificate of Equivalency. Additionally, two were aged 19 or less, and one
identified himself in the 20–24 age range. Four interviewees were re-entry students;
three students were classified based on age, and one student, although in the 20–24
range, asked to be identified as a re-entry student. All four re-entry students
interviewed were females. Furthermore, all female interviewees had earned high
school diplomas. Additionally, nine of ten students were in their first or second
semester of school. One interviewee indicated that she was in her fourth plus
semester. Three students shared that they were parents, two of whom had small
children in the house
20–24*
50+
19 or less
19 or less
35–39
20–24
19 or less
19 or less
30–34
19 or less
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
First
Second
First
First
First
First
Fist
First
Second
Fourth+
Semester
HS diploma
HS diploma
HS diploma
HS diploma
GED/Certification
of proficiency
HS diploma
HS diploma
HS diploma
HS diploma
HS diploma
HS attainment
F
F
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
Gender
Obtain a 2-year AA without transfer
Obtain a BA degree after completing an
AA
Obtain a BA degree after completing an
AA
Advance in a current job, career
Obtain a 2-year AA without transfer
Maitain certificate or license
Discover, formulate career interests,
plans, goals
Obtain a BA without completing in AA
Obtain a BA degree after completing an
AA
Obtain a BA degree after completing an
AA
Educational goal
Note. Although this student is in the 20-24 age range, she identified herself as a re-entry student.
Age
Interviewee
Student Interviewee Descriptors
Table 7
Yes
Yes
Yes
Parent
(self-reported)
68
69
Faculty surveys. Basic skills faculty from three California community
colleges were invited to participate in the survey. Approximately 150 surveys were
sent; however, it is difficult to determine an accurate return rate because emails were
sent to all faculty in the English and math departments. The email specified that the
study was designed to understand how basic skills students and faculty perceive
academic entitlement behaviors, and the survey questions were designed to include
descriptors to identify each faculty member’s relationship to basic skills.
Additionally, several emails were returned with failure to devlier notices.
The colleges sampled were determined based on similar FTES in basic skills.
Both fulltime and adjunct faculty members responded to the survey. Respondents
taught a variety of disciplines including English, math, ESL, non-credit basic skills,
TESOL, reading, and linguistics. Sixty-four surveys were completed, but the
distribution of responses by college was unequal (see Table 8).
Furthermore, approximately 40.6% of respondents indicated that they have
been teaching at a community college for more than ten years (see Table 9). The
remaining respondents were split almost equally amongst the other three choices.
Table 8
Faculty Survey: Breakdown by College
a
College
# of surveys sent
Actual # of responses
%
College Aa
54
25
39.1
College B
47
6
9.4
College C
50
33
51.6
College A was also the site of the student surveys.
70
Table 9
Faculty Survey: Years Teaching Basic Skills
Years
teaching
Actual # of
responses
%
1-3
12
18.8
4-6
13
20.3
7-10
13
20.3
11+
26
40.6
Respondents also reported that their collective teaching experiences constitute
a wide variety of disciplines; the highest percentage of faculty indicated that they
teach primarily English, although the number of respondents identifying math closely
followed (see Table 10).
As stated earlier, both adjunct and fulltime faculty responded to the survey.
The highest percentage of respondents identified themselves as fulltime tenured
faculty (N = 28), but adjuncts and fulltime tenure track faculty were also represented.
Table 11 shows the entire breakdown by faculty status.
In addition to the descriptors mentioned above, faculty respondents were also
asked to identify their teaching experience and their teaching loads as each relates to
basic skills. Most respondents indicated that they have taught both basic skills and
college level courses at their respective institutions, but they have not taught the
entire range of courses offered in their disciplines (see Table 12).
71
Table 10
Faculty Survey: Disciplines Taught
Actual # of
responses
%
English
24
37.5
Prepatory English
7
10.9
Math
23
35.9
ESL
9
14.1
Non-credit basic skills
1
1.6
Reading
9
14.1
Othera
3
4.7
Discipline
a
Other disciplines identified included biology, TESOL, and linguistics.
Table 11
Faculty Survey: Faculty Status
Actual # of
responses
%
Full-time, tenured
28
43.8
Full-time, tenure track
11
17.2
Adjunct
25
39.1
Faculty status
72
Table 12
Faculty Survey: Teaching Experience
Actual # of
responses
%
I have taught the entire range of courses offered in the
discipline I teach in at my institution.
24
37.5
I have taught only basic skills courses at my institution.
13
20.3
I have taught only college level courses at my institution.
1
1.6
I have experience teaching both college level and basic
skills courses at my institution, although I have not
taught the entire range of courses offered.
26
40.6
Description of teaching experience
When asked to identify their teaching loads each semester, most faculty
indicated that they teach a balance between basic skills and college level courses. The
next highest percentage of respondents reported that their teaching loads are
completely dedicated to basic skills courses (see Table 13).
In summary, faculty from all descriptor categories responded to the survey.
Both adjunct and fulltime faculty were represented, as were faculty with very few
years teaching and those with more than ten years experience. Faculty from a variety
of disciplines responded to the survey, as did faculty with varying degrees of
experience within their disciplines. Furthermore, faculty respondents indicated that
their teaching loads most often reflect a balance between basic skills and college level
courses.
73
Table 13
Faculty Survey: Teaching Load
Actual # of
responses
%
Only teach basic skills.
17
26.6
Primarily, but not exclusively, teach basic skills.
14
21.9
Teach a balance between basic skills and college level
courses.
28
43.8
Only occasionally teach basic skills courses.
5
7.8
Description of teaching load
For analysis purposes, the scale was broken into three groups: responses of 1
and 2; responses of 3, 4, and 5; and responses of 6 and 7. Because it is difficult to
identify only one number as neutral, the researcher determined that items 1 and 2
would indicate strongly disagree responses and 6 and 7 would represent strongly
agree responses. The middle items, 3 through 5, would represent neutral responses.
Items 7, 10, and 11 on the AES yielded the most responses in the strongly agree
range and the fewest in the strongly disagree range. Likewise, there were several
items which participants frequently rated as strongly disagree. Items 1, 3, 4, 9, and 12
all had percentages at 50% or higher on the strongly disagree side of the Likert scale
(see Table 14).
Items 7, 10, and 11 also generated the highest means of 5.05, 5.32, and 5.04,
respectively (see Table 15). Additionally, the means for items 1, 3, 4, 9, and 12 were
all below 3.
74
Table 14
AES Frequency of Scale Responses
1&2
3, 4,
&5
6&7
1. Instructors should bend the rules for me.
122
(50%)
90
(37%)
31
(13%)
2. An instructor should modify course
requirements to help me.
78
(32%)
79
(33%)
86
(35%)
3. I should only be required to do a minimal
amount of thinking to get an A in class.
168
(69%)
50
(21%)
25
(10%)
4. 4. I should get special treatment in my
courses.
170
(70%)
41
(17%)
32
(13%)
5. I cannot tolerate it when an instructor does not
accommodate my personal situation.
94
(39%)
99
(41%)
49
(20%)
6. I would confront an instructor to argue about
my grade.
100
(41%)
87
(36%)
57
(23%)
7. If I thought a test was unfair, I would tell the
instructor.
39
(16%)
83
(34%)
121
(50%)
8. I would attempt to negotiate my grade with
the instructor.
96
(40%)
79
(33%)
68
(28%)
9. I would argue with the instructor to get more
points on a test.
162
(66%)
56
(23%)
26
(11%)
10. If I felt an instructor’s grading was unfair, I
would tell the instructor.
44
(18%)
78
(31%)
129
(51%)
11. If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would tell
the instructor.
44
(17%)
78
(32%)
129
(51%)
12. I would demand that an instructor make an
exception for me.
170
(70%)
55
(23%)
19
(8%)
Item #
75
Table 15
AES Means and Standard Deviations
AES item
M
SD
1. Instructors should bend the rules for me.
2.96
2.00
2. An instructor should modify course requirements to help me.
4.12
2.33
3. I should only be required to do a minimal amount of thinking
to get an A in class.
2.32
1.93
4. I should get special treatment in my courses.
2.38
2.06
5. I cannot tolerate it when an instructor does not accommodate
my personal situation.
3.51
2.12
6. I would confront an instructor to argue about my grade.
3.53
2.20
7. If I thought a test was unfair, I would tell the instructor.
5.05
2.09
8. I would attempt to negotiate my grade with the instructor.
3.66
2.29
9. I would argue with the instructor to get more points on a test.
2.35
1.87
10. If I felt an instructor’s grading was unfair, I would tell the
instructor.
5.32
2.08
11. If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would tell the instructor.
5.04
2.13
12. I would demand that an instructor make an exception for me.
2.25
1.82
The following two tables show only the items for which students reported the
highest numbers of strongly agree (Table 16) and strongly disagree (Table 17). Upon
examination of the groupings, the researcher noted a definite difference between the
two groupings in terms of sentence meaning and implication. The first grouping all
include the phrase “I would tell the instructor.” The second grouping (Table 17)
includes words with more negative connotations, such as demand and argue.
After running the initial frequencies, the researcher then sorted the file according to
each descriptor: semester in college, age range, gender, educational goal, and high
76
school educational attainment. The first descriptor, semester in college, yielded
means similar to the overall means located in Table 15. Again, items 7, 10 and 11
reported the highest means. However, it should be noted that first semester students
reported slightly higher means, all above 5.02, than students in their second, third, or
fourth plus semesters on these three items.
Table 16
AES Frequency of Scale Responses: Strongly Agree
Number of responses
equaling 6 or 7
%
If I thought a test was unfair, I would tell the
instructor.
121
50
If I felt an instructor’s grading was unfair, I
would tell the instructor.
129
51
If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would tell
the instructor.
129
51
Number of responses
equaling 1 or 2
%
Instructors should bend the rules for me.
122
50
I should only be required to do a minimal
amount of thinking to get an A in class.
168
69
I should get special treatment in my courses.
170
70
I would argue with the instructor to get more
points on a test.
162
66
I would demand that an instructor make an
exception for me.
170
70
Item
Table 17
AES Frequency of Scale Responses: Strongly Disagree
Item
77
The second descriptor, age range, again reported means highest on items 7,
10, and 11. Separation of cases by gender did not yield any significant findings.
Furthermore, separation of cases by educational goal also did not yield any significant
differences. Additionally, sorting the cases by high school educational attainment
yielded results similar to those found without isolating any of the descriptors. Items 7,
10 and 11 consistently had the highest percentages in the strongly agree range.
Likewise, items 2, 3, 4, 9, and 12 consistently reported the lowest means when
controlling for all demographic and descriptive indicators.
Student survey: Open-ended survey questions. Once the AES items and
questions 1–5 on the survey had been entered into SPSS, the researcher then turned
her focus to the three open-ended questions located at the end of the survey.
Responses to these questions were entered into SPSS, as well as an Excel
spreadsheet. Almost 100% of participants (N=229) responded yes. Only nine
participants felt the answer to this question was no.
Several themes emerged from the analysis of open-ended survey (OES)
question 6. Among these were equality, success, opportunity for a better life, and
opportunity for an improved job or career. Mention of equality appeared most often in
the responses; participants felt that all individuals should have the opportunity to
attend college because everyone is equal, regardless of ethnicity or socioeconomic
status. One participant stated, “I believe that all individuals should have the
opportunity to attend college because every single one of us has the right to be
someone in life and succeed.” Furthermore, most respondents indicated that they felt
all individuals should have the opportunity to attend college because all deserve the
78
opportunity to better their positions in life. Securing a good job or career was also
mentioned frequently in the responses; participants viewed education as the means to
securing a better job or career.
Open-ended survey question 7 (Do you believe that all individuals are entitled
to earn a college education?) yielded similar results. Of 237 responses, 169
participants answered this question with an answer of yes. Sixty-eight participants
responded to this question with an answer of no. Upon analysis of the explanations
offered by the participants, again themes of equality and improving one’s status in life
and career emerged. However, the researcher also noted that participants approached
the question differently; some students approached it as a conditional statement, “If
students work for it, then they are entitled to earn it.” Although 169 participants
responded affirmatively, in the explanations, students, regardless of a yes or no
response, indicated that all students are entitled to earn an education if they work for
it.
For OES 8, fewer participants responded in the affirmative than on the
previous two questions; out of a total of 231 responses, 131 participants felt that all
individuals deserve a college education. Therefore, another theme that emerged from
the data is one of hard work; participants felt that students are entitled to earn an
education with the stipulation that they have worked to deserve it. Similar to the
previous question, regardless of a yes or no response, participants indicated a belief
that students who worked hard and earned a degree deserved to get one. However,
there was not a clear explanation of what “earning” a degree meant. Few respondents
explicitly mentioned meeting outcomes as a requirement for earning a degree.
79
A few threads emerged from the responses that the researcher was not
expecting. These were connected to citizenship status, criminal records, and financial
aid. For example, some students indicated that equal opportunity should be granted to
all students, regardless of citizenship status. While these comments were not
overwhelmingly present in the analysis of the responses, it does bear mentioning that
they were included because it sheds light on how students processed questions related
to opportunity of education. Although these findings are not within the confines of
this research study, further research may be conducted around these threads.
Student interviews. Once the student surveys had been analyzed, the
researcher then created student interview questions based on the results from the
analysis of the surveys (Appendix L). Initially, the researcher had intended to
interview 12 students, six traditional (students aged 18–24) and six re-entry (students
aged 25+). From three classes, averaging 20–25 students each, 32 signed consent
forms were returned. The majority of these were traditional students; only five
students indicated they were re-entry. Because of the time during the semester at this
point, late November, the researcher decided to move forward with the interviews.
As discussed earlier in the chapter, ten students were interviewed. Nine
students were in their first or second semester of college, and nine had also graduated
from high school with a diploma. One student, a male, had earned his
GED/Certificate of Proficiency. Fifty percent of students interviewed fell into the 19
or less age category; the other five students varied in age from 20–50 plus.
Educational goals varied, but four students indicated that their goal was to earn a BA
degree after completing an AA degree; one indicated that he would like to earn a BA
80
degree without first receiving an AA degree. Two students indicated a desire to
complete an AA degree and not transfer. The remaining three students had careerrelated goals (maintain certificate or license, advance in a current job, discover career
interests).
The pilot testing of the interview questions revealed a problem with question
9: What does the phrase academic entitlement mean to you? Several students
indicated they did not understand this concept. The question was amended to read:
What does “academic entitlement” mean to you? Does the phrase “academic
entitlement” have a positive, neutral, or negative meaning? So, even if students could
not offer a concrete definition, they could answer the second part of the question.
The researcher began this step of the process with a rudimentary code list;
once the code list had been finalized, the researcher then coded all the documents. An
entire code list can found in Appendix P. Beginning with themes from the open-ended
survey questions, the researcher added codes related to instructor quality. Initially, the
researcher had several codes connected to instructor quality, but upon reorganization,
these became child codes underneath the larger theme of instructor quality.
The first three interview questions were based on items 7, 10, and 11 from the
AES scale that was used in the student survey. Interviewees were first asked to rank
the item on a Likert scale of 1-7 and then provide a rationale for their rankings. The
mean for these three items were similar to the means from the AES survey (Table 18).
When asked to explain why students felt it was appropriate to tell their
instructors if they thought a test was unfair, students’ actual responses varied.
However, there were similar threads in their responses. Students stated that they felt
81
Table 18
Comparison of AES Items
AES item
Surveys (M)
Interviews (M)
7. If I thought a test was unfair, I would tell the
instructor.
5.05
5.11
10. If I felt an instructor’s grading was unfair, I
would tell the instructor.
5.32
5.11
11. If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would
tell the instructor.
5.04
5.22
they should tell their instructor if a test was unfair because the instructor had not
properly prepared them for the test. Student 6 said,
I’ve had this happen before, when they put questions up that we didn’t even
go over and why have a test that is unfair if we didn’t even learn the material.
So they should at least give us a warning to let us know that the material is
going to be on the test and they don’t even give us a warning.
Another student, Student 8, indicated that if the instructor has not covered all the
material on the test, then it is unfair: “Maybe it’s [the test] covering like five or six
things, but we only went over two. Basically, as long as it’s been covered and we had
a good amount of time to go over it, that’s basically it.” Other students stated that
they would not tell the instructor because of apprehension in approaching their
instructors. Student 10 stated the following: “Honestly, I wouldn’t [tell the instructor].
I might say something in high school, but not here because there is more intimidation.
They look like they know what they are doing, [they are] more superior.”
Interviewees responded to the second question concerning the fairness of an
instructor’s grading in two ways: the student’s grades in comparison to the rest of the
82
class or the entire class in relationship to the instructor. Overall, students reported that
they expected fairness, equality, and justification. They stated that they expect to be
treated equally in relation to the rest of the students in class; in addition, they expect a
clear explanation of how their grades are determined. Student 7 stated that he “would
just talk to them to see how they graded and ask them to clarify how they arrived at
my grade. Most instructors tell how they grade and if this one didn't, I would ask for
clarification.”
For question 3 (If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would tell the instructor),
interviewees made several references to effort. They indicated that they felt that if
they had put in a great amount of an effort on a project or in a class, they expected to
receive a good grade. If their grades did not meet their expectations, they then stated
that they felt it important to go to their instructor to determine why the mismatch had
occurred. Student 4 indicated that she would speak to the instructor “because if I
studied really hard and knew I did something right, I would go and tell the
instructor.” When asked what she felt her grade should be based on, she replied with
“all my hard work.” Likewise, Student 2 stated, “If I put all my effort and work into
this I would speak up and feel like I need a higher grade.”
For interview question 4 (What do you expect from your teachers?),
interviewees had varied responses. Among these were references to appropriateness
of material, fairness, and caring. The first theme, appropriateness of material, was
mentioned the most. Students stated that they felt that instructors should focus on the
appropriate content for the course, explain it clearly, give students adequate time to
complete assignments, and keep mention of their personal lives to a minimum.
83
Student 1 stated the following:
I expect them to teach us what we’re supposed to learn. I don’t like when they
talk so much about their own lives. I have one teacher who does that, last class
he talked about himself for an hour, and I had to leave early, so I didn’t learn
anything.
Additionally, students were concerned about instructor fairness. They indicated that
they felt instructors should be fair to all students and treat all students equally.
Student 6 mentioned that he expected his instructors to hold all students to the same
attendance guidelines:
I heard before I came to college that I had to be on time. I know that
sometimes people [students] are tardy, but to be tardy more that 3 or 4 times,
wow. I am never tardy. I get here and am always waiting for my classes,
sometimes 1 or 2 hours before my classes. I expect other students to be on
time and I expect the teacher to enforce it; they are trying to be nice. I
understand people have busy schedules, [but] I have a busy schedule.
Two female interviewees indicated that they expected a certain amount of caring from
their instructors; Student 9 stated that a good instructor is:
Someone who teaches you what you are supposed to be doing in your class
and helps you out, that cares for you [be]cause there are some instructors out
there who just go out there and are not teaching you what you’re supposed to
be learning at that grade level. Instructors I believe that are doing a good job,
you know, a good instructor, will teach you that and help you, try to help you
as much as he can.
Responses to question 5 (Do you believe that all individuals deserve a college
education?) were overwhelmingly affirmative. Student 7 stated that he “believe[s]
that is not fair to say that some people can and some people can't. If people want to
come to school to better themselves, then they should have the opportunity to do so.”
A few interviewees indicated that not all students deserved a college education, but
students explained that this would be because those individuals did not desire the
education. Student 5 stated that:
84
Not all [individuals deserve a college education] because sometimes the work
people want to do isn’t college required, but I would recommend it. Because
sometimes people work in the fields and all that stuff because they can’t get a
college degree because they think they don’t have smarts, but having a college
degree opens a lot of doors.
The student responses to questions 6, 7, and 8 were most commonly linked to
better jobs, and, ultimately, better lives. Responses to question 6 (What does a college
education mean to you?) centered around college as a pathway to a better job. Student
1 replied, “for me, it’s about bettering myself, get[ting] a better job, support[ing] my
family, and get[ting] off welfare.” Secondary responses included themes of selfimprovement and accomplishment. Student 9 stated that “for me, it means, um, like
getting a better job and making my family proud of me because I’m the only one right
now going to college.”
The next interview question (To you personally, what does a college degree
mean/stand for?) garnered responses similar to question 6. Student 9, a single mother
of two, stated that for her, a college degree means that “you have a better education if
you have a college degree and you are able to get better positions at work.” When
asked if there were any other meanings it symbolized for her, she responded with the
following about her return to school:
For me coming back to school right now means a lot. I am determined to stay
in school and finish my school. It means that my daughters can see I did it.
That way they can have a role model when they go to school. It’s gonna be
hard for me, but I know I can do it, but it’s gonna be hard on me.
Question 8 (In our society, what does a college education/degree stand for?)
required that students expand their definition of what a college degree means/stands
for from their personal perspective to what a college degree stands for in our society.
Student 2 indicated “It [a college degree] means a lot now in our society. Without a
85
degree, you are not getting a good job.” Another student stated that a college degree
means “that you have worked hard for something and you've taken the time to better
yourself.” This same student, Student 6, had already indicated that to him personally,
a college degree meant “a better career and a better life.”
Interviewees had a difficult time answering question 9 (What does academic
entitlement mean to you?). As expected, students had a difficult time voicing
definitions of the phrase. One interviewee said the following: “Entitled like you have
the right? [It means] That everyone has a right to go to school.” Interestingly, all
students indicated that the phrase had a positive or neutral meaning; no students
indicated that the phrase had a negative meaning for them. Student 5 responded with
the following: “Academic means study, school. Entitle is their right, so like it’s a
right to get an education. It would depend on the way you use it, I would say neutral.”
The student interviews, while confirming some themes that were introduced in
the student surveys, also brought to light a few additional threads. Student responses
to the three items from the AES scale indicated that students felt it appropriate to
approach their instructor in instances when they felt they had been treated unfairly
because they (the students) expect fairness, equality, and justification for why they
had earned a particular grade. Additionally, the aforementioned characteristics also
contributed to the list of qualities the students expected to see in their instructors.
Furthermore, the students interviewed indicated that they view effort as highly
connected to a grade; therefore, the effort one puts in on a project should be reflected
in the final grade. Figure 2 lists themes that emerged from the interviews.
86
Figure 2. Themes from student interviews.
Faculty surveys. The final stage of the study included the faculty survey. As
discussed previously, the faculty survey was distributed electronically to basic skills
faculty at three community colleges. The colleges were selected based on similar
FTES in basic skills as identified through the CCCCO Data Mart. College A was also
the site of the student survey and student interviews. The faculty who responded to
the survey were from a variety of disciplines and represented varying degrees of
teaching experiences and instructional load types.
Two faculty surveys were distributed to faculty. The original survey was
emailed to faculty in January. Faculty were given two weeks to respond. Once these
responses had been collected and analyzed, the researcher felt it necessary to create a
supplemental survey in order to fully explore two research questions and better
represent the faculty voice. The supplemental survey was created, pilot tested
following the same protocol as the original, and a link was emailed to faculty during
the last week of February. Again, faculty were given two weeks to respond. Results
from the original faculty survey and supplemental survey have been included here.
The first faculty survey question following the descriptor questions was
designed to parallel the AES on the student survey. Faculty were asked to rate each of
87
the twelve items from the AES on the same Likert scale range used in the student
surveys and interviews, a scale of 1–7. However, where students were asked to rate
the items based on indicators of strongly agree or strongly disagree, faculty were
asked to apply the 1–7 scale to indicators of frequency where 1 equals not at all and 7
is very frequently. The scale was broken down into three groups: responses of 1 and
2; responses of 3, 4, and 5; and responses of 6 and 7. Table 19 shows the breakdown
of faculty responses to the AES items by frequency of occurrence.
Unlike the student responses to the AES, no items from the faculty responses
were on the upper end of the scale that would indicate an item occurs very frequently.
The highest percentages by frequency were on the lower end of the scale, indicating
that the items from the AES were not experienced freqeuently by the faculty who
responded to the survey.
Question 9 on the faculty survey asked faculty to explain what a student’s
final grade is based on in their classes. Of the 57 responses, only six responses
mentioned participation. The remaining factors were product-based, including essays,
test and exams, homework assignments, and ability. One instructor responded,
“Ability. Student grades are based on multiple assessment measurements designed to
reflect their understanding of course material. Student grades accurately portray their
comprehension and ability to appropriately apply concepts.” No faculty explicitly
mentioned effort as an indicator of grade.
Question 10 on the faculty survey asked the following: Do you believe that all
individuals should have the opportunity to attend college? Almost 90% of
respondents indicated the answer to this question is yes (see Table 19). Only six
88
Table 19
Faculty Survey: AES Items by Frequency
Item
1&2
3, 4, & 5
6&7
Average
31
(50%)
26
(42%)
5
(8%)
3.18
2. Tell you that your grading is
unfair?
43
(70.5%)
16
(26.2%)
2
(3.3%)
2.30
3. Tell you they deserve a higher
grade?
40
(64.5%)
20
(32.3%)
2
(3.2%)
2.52
4. Ask you to bend the rules for
them?
31
(50%)
19
(30.6%)
12
(19.4%)
3.35
38
(61.3%)
18
(29%)
6
(9.7%)
2.66
31
(50%)
24
(38.7%)
7
(11.3%)
3.05
7. Expect to only do a minimal
amount of thinking and
receive an "A"?
18
(29.0%)
31
(50%)
13
(21%)
3.79
8. Confront you to argue about
their grades?
42
(67.7%)
17
(27.4%)
3
(4.8%)
2.35
9. Argue with you to get more
points on a test?
41
(66.1%)
16
(25.8%)
5
(8.1%)
2.58
10. Demand that you make an
exception for them?
40
(64.5%)
20
(32.3%)
2
(3.2%)
2.37
11. Ask you to make
accommodations for their
personal situations?
19
(30.6%)
27
(43.5%)
16
(25.8%)
3.94
12. Tell you that a test/assignment
is unfair?
36
(58.1%)
12
(19.4%)
4
(6.5%)
2.32
1. Attempt to negotiate their
grades with you?
5. Ask you to modify course
requirements for them?
6. Ask you for special treatment?
89
faculty members answered no to this question. Several responses made reference to
the mission of the community college—open access for all. One faculty response
stated that opportunity “is and has been a defining characteristic of the community
college.” Another indicated that while everyone should have the opportunity to
attend, not all individuals are meant to attend college, nor will all be successful once
in college. Furthermore, a thread that emerged from the faculty responses to this
question indicated that not all individuals should attend college; the general
consensus of the respondents is that no one should be denied the opportunity to attend
college, but not everyone should.
The next question asked faculty to respond to whether or not they believe all
individuals deserve a college degree. (see Table 19). In contrast to the previous
question, only five faculty selected yes. More than 90% of respondents indicated that
they felt the answer to this question was no. Responses overwhelmingly indicated that
if an individual has not met the requirements for a degree, then it should not be
earned. Many responses referred back to the choice of the word opportunity in the
previous question; all individuals should have the opportunity to attend college, but a
degree should be awarded only to those who have successfully fulfilled the degree
requirements. As one faculty stated, “they deserve the opportunity to try, but not a
guarantee of a degree.”
Question 12 (Do you believe that all individuals are entitled to earn a college
degree?) yielded responses split almost evenly between yes and no (see Table 20).
Fifty-four percent selected yes, and 45.6% selected no. Several faculty responded that
they viewed this question the same as question 10, Do you believe that all individuals
90
Table 20
Responses to Faculty Survey Questions 10-12
Survey questions
Yes
No
Do you believe that all individuals should have the
opportunity to attend college?
51
(89.5%)
6
(10.5%)
Do you believe that all individuals deserve a college
degree?
5
(8.8%)
52
(91.2%)
Do you believe that all individuals are entitled to earn a
college education?
31
(54.4%)
26
(45.6%)
should have the opportunity to attend college? Others indicated that there was a
contradiction within the question itself; “entitled" and “earn” were viewed as
contradictory terms by some, making the question confusing. One faculty stated,
“everyone is entitled to the opportunity to try to earn a college education, though not
all are capable of doing so.” Regardless of yes or no response, faculty explained that
if a student earns a degree, then it should be awarded.
The next question focused on the connotation of the phrase academic
entitlement. Sixty-eight percent of individuals responded that the phrase academic
entitlement has a negative connotation (see Table 21). Twenty-six percent indicated
the phrase was neutral, and only three individuals indicated that the phrase holds a
positive meaning.
The last question (What does academic entitlement mean to you?) was
responded to in several different ways. Responses to the last question ranged from
system-wide issues to individual classrooms; one response stated the following: “it
means that the education system must adapt to all students. All students are entitled to
91
Table 21
Academic Entitlement Connotation
Connotation
Actual # of
responses
%
Positive
3
5.3
Neutral
15
26.3
Negative
39
68.4
receiving passing grades and a diploma for putting in limited thinking rather than
mastering materials.” Another faculty member related it to the classroom level:
To me this means accommodating and changing my curriculum to
accommodate those who only warm seats and are not prepared for the
academic requirements of working independently and complete weekly tasks
and then to drop at the end of the semester to avoid a failing grade.
Most responses indicated that academic entitlement is negative and indicative of a
degree that was awarded without much effort put forth. One individual stated “that
people have the right to an education; they should have the opportunity, but not the
right.” A few suggested that the phrase has no meaning to them, or, as one faculty
indicated, “Nothing. I resist labels that would make me pre-judge my students'
attitudes.”
The supplemental survey consisted of three questions; all were ranked items.
The first question asked faculty to rank a statement using the same 7-point Likert
scale that was used in other stages of the study, where 1 equaled strongly disagree
and 7 equaled strongly agree. The first statement (Academic entitlement is a problem
among the basic skills student population) garnered 39 responses. The average rating
92
was 4.64. Table 22 shows the frequency of responses identified for each number on
the Likert scale, 1 through 7.
Table 22
Frequency of Responses for Faculty Rating of Pervasiveness of Academic Entitlement
in Basic Skills Population
Statement
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Academic entitlement
is a problem among
the basic skills
student population.
1
2.6%
6
15.4%
2
5.1%
4
10.3%
13
33.3%
10
25.6%
3
7.7%
Questions 2 and 3 on the supplemental survey asked faculty to rank items in
order (1, 2, & 3). The second question read as follows: I believe the primary reasons
for students' academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions stem from (identify
no more than 3 in ranked order). Six choices were provided from which faculty could
select their rankings, and an additional choice of other was also included. Table 23
shows the choices and the number of responses ranking each reason as 1, 2, or 3.
The most frequent selection, in terms of number one ranking and all rankings,
was the reason: the prevailing attitudes towards education by the current generation
of traditional-age college students. This choice was closely followed by the reasons:
the way students were taught in the K12 system and teachers failing to hold students
to established academic standards and course expectations. Table 24 shows the
responses using a weighted analysis; number 1 rankings were multiplied by three,
number two rankings were multiplied by 2, and number 3 rankings were multiplied
93
Table 23
Faculty Ranking: Reasons for Student Academic Entitlement Attitudes
# of 1
ranking
# of 2
ranking
# of 3
ranking
The way students were taught in the K12
educational system
10
10
4
The prevailing attitudes towards education
by the current generation of traditional-age
college students
12
6
7
The perpetuation of the American Dream
through acquisition of a college degree
3
4
3
Grade inflation in many courses
3
6
5
Teachers failing to hold students to
established academic standards and course
expectations
8
8
8
A poorly designed financial aid system
2
2
7
Other
1
1
2
Reason
Table 24
Weighted Analysis of Faculty Ranking: Reasons for Student Academic Entitlement
Attitudes
Reason
Sum of weighted
rankings
The prevailing attitudes towards education by the current
generation of traditional-age college students
55
The way students were taught in the K12 educational system
54
Teachers failing to hold students to established academic
standards and course expectations
48
Grade inflation in many courses
26
The perpetuation of the American Dream through acquisition
of a college degree
20
A poorly designed financial aid system
15
Other
5
94
by 1. The total number shown in the table represents the sum of the weighted
rankings of 1, 2, or 3 for each choice. The other reasons identified varied, but two of
the responses focused on the culture of self-esteem. As one faculty member stated:
I believe we live in an entitlement society, which values self-esteem above all
and which, for instance, gives all children on sports teams a trophy just for
being part of the team. I believe this has opened the door for students to feel
they deserve an A just for signing up for the class and showing up more than
half the time —whether they do anything or not—and that if this does not
happen, then it is because the teacher is unfair.
Another faculty response indicated the academic entitlement problems stems from a
“lack of administrative and parental support.” The final other response for this
question stated that the economy is one of the reasons for academic entitlement
attitudes: a “college education with financial aid is better than low or
unemployment.”
Where question 2 asked faculty to identify the reasons for academic
entitlement attitudes, question 3 asked faculty to rank the most promising solutions
for addressing students' academic entitlement behaviors, beliefs, and actions are
(identify no more than 3 choices in ranked order). Eight choices, plus an additional
field for other responses was included. Table 24 shows the choices and number of
faculty ranking each item as 1, 2, or 3.
The most frequent choice for top ranking was the solution of requiring firstyear experience courses for all incoming students, and this choice also had the
highest consolidated ranking once the selections were weighted and the weighted
rankings were totaled for each selection (see Table 26). The next highest choice for a
number 1 ranking was to reform the community college financial aid system;
95
Table 25
Faculty Ranking: Solutions for Addressing Students’ Academic Entitlement Attitudes
# of 1
ranking
# of 2
ranking
# of 3
ranking
Reform the community college financial aid
system
7
1
4
Require orientations for all new students
2
1
1
Require first-year experience courses for all
incoming students.
10
5
5
Improve partnerships between community
colleges and the K12 system
6
7
4
Provide stronger administrative support for
faculty to enforce course standards
6
7
5
Mandate monitoring of student progress in
courses
0
3
1
Improve faculty development as it relates to
enabling behaviors and academic standards
5
7
9
Clearly outline the roles of faculty and
administrators in upholding academic
standards
4
7
5
Other
1
0
1
Solution
however, this choice was not as highly ranked at 2 and 3 selections as some of the
other choices and moved to number 6 in the weighted analysis.
Only two faculty members identified other solutions for addressing students’
academic entitlement behaviors. One faculty stated:
All of the choices given above are merely treating the symptoms, not the
underlying cause. Here is what has to change: excellence and merit need to be
valued again; "elitism", the belief that certain ideas, products, and
performances are in fact better than others, needs to be defended again; and
96
Table 26
Weighted Analysis of Faculty Ranking: Solutions for Addressing Students’ Academic
Entitlement Attitudes
Solution
Sum of weighted
rankings
Require first-year experience courses for all incoming
students.
45
Improve faculty development as it relates to enabling
behaviors and academic standards
40
Provide stronger administrative support for faculty to enforce
course standards
38
Improve partnerships between community colleges and the
K12 system
34
Clearly outline the roles of faculty and administrators in
upholding academic standards
31
Reform the community college financial aid system
30
Require orientations for all new students
8
Mandate monitoring of student progress in courses
7
Other
4
pride and satisfaction need to once again be things that are earned, not handed
out indiscriminately. Most community college teachers I know are attempting
to do just this. But good luck changing all those cultural forces with a few ad
hoc prescriptions.
The other faculty did not clearly state another solution; rather, the faculty
member stated that he did not know if there is a an answer:
I don't know that there is a "promising" solution. Society needs to turn around
and turn away from prizing "self-esteem" above hard work and responsibility,
but we've had such luxury for so long and haven't had to work as hard as
previous generations, and we've wanted to make things easy on our kids - that
I wonder how this can happen.
97
In conclusion, the faculty survey included responses of 64 faculty from three
California community colleges. The faculty responses to the AES items indicated that
none of the items from the AES were reported as being encountered on a frequent
basis by the majority of faculty. Furthermore, faculty distinguished a clear line
between opportunity and earn. While the majority felt that all individuals should have
the opportunity to attend college, many reported that they feel that college is not the
place for all students, and that many students would be better served in a nonacademic setting. Additionally, unlike the student interviewees, most faculty view the
phrase academic entitlement as negative.
Analysis of the supplemental survey indicated that 66.6% of faculty agreed
that academic entitlement is a problem in basic skills. Furthermore, faculty most
frequently reported the causes of students’ academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors,
and actions as being connected to generational status. Solutions indicated by faculty
focused on student indoctrination, administrative support, K12 partnerships, and
faculty development. Figure 3 shows themes that emerged from the faculty surveys.
Figure 3. Themes from faculty survey.
98
Conclusion
To summarize, this three-phase explorative study focused on students’
academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions. Students and faculty were
involved in this multiphase study. Two hundred and forty-five students participated in
the student survey, ten students participated in the student interviews, and 64 faculty
from three California community colleges completed the electronic faculty survey.
The student surveys were distributed and analyzed first, followed by the student
interviews, and, finally, the faculty surveys. In this chapter, the data collection for the
study was summarized. Additionally, the demographics for all participants in the
study were discussed, and the results and findings of each data collection point were
reported. In the following chapter, the researcher will interpret the findings of the
study, connect the findings to the literature referenced in Chapter II, and provide
recommendations for actions and further study.
CHAPTER V
INTERPRETATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This mixed methods exploratory study focused on academic entitlement beliefs,
behaviors, and actions within basic skills at the community college level. This chapter
first provides an overview of the study and a summary of the findings from each data
collection point. Next, the researcher will provide interpretations of the findings,
organized by each research questions. Then, the researcher will outline the program
objectives and limitations of the study. Finally, the researcher will conclude with
recommendations for action and further study.
Five research questions were posed in the study. One question focused solely on
students, three focused on faculty, and one question incorporated perspectives of both
students and faculty.
•
RQ1: How is “academic entitlement” defined by basic skills students and
faculty?
•
RQ2: To what extent do academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and
actions exist in the basic skills student population?
o RQ2A: How do students explain their beliefs and/or actions?
•
RQ3: What do faculty perceive to constitute academic entitlement
behaviors?
•
RQ4: What do faculty perceive to cause and/or facilitate student academic
entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills?
99
100
•
RQ5: What do faculty believe could/should be done to address student
academic entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills?
RQ1 was addressed in the student interviews and faculty survey. RQ2 was
addressed in the Academic Entitlement Scales (AES) that was included on the student
survey. RQ3, 4, and 5 were addressed in the electronic faculty survey.
The study included perspectives from both faculty and students. The student
participants were enrolled in either an English reading or writing course two levels
below the transfer-level course at one California community college. Basic skills
faculty participants were from three California community colleges; one college was
the also the site of the student sample. The remaining two colleges were chosen based
on similar FTES in basic skills as the first college.
Summary of Findings
Student surveys. The first stage of the study, the student survey, included 245
usable surveys. Students were asked to rate each item based on a 7-point Likert scale,
where 1 equaled strongly disagree and 7 equaled strongly agree. The scale was
categorized into three groups: responses of 1 and 2; responses of 3, 4, and 5; and
responses of 6 and 7. Because it is difficult to identify only one number as neutral, the
researcher determined that items 1 and 3 would indicate strongly disagree and
responses 6 and 7 would represent strongly agree. The middle items, 3 through 5,
would represent neutral responses.
Students reported high frequencies on the upper end of the entitlement scale on
three items on the AES:
•
If I thought a test/assignment was unfair, I would tell the instructor (50%).
101
•
If I felt an instructor’s grading was unfair, I would tell the instructor
(51%).
•
If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would tell the instructor (51%).
As indicated, at least 50% of students reported ratings of 6 or 7 on these three items.
Findings were consistent when controlling for the demographics and descriptors of
age, semester in college, gender, educational goal, and high school educational
attainment. Similarly, students reported high frequencies on the lower end of the
entitlement scale for five items on the AES:
•
Instructors should bend the rules for me (50%).
•
I should only be required to do a minimal amount of thinking to get an A
in a class (69%).
•
I should get special treatment in my courses (70%).
•
I would argue with the instructor to get more points on a test (66%).
•
I would demand than an instructor make an exception for me (70%).
These five items all had frequencies of 50% or greater for a rating of 1 or 2, which
equaled strongly disagree on the 7-point Likert scale. Again, findings were consistent
when controlling for the demographics and descriptors of age, semester in college,
gender, educational goal, and high school educational attainment.
The open-ended questions on the student survey indicated that the majority of
students surveyed feel that all individuals should have the opportunity to attend
college (94%). Additionally, 71% reported that they believe that all individuals are
entitled to earn a college education. Fifty-one percent reported that they believe that
all individuals deserve a college degree. Themes that emerged from the open-ended
102
student survey questions included equality, work ethic, and education as a path to a
better career and improved quality of life.
Student interviews. Ten students were interviewed in the second stage of the
study; these students asked to participate in the interviews were not participants in the
student surveys. The students ranged in age from 18 to beyond 50. Three of the
interviewees were males and seven were female. Seven of the ten were in their first
semester of college; two were in their second, and one was in her fourth semester.
The students cited varied educational goals, but the most common selection was to
obtain a BA degree after completing an AA (4 of 10 students).
The students were asked nine predetermined questions. The first three
questions required students to rank a statement using the same Likert scale from the
student survey and then provide an explanation of their ranking. The three questions
were the three items for which students reported the highest frequencies from the
student surveys. The students’ responses during the interviews were similar in mean
when compared to the mean from the student survey for the same items (see Table
27).
Students offered explanations with common threads of fairness, equality, and
justification. They stated that they expected to be treated equally to the rest of the
students in class; additionally, they stated that they expected clear explanations of
how their grades are determined. Students also indicated, with regards to the third
item in Table 17, that they equated amount of effort exerted to a good grade. If
students’ grades did equal students’ perceptions of what they thought their grades
103
Table 27
Comparison of AES Items
AES item
Surveys (M)
Interviews (M)
7. If I thought a test was unfair, I would tell the
instructor.
5.05
5.11
10. If I felt an instructor’s grading was unfair, I
would tell the instructor.
5.32
5.11
11. If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would
tell the instructor.
5.04
5.22
should be, students reported that they felt it important to ask their instructors to
explain how their grades were determined. Students stated that they expected their
instructors to exhibit fairness and caring. Additionally, students reported that they felt
instructors should adhere to the required material for the course, and that instructors
should clearly explain and cover all material that students were responsible for
learning. Student 1 stated the following:
I expect them to teach us what we’re supposed to learn. I don’t like when they
talk so much about their own lives. I have one teacher who does that, last class
he talked about himself for an hour, and I had to leave early, so I didn’t learn
anything.
Similar to the student survey, the student interviewees reported that they feel
all individuals should have the opportunity to earn a college education if they so
desire. Furthermore, these students indicated that a college education is closely linked
to improved career opportunities, and, ultimately, an improved quality of life.
Students also reported that they feel a college degree is associated with selfimprovement and personal accomplishment. Student 9 stated, “for me, it means, um,
104
like getting a better job and making my family proud of me because I’m the only one
right now going to college.”
The final two interview questions were the most difficult for students to
answer. Students were asked to define academic entitlement and to indicate if it has a
positive, neutral, or negative meaning. One interviewee said the following: “Entitled
like you have the right? [It means] That everyone has a right to go to school.” While
students struggled to define the phrase, all students interviewed stated that they think
it has a positive or neutral meaning; no students indicated that the phrase has a
negative meaning for them.
The researcher did not note many significant differences between traditional
students and re-entry students. All students, regardless of status as traditional or reentry, expected fairness and equality from their instructors. Additionally, all students
expected good grades based on what they reported as “effort.” Furthermore, neither
grouping of students was comfortable defining the phrase academic entitlement. One
difference the researcher did note was that the returning students all mentioned that
going to school was difficult for them, and, if they had children, mentioned wanting
to provide a role model for their children:
For me coming back to school right now means a lot. I am determined to stay
in school and finish my school. It means that my daughter can see I did it.
That way they can have a role model when they go to school. It’s gonna be
hard for me, but I know I can do it, but it’s gonna be hard on me.
Because the question of school as a challenge was not posed directly to all
interviewees, one cannot conclude that attending school was not difficult for the
traditional age students; one can only conclude that this line of thought is on the
minds of the re-entry students. Another difference the researcher noted between male
105
and female interviewees was in regard to quality of instructor. Two female
interviewees stated that they expect instructors to exhibit caring, as was expressed by
Student 9:
[A good instructor is] someone who teaches you what you are supposed to be
doing in your class and helps you out, that cares for you [be]cause there are
some instructors out there who just go out there and are not teaching you what
you’re supposed to be learning at that grade level. Instructors I believe that are
doing a good job, you know, a good instructor, will teach you that and help
you, try to help you as much as he can.
In summary, emergent themes from the student interviewees centered around
the definition of a college education, the basis for determining grades, definitions of
academic entitlement, and desired characteristics of instructors. A few differences
were highlighted between traditional and re-entry students, but, essentially, the
student interviewees’ statements agreed with each other and aligned with the
duplicate items on the student survey.
Faculty surveys. The faculty survey was conducted during the final stage of
the study. The survey, distributed electronically to faculty at three California
community colleges, yielded 64 responses. After analyzing data from the initial
survey responses, the researcher determined that responses were not adequate to
address RQ4 and RQ5. In order to better represent the faculty voice on these two
questions, a supplemental survey was created with three questions. The researcher
followed the same pilot testing protocol for these three questions as she did with the
original survey. The supplemental survey was sent to the same group of faculty, and
only faculty who had participated in the first survey were asked to complete the
supplemental questions; 40 faculty completed the supplemental questions.
106
Based on responses from the original survey, respondents had varied
experiences teaching basic skills; the highest percentage of faculty reported teaching
basic skills for more than ten years (40.6%). Additionally, participants represented a
variety of disciplines, with English ranking as the most frequent selection. Although
slightly more tenured or tenure-track faculty participated in the survey, 39.1% of
participants identified themselves as adjunct instructors. In terms of teaching
experiences, 40.6% of respondents reported experiences teaching both college level
and basic skills courses at their institutions, although they had not taught the entire
range of courses offered. Similarly, 43.8% of faculty indicated that they teach a
balance between basic skills and college level courses. Although only the highest
percentages of faculty responses have been included in this chapter, faculty from all
descriptor categories responded to the survey.
Following the demographic and descriptor questions, basic skills faculty were
asked to rate the 12 AES items in terms of frequency. So, whereas students were
asked to rate the same items using a 7-point scale where 1 equaled strongly disagree
and 7 equaled strongly agree, faculty were asked to rate each item on a scale of 1–7,
where 1 equaled never and 7 equaled very frequently (see Table 28).
Although none of the items had a high percentage of frequencies in the 6 and
7 range, it is interesting to note that the faculty ratings did not align with the student
ratings. The three items that students reported the highest frequencies in the strongly
agree range (marked with an asterisk on Table 17) actually yielded high percentages
indicating “not at all” on the faculty survey. Additionally, the three items that did
have the highest frequencies of 6 and 7 on the faculty survey were rated very low by
107
Table 28
Faculty Survey: AES Items by Frequency
Item
1&2
3, 4, & 5
6&7
M
31
26
5
3.18
(50%)
(42%)
(8%)
Tell you that your grading is unfair?a
43
(70.5%)
16
(26.2%)
2
(3.3%)
2.30
Tell you they deserve a higher grade?a
40
(64.5%)
20
(32.3%)
2
(3.2%)
2.52
31
(50%)
19
(30.6%)
12
(19.4%)
3.35
38
(61.3%)
18
(29%)
6
(9.7%)
2.66
31
(50%)
24
(38.7%)
7
(11.3%)
3.05
Expect to only do a minimal amount of
thinking and receive an "A"?
18
(29.0%)
31
(50%)
13
(21%)
3.79
Confront you to argue about their
grades?
42
(67.7%)
17
(27.4%)
3
(4.8%)
2.35
Argue with you to get more points on a
test?
41
(66.1%)
16
(25.8%)
5
(8.1%)
2.58
Demand that you make an exception for
them?
40
(64.5%)
20
(32.3%)
2
(3.2%)
2.37
Ask you to make accommodations for
their personal situations?
19
(30.6%)
27
(43.5%)
16
(25.8%)
3.94
Tell you that a test/assignment is
unfair?a
36
(58.1%)
12
(19.4%)
4
(6.5%)
2.32
Attempt to negotiate their grades with
you?
Ask you to bend the rules for them?
Ask you to modify course requirements
for them?
Ask you for special treatment?
a
These items had the highest frequencies in the 6 and 7 range on the student survey.
108
students, especially the statement, “I should only be required to do a minimal amount
of thinking to get an A in a class.”
The comparison of results from the student survey and faculty survey are
clearer when the reported means for each item on the AES are compared. Table 29
shows a comparison of the mean of each item from the student surveys and faculty
surveys.
Next, faculty were asked to describe the components that factor into a
student’s final grade. Of the 57 responses, only six responses mentioned participation.
The remaining factors were product-based, including essays, tests and exams,
homework assignments, and ability. One instructor responded, “Ability. Student
grades are based on multiple assessment measurements designed to reflect their
understanding of course material. Student grades accurately portray their
comprehension and ability to appropriately apply concepts.” No faculty explicitly
mentioned effort as an indicator of grade.
Questions 10-12 on the faculty survey have been summarized in Table 30.
The supplemental faculty survey questions yielded responses that indicated while
most faculty reported neutral feelings towards the statement, Academic entitlement is
a problem among the basic skills student population, 66.4% of faculty surveyed chose
a rating of 5, 6, or 7. Approximately 23% of faculty selected ratings of 1, 2, or 3,
indicating that more faculty than not believe academic entitlement is a problem
among the basic skills student population.
109
Table 29
Comparison of Means: Student Survey and Faculty Survey
Student survey
M
Faculty
survey M
1. Instructors should bend the rules for me.
2.96
3.35
2. An instructor should modify course
requirements to help me.
4.12
2.66
3. I should only be required to do a minimal
amount of things to get an A in class.
2.32
3.79
4. I should get special treatment in my courses.
2.38
3.05
5. I cannot tolerate it when an instructor does not
accommodate my personal situation.
3.51
3.94
6. I would confront an instructor to argue about my
grade.
3.53
2.35
7. If I though a test was unfair, I would tell the
instructor.
5.05
2.32
8. I would attempt to negotiate my grade with the
instructor.
3.66
3.18
9. I would argue with the instructor to get more
points on a test.
2.35
2.58
10. If I felt an instructor’s grading was unfair, I
would tell the instructor.
5.32
2.30
11. If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would tell
the instructor.
5.04
2.52
12. I would demand that an instructor make an
exception for me.
2.25
2.37
AES item
110
Table 30
Responses to Faculty Survey Questions 10-12
Question
Yes
No
Do you believe that all individuals should have the
opportunity to attend college?
51
(89.5%)
6
(10.5%)
Do you believe that all individuals deserve a college degree?
5
(8.8%)
52
(91.2%)
Do you believe that all individuals are entitled to earn a
college education?
31
(54.4%)
26
(45.6%)
The most frequent reasons identified by faculty for students’ academic
entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions were (see Figure 4):
•
The prevailing attitudes towards education by the current generation of
traditional-age college students.
•
The way students were taught in the K12 system.
•
Teachers failing to hold students to established academic standards and
course expectations.
The most frequent solutions selected by faculty to address students’ academic
entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions were (see Figure 5):
•
Require first-year experience courses for all incoming students.
•
Improve faculty development as it relates to enabling behaviors and
academic standards.
•
Provide stronger administrative support for faculty to enforce course
standards.
•
Improve partnerships between community colleges and the K12 system.
Figure 4. Chart showing frequency of reasons selected by faculty.
111
112
In summary, findings from the student surveys, student interviews, and faculty
surveys addressed the extent to which academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and
actions exist within the basic skills student population; how students and faculty
define academic entitlement; reasons why students’ academic entitlement beliefs,
behaviors, and actions exist; and the most promising solutions to address students’
academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions.
Interpretation of the Findings
This exploratory study included two stages and three data collection points.
The five research questions were addressed at different points in the study. RQ1 was
addressed in student interviews and faculty surveys. RQ2 was addressed by the
Academic Entitlement Scale (AES) that was included with the student survey. Lastly,
RQ3, RQ4, and RQ5 were all addressed in the electronic faculty survey.
Research question 1: How is “academic entitlement” defined by basic
skills students and faculty? This question was addressed in the student interviews
and the faculty survey. Students had a difficult time vocalizing a definition for the
phrase. However, when asked to associate the meaning of the phrase with a positive,
neutral, or negative meaning, all students interviewed stated that they felt the phrase
was positive or neutral. Meanwhile, the majority of faculty, when posed the same
question, indicated that they felt the phrase was negative. Three faculty members
reported positive associations with the phrase, and 15 faculty (26.3%) reported a
neutral association. Only a few faculty indicated that they did not know what the
phrase meant or that the phrase held no meaning for them. This is also evidenced
Figure 5. Chart showing frequency of solutions selected by faculty.
113
114
outside this study by the fact that academic entitlement is a phrase used frequently in
opinion pieces written by faculty voicing complaints about the attitudes of students
(e.g., Benton 2006).
The common theme amongst the faculty responses was that academic
entitlement is a phrase that is used to describe a phenomenon where students believe
they are deserving of a grade or a degree without having put in the effort to earn the
grade or degree. One faculty defined the term thus: “this means students believing
they are owed an education as opposed to striving to complete a degree and learn the
discipline.” Another faculty said the following:
students don't realize the amount of work on their part required to earn an A or
even a B or a C. They think that coming to class, and doing the minimal
amount of required work is enough to earn them a passing grade...which could
be an A in their estimation.
Students, when asked to break the phrase into “academic” and “entitlement,” put
together definitions such as “the right to an education”; one student said that
“academic means study, school. Entitle is their right, so like it’s a right to get an
education.” In previous chapters, the researcher noted that certain entitlements are not
always negative; the difference between the student and faculty definitions is one of
context, and it is important to define academic entitlement within the social context
that has created the connotative meaning.
Research question 2: To what extent do academic entitlement beliefs,
behaviors, and actions exist in the basic skills student population? Discussion of
research question 2 has been combined with research question 2A.
115
Research question 2A: How do students explain their beliefs and/or
actions? Based on the student responses to the AES that was included with the
student survey, students did not report high levels of academic entitlement. Only three
items had high frequencies in the strongly agree range of the Likert scale. Likewise,
five items had high frequencies on the strongly disagree side of the scale.
Furthermore, the three items for which student did report higher levels of entitlement
are viewed by the researcher as the more passive statements on the actions portion of
the AES. These three statements, items 7, 10 and 11 on the student survey, all include
conditional students with the phrase “I would tell the instructor.” When compared
against items that include more direct commands and assertive language, such as
“should,” “demand,” “confront,” and “argue,” the three items mentioned above do
seem to be less aggressive statements. The five items that had the highest percentages
of frequencies in the 1 and 2 range included the more assertive language described
above. This finding was confirmed by Greenberger et al. (2008), who reported that
while students showed consistent support for certain items, overall they reported “a
modest level of AE [academic entitlement]” (p. 1197).
When asked to explain their beliefs and/or actions, student interviewees
indicated that they felt it necessary to approach the instructor when they felt they had
been treated unfairly, had not been adequately prepared for tests, or had put in more
effort than their grade reflected. Two forces appear to factor into the findings of the
student interviews. Lippmann et al. (2009) discussed the element of consumerism that
has been credited with shaping students’ beliefs about education; college becomes,
116
for many students, the pathway to a better job rather than a “means for greater self
awareness and recognition of one’s place in society.”
To a certain extent, students expressed that they expect instructors to be held
accountable for certain aspects of the students’ educational experiences. Students
already have established perceptions of the role of instructor, and when those
expectations are not fulfilled, such as upholding discipline standards and equity,
students feel that the instructor has not done his or her job. This finding also connects
to the work done by Twenge (2006); the emphasis on promoting positive self-esteem
has resulted in a generation of students who believe that doing one’s best is all that
matters, as evident in the student interviewees’ emphasis on effort exerted rather than
quality of product produced (p. 86).
Research question 3: What do faculty perceive to constitute academic
entitlement behaviors? Faculty indicated several behaviors that could be classified
as academic entitlement behaviors. First of all, some faculty indicated that students
who attempt to obtain a higher degree without understanding what their educational
goals entail are exhibiting academic entitlement behaviors. This could reflect the idea
that many students now view college as a “’right’ because it is increasingly required
for employment and because more of students’ friends are attending college”
(Lippmann et al., 2009, p. 199). Furthermore, many more faculty reported academic
entitlement behaviors as students showing up and occupying space, but not expecting
to put in adequate effort to earn a high grade. Similarly, faculty also identified the
beliefs of students who believe they can do a minimal amount of work to earn an A.
This parallels the responses for the faculty rankings on the AES items, where the item
117
connected to effort of thought (How often do you have student who expect to do a
minimal amount of thinking and receive an A) reported the second highest mean of all
twelve items. This is an interesting and important finding because of all 12 items, this
is the only one that cannot tangibly be counted; the other items could be tallied.
Research question 4: What do faculty perceive to cause and/or facilitate
student academic entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills? The most
frequent reason indentified by faculty focused on the prevailing attitudes towards
education of the current generation of traditional college-age students. This finding
aligns with the work that has been done by Twenge (2006); in her work, Twenge
discussed Generation Y and how the self-esteem movement has influenced
perceptions towards education, and life in general, of the current generation of
students. Two other reasons closely followed the generational reason in terms of
overall number of rankings (see Figure 4). These were:
•
Teachers failing to hold students to established academic standards and
course expectations.
•
The way students were taught in the K12 educational system.
Tkatchov and Pollnow (2008) stated that “teacher beliefs tend to create a selffulfilling prophecy: teachers will get the outcomes that they expect from their
students.” Furthermore, other studies have shown that expectations and successes are
connected; low expectations result in fewer successes, and high expectations result in
more academic achievements (Tkatchov & Pollnow, 2008).
With regards to the way students were taught in the K12 educational system,
this illustrates the relationship amongst community colleges, K12, and four-year
118
colleges and universities. When two-year schools were first introduced into the
educational system, they were viewed as extensions of the K12 system. However, as
two-year colleges established themselves in the system, they have faced confusion
over their alignment; should they mirror the K12 system, or should they align
themselves with other institutions of higher education? The focus on accountability in
the K12 system and strict guidelines that teachers must adhere to, sometimes called
“teaching to the test,” have resulted in harsh criticisms of the K12 system from
institutions of higher education (Brock, 2010, p. 116).
Research question 5: What do faculty believe could/should be done to
address students academic entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills?
Based on the responses to the supplemental faculty survey, most faculty reported their
number one ranking as implementing and requiring first-year experience courses for
all incoming students. The trend towards learning communities and first-year
experiences courses has resulted in positive gains for students in terms of success,
retention, and persistence (Tinto, 1997, p. 3). Students in these first-year experience
courses also reported higher levels of satisfaction with college in general (Tinto,
1997, p. 3). Currently, learning communities and first-year experience courses are
typically small offerings and are not required of all students, although this does vary
from campus to campus.
The second-highest top individual ranking did not fare well in the number of
overall rankings. Eight faculty identified the financial aid system as in need of
reform. Overall, 13 faculty identified this as a reason, regardless of 1, 2, or 3 ranking.
Brock (2010) stated that the financial aid system is not as effective as it could be; the
119
primary criticism against government aid is that it has not maintained currency with
the increasing costs of going to college (p. 123). Yet other complaints focus on the
complex application process and lack of success in distributing funds to the
individuals with the greatest financial need (p. 123).
The other frequently selected solutions focused not directly on students, but
on faculty and administration (refer to Figure 5):
•
Improve faculty development as it relates to enabling behaviors and
academic standards.
•
Provide stronger administrative support for faculty to enforce course
standards.
•
Improve partnerships between community colleges and the K12 system.
Levin, Cox, Cerven, and Haberler (2010) referred to “cohesion, cooperation,
connection, and consistency” as effective practices focused on decreasing differences
among student outcomes based on background; essentially, these practices help to
even the playing field for all students. Cohesion and cooperation speak to all faculty,
staff, and administrators working in collaboration with one another all under the
auspices of a common goal.
Based on the results of this study, all faculty and administrators are not clearly
focused on the same goal. Furthermore, faculty identified the need for increased
faculty development related to enabling behaviors and academic standards; a starting
point is to determine the standards to which faculty should hold students accountable
at the individual faculty level, the program level, and the campus level. Ideally, all
standards should align. Finally, connection speaks to the partnership aspect identified
120
by faculty; Levin et al. (2010) recommend establishing strong connection both
internally and externally; creating strong partnerships is important to student success.
Conclusions
The goal of this study was to contribute to the work that has been done in
basic skills in an effort to better understand the basic skills student population
attending California community colleges, with a particular focus on students’
academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions as understood by both students
and faculty. In recent years, many innovations implemented on community college
campuses throughout the state have had a focus of improving student success (Asera,
2008). However successful, these innovations have typically been small-scale
offerings usually tied to special funding.
Although some of these offerings have seen success, it is imperative that
community colleges understand how students view their rights to pursue an education
and how they believe education will benefit them if the system is to institutionalize
this success. Additionally, it is crucial that community college educators, staff, and
administration understand the perceptions students have about college and how those
perceptions affect students’ beliefs, behaviors, and actions (Chowning & Campbell,
2009, p. 996). Likewise, it is also important that community college educators
understand their own beliefs about student entitlement. Ultimately, this study was
designed to help community colleges define misalignments in beliefs, behaviors, and
actions between the basic skills student and faculty, and, in turn, improve the
relationships amongst basic skills students, faculty, and administration.
121
The results of this study are useful not only to faculty, but to administrators as
well. As community colleges are faced with increasingly conservative fiscal
constraints, administrators will be faced with very difficult decisions to make. One of
the decisions facing community colleges is how the basic skills mission is prioritized
among the other missions of the community college; can community colleges
continue to be all things to all people? If not, then where should the cuts occur? Can
community colleges continue to fund basic skills when success rates, reported at
59.1% statewide for spring 2010, remain so dismal (CCCCO, 2010b, Program
retention/success rates)? When compared to the non-basic skills success rate for the
same semester, basic skills was approximately 11% behind the non-basic skills
success rate of 68.63% (CCCCO, 2010b, Program retention/success rates).
Lippmann et al. (2009) indicated that “students who exhibit an unrealistic
sense of entitlement often demand a significant amount of instructors’ time and
energy (p. 200); the researcher would extend this to include the institution, not only
the instructor. If basic skills students continue to enter community colleges with even
modest feelings of academic entitlement and do not meet the expectations set forth by
the institution, then institutions may turn their focuses to areas where expended
energies will be met with greater productivity.
This study shows that there is a mismatch between faculty perceptions and
student perceptions of academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions. How can
community colleges hope to institutionalize success for basic skills students if faculty
and students don’t necessarily understand each other? And, if community colleges
can work to align student, faculty, and administrators’ perceptions of education and
122
students’ rights to an education, then perhaps a solution to the basic skills effort can
be arrived at through collaboration by all vested parties.
Limitations
This study is bound by the populations of students and faculty surveyed and
interviewed. Consequently, the results of this study cannot be generalized to include
all populations of students and faculty, only basic skills. Even then, the study was
focused on students enrolled in one level of courses at one community college—to
generalize that the results of the study apply to all basic skills students and faculty is
not valid. However, this study does provide the groundwork for further study with
regards to academic entitlement.
Because this study was explorative in nature, the researcher did not have any
definite preconceived notions. The decision to pursue the topic of academic
entitlement was based on interest in exploring the concept because of the plethora of
anecdotal evidence, but lack of educational studies focused on the topic.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusions reached through analysis of the research questions,
the researcher has several recommendations for action. First of all, faculty and
students need to establish a unified working definition of the phrase academic
entitlement that can then be shared with other members of higher education, thereby
minimizing the confusion that is often connected to the phrase. Where students
interviewed indicated the word had a positive or neutral meaning, faculty
overwhelmingly reported that the phrase held a negative meaning for them. A word’s
123
connotation will hold different meanings based on its context, but the power of the
word or phrase can be harmful when a definition is used out of context. There are
certain entitlements that are not necessarily bad or harmful, and faculty and students
need to work together to determine what those are.
Furthermore, students indicated unfamiliarity with the phrase academic
entitlement, yet many more faculty were able to readily provide a definition of
academic entitlement. Based on the results of the AES, basic skills students in the
sample surveyed did not report high levels of academic entitlement attitudes.
Consequently, faculty need to examine their perceptions of students and determine if
they are truly seeing their students as individuals, rather than stereotypical
representations of students. Likewise, students need to understand fully the role of the
student and what is expected of them as college students. Although students did not
report high levels of academic entitlement on the AES, their responses to the openended survey questions and the student interviews suggested that they view a college
education as a guarantee of a better job and the result of effort, not necessarily
achievement of required outcomes.
A discussion needs to occur between students and faculty to insure that all
parties understand their roles and responsibilities in their learning processes; starting
this discussion could be done at the classroom level in a variety of ways. One way
may be to have students rank the items on the AES and use the AES to start a
discussion of expectations for those groups on both sides of the podium. This
discussion should include the roles and responsibilities of the teacher and the student,
the purpose of education, and perceptions on the importance of student effort. This
124
discussion should take place in the classroom, but it should also extend beyond the
confines of the classroom to include the campus and the community.
Once clear expectations and responsibilities have been mutually defined and
understood, instructors should insure that care is taken to uphold the defined
standards. Lippmann et al. (2009) state the importance of clear and detailed
expectations set forth in the class syllabus, followed by detailed rubrics used for
grading assignments (p. 200). Furthermore, establishing and adhering to strict
deadlines for submission of assignments also helps to alleviate student entitlement
actions of turning in assignments late with no penalties (p. 200).
Beyond the classroom, academic standards should still be maintained.
Academic support services should be included in this conversation. Policies and
procedures should be evaluated to assess current policies and procedures for enabling
behaviors. As suggested in the faculty survey and literature, the financial aid system
is not without fault. Reforming the financial aid system has gained national attention;
the Obama administration has itemized this as a top priority, and some changes have
already been made (Brock, 2010, p. 123). However, it is important that the reform
efforts include student accountability as well as access.
Administrators and faculty should also think about the results of this study. As
faculty are welcomed into the community college system, care needs to be taken to
insure that faculty, who typically hold MA degrees and beyond, fully understand the
student populations in their classes; even if faculty did not start their careers as model
students, by the end of their college educations, most faculty had learned to become
good students. Sometimes faculty, who typically hold advanced degrees, can grow
125
out of touch with the life experiences brought to the classroom by community college
students.
New faculty should be required to participate in faculty learning academies.
One such academy at College A is encouraged of all its first-year teachers and spans
one semester; upon completion, faculty can earn one unit towards salary
advancement. Additionally, all faculty should be required to maintain currency in
their disciplines and also maintain a current understanding of their student
populations within their classes, campuses, and communities. This element should be
part of the evaluation process for tenured faculty. The evaluation process should
include built-in mechanisms that require faculty to reflect on their own practices and
determine if they are enabling students’ academic entitlement behaviors. Moreover,
resources should be allotted for faculty and staff development focused on helping
faculty and staff understand the common traits and behaviors that many students,
regardless of basic skills status, may exhibit and provide faculty with techniques to
minimize student entitlement behaviors.
Furthermore, educators also need to understand the student populations their
colleges serve and how to best introduce new students to the demands and rigors of
college life. Orientations should be required of all entering students. Moreover,
orientations, typically focused on navigating the services provided by the college,
should be expanded to include a more comprehensive introduction to college life,
including, but not limited to, student roles and responsibilities. An additional
recommendation following this same line of thought is the implementation and
institutionalization of first-year experience courses. This would be in addition to, not
126
in lieu of, a required orientation. Several studies have found that comprehensive firstyear courses have established the framework for student expectations for students’
entire college careers (Hyers & Joslin, 1998 in Lippmann et al., 2009).
Yet another recommendation is that institutions closely scrutinize and assess
their basic skills offerings. One college in the study currently offers courses four
levels below transfer. Students in these classes are equated to read at approximately a
fifth grade reading level. Faculty need to ask if they are offering these sections for the
right reasons. Is it truly fair and just to students, under the premise of open access, to
enroll students in these “college” courses when their chances for completion of a
degree are very low? Or, do community colleges keep these courses on record so
institutions can promise education for all, regardless of the realities of success and
persistence for these courses? The question institutions should ask is “Where would
these students gain the most benefits?” The answer may not be in college; it may be
in noncredit, or it could be in a partnership program with adult education. There are
many possibilities, but reassessing and realigning our offerings would also help to set
clear expectations and help students understand that going to college is an
opportunity, but not necessarily a right.
Communication is key—in the classroom, on the campus, and in the
community. Faculty need to listen to their students and set clear guidelines and
expectations. Students need to understand the role that being a student should hold in
their lives, amidst the other roles of mother, father, worker, etc. Additionally, faculty
and administration need to combine efforts to provide a comprehensive and honest
college experience for all students; open access does not guarantee an education. If
127
colleges can present a unified message that a college education is available for those
who wish to work hard and meet certain academic standards, then the message will
spread throughout the community that college is one path for individuals, but not the
only path.
Recommendations for Further Study
The researcher has several recommendations for further study. The first is to
evaluate academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions of students who begin
their college careers in transfer-level courses against those who begin their college
careers in basic skills courses to determine if there is difference in the academic
entitlement attitudes between the two different populations of students.
Also valuable would be a study comparing the perceptions relating to student
and faculty roles and responsibilities in the learning process of faculty and students
within the same classes. Although this study measured the academic entitlement
attitudes of students and faculty, the faculty surveyed were not necessarily the
classroom instructors for the students surveyed. Directly comparing the perceptions
of students and faculty within the same classes may help to pinpoint the
misalignments in beliefs and actions.
An additional area of future study is in the meaning of a grade. A large-scale
study focusing on the differences in how students and faculty view grades would
perhaps bring greater understanding to the discussion of grade inflation, which is not
directly connected to this study but is loosely connected to the academic entitlement
discussion. Furthermore, this would also contribute to the work that has been done on
academic student entitlement as it relates to student effort.
128
Academic entitlement is a very timely issue in educational studies, as is
indicated by the recency of publications located by the researcher. Because the
number of educational studies found focusing on academic entitlement is not great,
there is a tremendous amount of room for researchers to design studies focusing on
academic entitlement.
Summary
To conclude, Chapter V presented an interpretation of the findings of the
study. Additionally, program objectives were reiterated and recommendations for
further action and study were outlined. Based on the findings from the study, which
included a student survey, student interviews, and a faculty survey, the researcher
made several recommendations for faculty and administrators. Also, several
recommendations were also outlined for further research that both directly and
indirectly connected to the issue of academic entitlement.
In summary, this dissertation was presented in five chapters. The mixed
methods exploratory study began by focusing on students’ academic entitlement
beliefs, behaviors, and actions. Both basic skills students and basic skills faculty’s
perspectives were represented in the study through the use of surveys and interviews.
The study was conducted in two stages, with three data collections points. Because of
the exploratory design, each step in the study had to be completed and the data
analyzed before continuing to the next step. Chapter I presented an overview of the
study, including a statement of the problem and the significance of a study focusing
on academic entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions. Chapter II provided a review
of available literature on the history of community colleges, basic skills, academic
129
entitlement, and research methodology. Chapters III through V focused on the design
of the study, the findings, and, finally, interpretation and application of the findings.
This mixed methods exploratory study has answered many questions, but also
created many more. The study was focused on the basic skills population, who,
although they cannot be identified collectively by a “typical” student, all share a
common need to improve basic skills in reading, writing, and math that will empower
them to become more active participants in their communities, both locally and
globally. Because this study was exploratory in nature, the researcher did not have
grand designs of solving any one problem; even so, the results of this study should
contribute to the larger discussion of basic skills students in California community
colleges. The question to ask is where do educators go from here?
REFERENCES
131
REFERENCES
Abowitz, D. A. (2005). Social mobility and the American dream: What do college
students believe? College Student Journal, 39(4), 716–728.
Accuplacer Test (2010). Accuplacer test success: Get one step ahead in placements.
Retrieved from http://www.accuplacer-test.com
Achacoso, M. V. (2002). What do you mean my grade is not an A? An investigation
of academic entitlement, causal attributions, and self-regulation in college
students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Database.
(3225897)
Asera, R. (2008). “Change and sustain/ability: A program director’s reflections on
institutional learning.” Strengthening pre-collegiate education in community
colleges. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of
developmental education in community college. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 145, 11–30. doi: 10.1002/cc.352
Barr, J., & Schuetz, P. (2008). Overview of foundational issues. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 144, 7–16. doi: 10.1002/cc.341
Benton, T. H. (2006). A tough love manifesto for professors. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 52(40), C1-C4.
Bills, D. B. (2004). The sociology of education and work. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
132
Bond, L. (2009). “Toward informative assessment and a culture of evidence.”
Strengthening pre-collegiate education in community colleges. Stanford, CA:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brint, S. & Karabel, J. (1989). The Diverted dream: Community colleges and the
promise of educational opportunity in America, 1990-1985. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Brock, T. (2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to
success. The Future of Children, 20(1), 109–131.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2010a). Fulltime Equivalent
Students [Data Mart & Reports]. Retrieved from https://misweb.cccco.edu/
mis/onlinestat/ftes.cfm
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2010b). Program
retention/success rates [Data Mart & Reports]. Retrieved from https://misweb.
cccco.edu/mis/onlinestat/ret_sucs.cfm
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2010c). Student demographics
[Data Mart & Reports]. Retrieved from https://misweb.cccco.edu/mis/
onlinestat/studdemo_dist_cube.cfm
California Education Code. (2010). Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/california/
codes/edc.html
California State Department of Education. (1960). A master plan for higher education
in California, 1960–1975. Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/
mastplan/MasterPlan1960.pdf
133
Center for Student Success. (2007). Basic skills as a foundation for success in
California community colleges. Retrieved from http://www.cccbsi.org/
Websites/basicskills/Images/BasicSkills_booklet-2.pdf
Chowning, K., & Campbell, N. J. (2009). Development and validation of a measure
of academic entitlement: Individual differences in students’ externalized
responsibility and entitled expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology,
101(4), 982–997. doi: 10.1037/a0016351
Ciani, K. D., Summers, J. J., & Easter, M. A. (2008, Dec.). Gender differences in
academic entitlement among college students. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 169(4), 332–344. Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com
Coghlan, D. (2007). Insider action research doctorates: Generating actionable
knowledge. Higher Education, 54, 293–306. doi: 10.1007-s10734-005-5450-0
Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (2008). The American community college. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Collier, P. J., & Morgan, D. L. (2007). “Is that paper really due today?”: Differences
in first-generation and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty
expectations. Higher Education, 55(4), 425–446. doi: 10.1007/s10734-0079065-5
Correa, E. (2006). Pedagogy of the obsessed shifting the focus. College Quarterly,
9(3). Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: MerrillPrentice Hall.
134
Creswell, J. W. (2004). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed
methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cross, P. K. (1998). What do we know about students’ learning and how do we know
it? Paper session presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Association for Higher Education, Atlanta. Retrieved from ERIC database.
EdSource. (2005, Mar.). Quality. Access. Low cost: Can California community
colleges do it all?, 1–24. Palo Alto: EdSource, Inc. Retrieved from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_CommCollege3-05_report.html
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies
for analysis and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. P. (2008). Self-entitled college
students: Contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors.
Journal of Youth Adolescence, 37, 1193–1204. doi: 10.1007/s10969-0089284-9
Guffey, J. S., Rampp, L. C., & Masters, M. M. (1998). A paradigm shift in teaching
the academically unprepared student: Building a case for an andragogical
methodology. College Student Journal, 32(3), 423–430.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2007). The action research dissertation: A guide for
students and faculty. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
135
The History of community colleges. (2010). Retrieved from
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1873/Community-Colleges.html
Hwang, Y. G. (1995). Student apathy, lack of self-responsibility and false self-esteem
are failing American schools. Education, 115(4), 484-490.
Illowsky, B. (2008, Winter). The California basic skills initiative. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 144, 83–91.
Job Shadow Coalition. (2009). Teens say “being happy” is the American dream, not
being “rich and famous” or “owning my own business” in new poll. Retrieved
from http://www.jobshadow.org
Kozeracki, C., & Brooks, J. (2006). Emerging institutional support for developmental
education. New Directions for Community Colleges, 136, 63–73. doi:
10.1002/cc.260
Levin, J. S. (2007). Nontraditional students and community colleges: The conflict of
justice and neoliberalism. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Levin, J. S., Cox, E., Cerven, C., & Haberler, Z. (2010). The recipe for promising
practices in community colleges. Community College Review 38(1), 31–58.
Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (1998a). When hope and fear collide. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (1998b, Feb.). What we know about today’s college
students. About Campus, 3(1), 4–9.
Levinson, D. L. (2005). Community colleges: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara,
CA: ABC-CLIO.
136
Lippman, S., Bulanda, R. E., & Wagenaar, T. C. (2009). Student entitlement: Issues
and strategies for confronting entitlement in the classroom and beyond.
College Teaching, 57(4), 197–204.
Lovell, V., & Baran, B. (2010). At a crossroads: Basic skills education in California.
Retrieved from http://www.cbp.org/publications/pub_2009.html
McGrath, D., & Van Buskirk, W. (1999). Cultures of support for at-risk students: The
role of social and emotional capital in the educational experiences of women.
In K. M. Shaw, J. R. Valadez, & R. A. Roads (Eds.), Community colleges as
cultural texts (pp.15–38). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Associates. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Example for
discussion and analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, M. A., & Murray, C. (2005). Advising academically underprepared students.
Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/clearinghouse/advisingissues/
academically-underprepared.htm
Moore, C., Shulock, N., Ceja, M., & Lang, D. M. (2007). Beyond the open door:
Increasing student success in the California community colleges. Retrieved
from http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Beyond_Open_Door_08-07.pdf
Oudenhoven, B. (2002). Remediation at the community college: Pressing issues,
uncertain solutions. New directions for community colleges, 117, 35–44.
Rogers, G. (n d.). Sample protocol for pilot testing survey items. Retrieved from
http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Assessment/Protocol
_item%20testing.pdf
137
Roosevelt, M. (2009, Feb. 18). Student expectations seen as causing grade disputes.
New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Scott, J. (Dec. 2009). Joint legislative committee to review the master plan for higher.
Education, 1–6. Retrieved from
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CompleteReports/ExternalDocuments/MasterPlan200
9FoundationScott.pdf
Shaw, K. M. (1999). Defining the self: Constructions of identity in community
college students. In K. M. Shaw, J. R. Valadez, & R. A. Rhoads (Eds.),
Community colleges as cultural texts (pp. 153–172). Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Shaw, K. M., Valadez, J. R., & Rhoads, R. A. (1999). Community colleges as cultural
texts: A conceptual overview. In K. M. Shaw, J. R. Valadez, & R. A. Rhoads
(Eds.), Community colleges as cultural texts (pp. 1–14). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Shulock, N. & Moore, C. (Feb. 2007). Rules of the game: How state policy creates
barriers to degree completion and impedes student success in the California
community colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Rules_of_the_Game_02-07.pdf
Steil J. M., McGann, V. L., & Kahn, A. S. (2001). Entitlement. In J. Worrell, (Ed.),
Encylcopedia of women and gender: Sex similarities and differences and the
impact of society on gender (pp. 403–410). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
138
Stringer, E. (2008). Action research in education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Tinto, V. (1997). Universities as learning organizations. About campus, 1(6), 2–4.
Retrieved from http://www.web.ebscohost.com
Tkatchov, O., & Pollnow, S. (2008). High expectations and differentiation equal
academic success. Retrieved from http://www.web.ebscohost.com
Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Zwerling, L. S. (1986). Lifelong learning: A new form of tracking. In L. S. Zwerling,
(Ed.) The community college and its critics (pp. 53–60). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
APPENDICES
140
APPENDIX A
ACADEMIC ENTITLEMENT SCALE
Entitlement Beliefs
1. Instructors should bend the rules for me.
2. An instructor should modify course requirements to help me.
3. I should only be required to do a minimal amount of thinking to get an A in a
class.
4. I should get special treatment in my courses.
5. I cannot tolerate it when an instructor does not accommodate my personal
situation.
Entitlement Actions
6. I would confront an instructor to argue about my grade.
7. If I thought a test/assignment was unfair, I would tell the instructor.
8. I would attempt to negotiate my grade with my instructor.
9. I would argue with the instructor to get more points on a test.
10. If I felt an instructor’s grading was unfair, I would tell the instructor.
11. If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would tell the instructor.
12. I would demand that an instructor make an exception for me. (Achacoso, 2002)
The AES will be accompanied by the following questions:
1. Please indicate your semester in college.
a. First
141
b. Second
c. Third
d. Fourth +
2. Please indicate your age range:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
19 or less
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-49
50+
3. Please identify your gender:
a. Male
b. Female
4. Please indicate educational goals. Choose up to 3, ranking in order of
preference (1, 2, 3)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
Obtain a Bachelor’s Degree after completing an Associate’s Degree
Obtain a Bachelor’s Degree without completing an Associate’s Degree
Obtain a two-year vocational degree without transfer
Obtain a two-year Associate’s Degree without transfer
Earn a vocational certificate without transfer
Discover/formulate career interests, plans, goals
Prepare for a new career (acquire job skills)
Advance in a current job/career (update job skills)
Maintain certificate or license (e.g. nursing, real estate)
Educational development/personal enrichment (intellectual, cultural)
Improve basic skills in English, Reading, or Math
Complete credits for high school diploma or GED
4-year college student taking courses to meet 4-year college requirements
142
5. Please indicate your high school educational attainment:
a.
b.
c.
d.
High School Diploma
GED
High School Diploma (Alternative School)
No High School Diploma or Equivalent
6. Do you believe that all individuals should have the opportunity to attend
college? Yes/no. Please explain.
7. Do you believe that all individuals are entitled to earn a college education?
Yes/no. Please explain.
8. Do you believe that all individuals deserve a college degree? Yes/no. Please
explain.
143
APPENDIX B
ORAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR STUDENTS
Time Required: Approximately 1 hour
Subjects 4-6 persons
Purpose: As a part of a research project to fulfill a doctoral dissertation, I am
developing a survey designed to assess your perceptions of students’ academic
entitlement beliefs, behaviors, and actions. I appreciate your willingness to help us
pilot test the survey and provide us some feedback on your understanding and
perception of the survey items. Your individual responses in the pilot test phase are
not going to be recorded or reported to anyone except those who are designing the
survey.
Process:
1. The researcher will provide copies of the survey.
2. Please note how much time is required to answer all items.
3. Once you have completed the survey, respond to each survey item in four
ways.
a. Understandable: Was the item “understandable?” That is, did you
have to read the item more than once to understand what it was
asking? Was the meaning of the questions clear and straightforward?
b. Scale adequate: Was the scale adequate? That is, do you fell the scale
provided you with an appropriate way to respond?
c. Only one response: Was the item written in such a way that you could
have answered it more than one way? (E.g., could you have said
BOTH “very little” and “very much?”)
d. Loaded: In your opinion, was the item written in such a way that there
was ONLY one OBVIOUS answer for you? In other words, the way
the item is worded, it is highly unlikely that respondents would be able
to respond using more than one response choice.
4. Please circle yes/no for each item.
For any items you answered “no,” please explain why you responded this way in the
Comments box.
144
Understandable?
Please indicate your
semester in college.
1. Yes No
Please indicate your age
range.
2. Yes No
Please identify your
gender.
3. Yes No
Please indicate your end
goal for attending college.
4. Yes No
Please indicate your high
school educational
attainment.
5. Yes No
Do you believe that all
individuals should have
the opportunity to attend
college? Yes/No. Please
explain.
6. Yes No
Do you believe that all
individuals should be
entitled to earn a college
education? Yes/No. Please
explain.
7. Yes No
What does the phrase
“academic entitlement”
mean to you?
8. Yes No
Scale
Adequate?
Yes No
Only one
response?
Yes No
Loaded?
Comments
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Format adopted from Sample Protocol for Pilot Testing Survey Items by Gloria
Rogers, ABET, Inc.
145
APPENDIX C
PROTOCOL FOR PILOT TESTING FACULTY SURVEY ITEMS
Time Required: Approximately 1 hour
Subjects 4-6 persons
Purpose: As a part of a research project to fulfill a doctoral dissertation, I am
developing a survey designed to assess students’ academic entitlement beliefs,
behaviors, and actions. I appreciate your willingness to help us pilot test the survey
and provide us some feedback on your understanding and perception of the survey
items. Your individual responses in the pilot test phase are not going to be recorded or
reported to anyone except those who are designing the survey.
Process:
1. The researcher will provide copies of the survey.
2. Please note how much time is required to answer all items.
3. Once you have completed the survey, respond to each survey item in four
ways.
a. Understandable: Was the item “understandable?” That is, did you
have to read the item more than once to understand what it was
asking? Was the meaning of the questions clear and straightforward?
b. Scale adequate: Was the scale adequate? That is, do you fell the scale
provided you with an appropriate way to respond?
c. Only one response: Was the item written in such a way that you could
have answered it more than one way? (E.g., could you have said
BOTH “very little” and “very much?”)
d. Loaded: In your opinion, was the item written in such a way that there
was ONLY one OBVIOUS answer for you? In other words, the way
the item is worded, it is highly unlikely that respondents would be able
to respond using more than one response choice.
4. Please circle yes/no for each item.
For any items you answered “no,” please explain why you responded this way in the
Comments box.
146
Understandable?
Scale
Adequate?
Only one
Loaded?
Comments
Yes No
response?
1. Do you believe
that all
individuals
should have the
opportunity to
attend college?
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No 10. Yes No
3. What does the 11. Yes No
phrase “academic
entitlement”
mean to you?
12. Yes No
13. Yes No 14. Yes No
16. Yes No
17. Yes No 18. Yes No
Yes No
2. Do you believe
that all
individuals
should be entitled
to earn a college
education?
Yes No
Yes No
4. How often are 15. Yes No
you asked (by
students) to bend
the rules of your
course(s)? Rate
your response on
a Likert scale
from 1-5, where
1 is never and 5
is very
frequently.
Yes No
147
5. How often are 19. Yes No
you confronted
by students who
argue about their
grades? Rate
your response on
a Likert scale
from 1-5, where
1 is never and 5
is very frequently.
20. Yes No
21. Yes No 22. Yes No
6. How often do 23. Yes No
your students
attempt to
negotiate their
grades? Rate
your response on
a Likert scale
from 1-5, where
1 is never and 5
is very frequently.
Yes No
24. Yes No
25. Yes No 26. Yes No
7. How often do 27. Yes No
students argue
with you to
increases their
points on a test?
Rate your
response on a
Likert scale from
1-5, where 1 is
never and 5 is
very frequently.
Yes No
28. Yes No
29. Yes No 30. Yes No
Yes No
*Because of the design of the study, the questions included here are sample questions.
Based on the results of the AES survey, the questions may change. However, in all
instances, this protocol will be followed to ensure validity and reliability of the
instrument. Format adopted from Sample Protocol for Pilot Testing Survey Items by
Gloria Rogers, ABET, Inc.
148
APPENDIX D
PROTOCOL FOR PILOT TESTING STUDENT
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Time Required: Approximately 1 hour
Subjects 4-6 persons
Purpose:
As a part of a research project to fulfill a doctoral dissertation, I am developing
several interview questions designed to assess students’ academic entitlement beliefs,
behaviors, and actions. I appreciate your willingness to help us pilot test the interview
questions and provide us some feedback on your understanding and perception of the
interview questions. Your individual responses in the pilot test phase are not going to
be recorded or reported to anyone except those who are designing the interview
questions.
Process:
1. The researcher will provide copies of the interview questions.
2. Please note how much time is required to answer all items.
3. Once you have completed the survey, respond to each survey item in four
ways.
a. Understandable: Was the item “understandable?” That is, did you
have to read the item more than once to understand what it was
asking? Was the meaning of the questions clear and straightforward?
b. Only one response: Was the item written in such a way that you could
have answered it more than one way? (E.g., could you have said
BOTH “very little” and “very much?”)
c. Loaded: In your opinion, was the item written in such a way that there
was ONLY one OBVIOUS answer for you? In other words, the way
the item is worded, it is highly unlikely that respondents would be able
to respond using more than one response choice.
4. Please circle yes/no for each item.
For any items you answered “no,” please explain why you responded this way in the
Comments box
149
Understandable?
Do you believe that all
individuals should have
opportunity to attend college?
1.Yes No
Do you believe that all
individuals should be entitled
to earn a college education?
2. Yes No
Why have you decided to
enroll in college at this time?
3. Yes No
Do you feel that it is okay to
negotiate with your instructors
for a grade? Explain why you
feel this way.
4. Yes No
What criteria do you think
instructors should grade
students on? Provide a list of
examples.
5. Yes No
Only one
response?
Yes No
Loaded?
Comments
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Format adopted from Sample Protocol for Pilot Testing Survey Items by Gloria
Rogers, ABET, Inc.
These are sample interview questions. The final interview questions will be piloted in
the same manner as outlined above.
150
APPENDIX E
KEY POINTS FOR EVALUATING QUESTIONS IN
INTERVIEWS (ADOPTED FROM ULRICH 1999)
1. Why do you ask this specific question?
a. What is its theoretical relevance?
b. What is the link to the research question?
2. For what reason do you ask in this question?
a. What is the substantial dimension of this question?
3. Why did you formulate the question in this way (and not differently)?
a. Is the question easy to understand?
b. Is the question ambiguous?
c. Is the question productive?
4. Why did you position this question (or block of questions) at this specific
place in the interview guide?
a. How does it fit into the rough and detailed structure of the interview
guide?
b. How is the distribution of types of question spread across the interview
guide?
c. What is the relation between single questions?
151
APPENDIX F
ENGLISH 81 COURSE OUTLINE
________ College
Course Outline
1. Course Number: ENGL 81 and Title: Basic Reading Tactics II
2. Units 3 - 3 Hours: Lecture (Weekly): 3 (Per Term): 54 Lab (Weekly): (Per Term):
Number of "in the classroom" hours: 54
3.ENTRANCE SKILLS:
Prerequisite: Before entering the course the student should be able to:
ENGL 80
and
Linked Student Learning Outcomes:
Demonstrate basic reading comprehension at an 8th grade level
Employ critical reading/thinking skills at a 6th to 8th grade level
Distinguish main ideas and supporting detail in material up to an eighth grade level
Interpret conclusions
Recognize factual details
Demonstrate ability to recognize inferences
ENGL 80L
1-Way Co-requisite Skills: During the course the student should acquire the ability
to: NONE
2-Way Co-requisite Skills: During the course the student should acquire the ability
to:
ENGL 81L
Advisory Skills: Upon entering the course it is recommended that the student be able
to:
ENGL 84 Concurrent enrollment
Limitation on Enrollment: NONE
Recency and Other Measures of Readiness: NONE
4. Catalog Description:
This class emphasizes comprehension and critical thinking skills at a pre-college
reading level. This course is for students who need to work applying reading
comprehension skills and critical
reading/thinking skills to pre-college level reading materials. Instruction will focus on
strategies used to build reading skills.
5. Typical Text(s), Author/Edition, Publication Date(s) and Supplies
152
Brenda D. Smith, Bridging the Gap, (7th/e). Pearson Education. (2003).
6. Student Learning Outcomes: Upon successful completion of the course, the
student should be able to verbally or in writing:
A. Comprehend reading selections at an 11th grade level
1. Locate and assess stated main ideas (topic sentences)
2. Formulate and compose unstated (implied) main ideas
3. Distinguish between major and minor details
4. Evaluate inferences with increased proficiency
5. Recognize and apply transitional words and phrases
6. Identify organizational patterns
B. Apply critical reading skills to 11th grade textbooks
1. Evaluate fact and opinion
2. Analyze author's purpose
3. Recognize bias and tone
4. Identify arguments
5. Analyze creative and critical thinking
C. Apply study skills to reading materials
1. Examine and apply a study system
2. Create outlines and maps for reading selections
D. Apply strategies to determine and increase vocabulary
1. Examine and apply word parts
2. Analyze Context Clues
3. Identify transitional words and phrases
Student Learning Objectives:
7. Course Content and Scope:
A. Course Content, in outline form (attach on separate sheet)
B. Required Readings:
1. Weekly assignments from textbooks
2. Assignments based on areas
C. Required Writing Assignments:
1. Respond to questions about textbook reading selections
2. Construct mind maps of reading selections
3. Organize outlines reading selections
4. Compose creation of topic sentences for implied main ideas
5. Create paraphrases of topic sentences for stated main ideas and supporting
details
D. Learning Activities Required Outside of Class:
1. Assigned readings
2. Application of reading techniques to content areas-history, health, etc
3. Assignments relating to newspapers, magazines, and/or Internet
E. Assignments or Activities that Demonstrate Critical Thinking:
Student Learning Outcome Activities
153
Analyze readings for significant facts and inferences
Identify the thought pattern
Distinguish the difference between facts and opinions
Analyze bias and tone
Assess diversionary tactics and propaganda
Methods of Instruction:
Student Learning Outcome Methods
Lecture
Other - Small and large group discussions
Other - Handouts
Other - Individual conferences
Other - Computer or overhead projections
Other - Assignments in reading lab
Methods of Evaluation:
Student Learning Outcome Assessments
Other - Weekly assignments in various reading areas
Other - Analysis of students' progress in individual student-teacher conferences
Quizzes
COURSE CONTENT
Topic Learning Outcomes
1. Techniques to learn and recall textbook material
A. Study system
B. Mind-mapping and outlining
C. Paraphrasing and summarizing ideas within a reading selection
D. Charting information
E. Test taking strategies
2. Review of strategies for reading comprehension and application to an 11th grade
level
A. Topics, stated/unstated main ideas in paragraphs and longer selections
B. Major and minor details
C. Organizational patterns of various reading passages
D. inferences
E. Transitional words and phrases
F. Context clues and word parts
3. Strategies for critical reading and thinking
A. Fact and opinion
B. Author's purpose in various readings
C. Bias
D. Tone
E. Arguments
F. Creative and critical thinking
4. Strategies to increase vocabulary
154
A. Vocabulary in context
B. Word parts
C. Transitional words and phrases
155
APPENDIX G
ENGLISH 84 COURSE OUTLINE
_______ College
Course Outline
1. Course Number: ENGL 84 and Title: Basic Writing Skills II - Paragraph To
Essay
2. Units 5 - 5 Hours: Lecture (Weekly): 5 (Per Term): 90 Lab (Weekly): (Per Term):
Number of "in the classroom" hours: 90
3. ENTRANCE SKILLS:
Prerequisite: Before entering the course the student should be able to:
ENGL 83
1-Way Co-requisite Skills: During the course the student should acquire the ability
to: NONE
2-Way Co-requisite Skills: During the course the student should acquire the ability
to: NONE
Advisory Skills: Upon entering the course it is recommended that the student be able
to:
ENGL 81 Concurrent enrollment
Limitation on Enrollment: NONE
Recency and Other Measures of Readiness: NONE
4. Catalog Description:
This course is devoted to developing competency in writing paragraph and short
essays by means of intensive practice in writing, including paragraph structure and
development, focusing on short essays.
5. Typical Text(s), Author/Edition, Publication Date(s) and Supplies
A. Franklin Parks, James A. Levernier, Ida Masters Hollowell, Structuring
Paragraphs and Essays, -. (2001).
Ann Moseley, Jeanette Harris, Interactions: A Thematic Reader, -. (2006).
Ed Reynolds, Marcia Huntington, Confidence in Writing, -. (2002).
6. Student Learning Outcomes: Upon successful completion of the course, the
student should be able to verbally or in writing:
A. Explore and utilize the writing process.
B. Demonstrate a basic competence in grammar, syntax, and mechanics.
C. Compose topic sentences and unified paragraphs.
156
D. Compose thesis statements and unified short essays.
E. Analyze texts and readings for use in writing.
Student Learning Objectives:
7. Course Content and Scope:
A. Course Content, in outline form (attach on separate sheet)
B. Required Readings:
1. Texts
2. Supplementary materials
C. Required Writing Assignments:
1. Paragraphs
2. Short essays
D. Learning Activities Required Outside of Class:
1. Writing (paragraph, essays, summaries)
2. Reading (essays, media articles)
3. Grammar review
4. Observation; information gathering.
E. Assignments or Activities that Demonstrate Critical Thinking:
Student Learning Outcome Activities
Analyze support for topic sentences
Analyze thesis statements
Comprehend and analyze support for thesis
Comprehend and integrate into writing material from various readings
F. Lab Content and scope:
8. Methods of Instruction:
Student Learning Outcome Methods
Lecture
Class Discussion
Other - Individual conferences
Other - Peer groups
Other - Multi-media presentations
9. Methods of Evaluation:
Student Learning Outcome Assessments
Other - Paragraph and short essays
Class Participation
Exams/Tests
COURSE CONTENT
Topic Learning Outcomes
1. Utilize the writing process
A. explore and engage in prewriting activities
B. organize and compose drafts
157
C. revise writing to improve quality
D. edit writing for grammar, syntax and mechanical errors
SLOs: Explore and utilize the writing process. Demonstrate a basic competence in
grammar, syntax, and mechanics.
II. Compose unified paragraphs
A. develop and compose a focused topic sentence
B. formulate support for a topic sentence
C. organize paragraph structure and content
D. edit grammar, syntax and mechanic errors
SLOs: Demonstrate a basic competence in grammar, syntax, and mechanics.
Compose topic sentences and unified paragraphs.
III. Compose unified short essays
A. develop a clear and focused thesis
B. formulate quality support for thesis
C. organize paragraphs for effectiveness and strength
D. edit grammar, syntax and mechanical errors
SLOs: Demonstrate a basic competence in grammar, syntax, and mechanics.
Compose thesis statements and unified short essays.
IV. Analyze Readings
A. determine main idea in readings
B. locate and comprehend explicit or implicit key ideas
C. form articulated connections between readings
D. use readings and other source materials in writing
SLOs: Analyze texts and readings for use in writing.
158
APPENDIX H
IRB APPROVAL FROM CALIFORNIA
STATE UNIVERSITY, STANISLAUS
159
APPENDIX I
MERCED COLLEGE IRB FORM
160
161
APPENDIX J
DIRECTIONS TO ENGLISH 81 AND 84 FACULTY
Thank you for agreeing to aid in the distribution of the Academic Entitlement
Scale and Survey in your English 81 or English 84 class. Your participation is greatly
appreciated as this survey is the first step in a doctoral study designed to explore
academic entitlement behaviors and actions in basic skills.
You have been supplied with all needed materials in this packet. Please allow
time for completion of the survey in your class; the survey should take no more than
20 minutes, including the explanation and distribution of materials to students. Please
collect all materials from students, including non-completed surveys.
Please pass out the consent forms to students and read the form out loud to the
class. Once students have had the opportunity to read the form and have determined if
they wish to participate in the study, pass out the surveys to students who have agreed
to participate in the study by signing the consent form.
Instruct the participants to complete the AES survey by circling the correct
answer on questions 1-8 and ranking the 12 statements on the AE scale using a Likert
scale where 1 equals strongly disagree and 7 equals strongly agree.
Once your students have had the opportunity to participate and you have
collected the signed consent forms and the completed AES surveys, please return the
packets to Box #57. There are no risks to you for your participation in this study.
162
It is possible that you will not benefit directly by participating in this study.
The information collected will be protected from all inappropriate disclosure under
the law. All data will be maintained for a period of one year from the completion of
the study and will be destroyed by May 2012. Only the researcher will have access to
the data that can be linked to individual subjects. The researcher will provide each
participant with a pseudonym for any actual written papers in relation to this study.
There is no cost to you beyond the time and effort required to complete the
procedure(s) described above. Your participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate
in this study will involve no penalty or loss of benefits. You may withdraw at any
time without penalty or loss of benefits.
If you have any questions about this research project, please contact me,
Myshel Pimentel, at 209-564-7506 or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Jim Riggs at 209-6646789. If you have any questions regarding your rights and participation as a research
subject, please contact Campus Compliance, California State University, Stanislaus at
209-667-3747.
163
APPENDIX K
STUDENT CONSENT FORM (PERMISSION TO
BE CONTACTED FOR AN INTERVIEW)
Dear Participant:
You are being asked to participate in a research project that is being done to
fulfill requirements for a Doctoral degree in Educational Leadership at CSU
Stanislaus. We hope to understand more clearly the concept of academic entitlement
behaviors as perceived by students and faculty in the basic skills population. If you
decide to volunteer for this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding
your academic entitlement attitudes and beliefs about the roles of the student and
teacher. These questions will be asked of you during an interview. The interview
should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. 12 students will be invited to
participate from English 81 and English 84 classes at Merced College. The results of
this study will be used to understand the concept of academic entitlement behaviors
and actions in the basic skills student population.
There are no risks to you for your participation in this study.
It is possible that you will not benefit directly by participating in this study.
The information collected will be protected from all inappropriate disclosure under
the law. All data will be maintained for a period of one year from the completion of
the study and will be destroyed by May 2012. Only the researcher will have access to
164
the data that can be linked to individual subjects. The researcher will provide each
participant with a pseudonym for any actual written papers in relation to this study.
There is no cost to you beyond the time and effort required to complete the
procedure(s) described above. Your participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate
in this study will involve no penalty or loss of benefits. You may withdraw at any
time without penalty or loss of benefits.
If you agree to be contacted for an interview, please indicate this decision by
signing below and providing a contact number where you can be reached. If you have
any questions about this research project, please contact me, Myshel Pimentel, at 209564-7506 or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Jim Riggs at 209-664-6789. If you have any
questions regarding your rights and participation as a research subject, please contact
Campus Compliance, California State University, Stanislaus at 209-667-3747.
Only people 18 years of age or older will be allowed to participate in the
study.
Signature: ____________________________________
Date: _______________
Contact Number: (___)________________
Please answer the following to ensure the correct number of students from each
category is identified:
•
•
Please identify yourself as a traditional or re-entry student.
Traditional (Age 24 or younger)
_______
Re-entry (Age 25+)
_______
Gender: Male / Femal
165
APPENDIX L
STUDENT CONSENT FORM (INTERVIEWS)
Dear Participant:
You are being asked to participate in a research project that is being done to
fulfill requirements for a Doctoral degree in Educational Leadership at CSU
Stanislaus. We hope to understand more clearly the concept of academic entitlement
behaviors as perceived by students and faculty in the basic skills population. If you
decide to volunteer for this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding
your academic entitlement attitudes and beliefs about the roles of the student and
teacher. These questions will be asked of you during an interview. The interview
should take approximately 45 minutes to complete. 12 students will be invited to
participate from English 81 and English 84 classes at Merced College. The results of
this study will be used to understand the concept of academic entitlement behaviors
and actions in the basic skills student population.
There are no risks to you for your participation in this study.
It is possible that you will not benefit directly by participating in this study.
The information collected will be protected from all inappropriate disclosure under
the law. All data will be maintained for a period of one year from the completion of
the study and will be destroyed by May 2012. Only the researcher will have access to
the data that can be linked to individual subjects. The researcher will provide each
participant with a pseudonym for any actual written papers in relation to this study.
166
There is no cost to you beyond the time and effort required to complete the
procedure(s) described above. Your participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate
in this study will involve no penalty or loss of benefits. You may withdraw at any
time without penalty or loss of benefits.
If you agree to participate, please indicate this decision by signing below. If
you have any questions about this research project, please contact me, Myshel
Pimentel, at 209-564-7506 or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Jim Riggs at 209-664-6789. If
you have any questions regarding your rights and participation as a research subject,
please contact Campus Compliance, California State University, Stanislaus at 209667-3747.
Only people 18 years of age or older will be allowed to participate in the
study.
Signature: ______________________________________ Date: _______________
167
APPENDIX M
STUDENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. If I thought a test was unfair, I would tell the instructor.
Rank the statement on a scale of 1–7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 =
strongly agree. Why is it acceptable to do so/not do so? (When needed, ask for
explanation or examples.)
2. If I felt an instructor’s grading was unfair, I would tell the instructor.
Rank the statement on a scale of 1–7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 =
strongly agree. Why is it acceptable to do so/not do so? (When needed, ask for
explanation or examples.)
3. If I felt I deserved a higher grade, I would tell the instructor.
Rank the statement on a scale of 1–7, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 =
strongly agree. Why is it acceptable to do so/not do so? (When needed, ask for
explanation or examples.)
4. What do you expect from your college instructors?
5. Do you believe that all individuals deserve a college education? Please
explain.
6. What does a college education mean to you?
7. To you personally, what does a college degree mean/stand for?
8. In our society, what does a college degree mean/stand for?
9. What does “academic entitlement” mean to you? Does the phrase “academic
entitlement” have a positive, neutral, or negative meaning?
168
APPENDIX N
STUDENT CONSENT FORM
Dear Participant:
You are being asked to participate in a research project that is being done to
fulfill requirements for a Doctoral degree in Educational Leadership at CSU
Stanislaus. We hope to understand more clearly the concept of academic entitlement
behaviors as perceived by students and faculty in the basic skills population. If you
decide to volunteer for this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding
your academic entitlement attitudes and beliefs about the roles of the student and
teacher. These questions will be asked of you in a survey. The survey should take
about 20 minutes to complete. Approximately 400 students will be invited to
participate from 15 English 81 and English 84 classes at Merced College. The results
of this study will be used to understand the concept of academic entitlement
behaviors and actions in the basic skills student population.
There are no risks to you for your participation in this study.
It is possible that you will not benefit directly by participating in this study.
The information collected will be protected from all inappropriate disclosure under
the law. All data will be maintained for a period of one year from the completion of
the study and will be destroyed by May 2012. Only the researcher will have access to
the data that can be linked to individual subjects. The researcher will provide each
participant with a pseudonym for any actual written papers in relation to this study.
169
There is no cost to you beyond the time and effort required to complete the
procedure(s) described above. Your participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate
in this study will involve no penalty or loss of benefits. You may withdraw at any
time without penalty or loss of benefits.
If you agree to participate, please indicate this decision by signing below. If
you have any questions about this research project, please contact me, Myshel
Pimentel, at 209-564-7506 or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Jim Riggs at 209-664-6789. If
you have any questions regarding your rights and participation as a research subject,
please contact Campus Compliance, California State University, Stanislaus at 209667-3747.
Only people 18 years of age or older will be allowed to participate in the
study.
Signature: ________________________________ Date: _______________
170
APPENDIX O
FACULTY CONSENT FORM (ELECTRONIC SURVEY)
Dear Participant:
You are being asked to participate in a research project that is being done to
fulfill requirements for a Doctoral degree in Educational Leadership at CSU
Stanislaus. We hope to understand more clearly the concept of academic entitlement
behaviors as perceived by students and faculty in the basic skills population. If you
decide to volunteer for this study, you will be asked to answer questions regarding
your academic entitlement attitudes and beliefs about the roles of the student and
teacher. These questions will be asked of you in a survey. The survey should take
about 20 minutes to complete. Basic skills faculty from three California community
colleges will be surveyed. The results of this study will be used to understand the
concept of academic entitlement behaviors and actions in the basic skills student
population.
There are no risks to you for your participation in this study.
It is possible that you will not benefit directly by participating in this study.
The information collected will be protected from all inappropriate disclosure under
the law. All data will be maintained for a period of one year from the completion of
the study and will be destroyed by May 2012. Only the researcher will have access to
the data which can be linked to individual subjects. The researcher will provide each
participant with a pseudonym for any actual written papers in relation to this study.
171
There is no cost to you beyond the time and effort required to complete the
procedure(s) described above. Your participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate
in this study will involve no penalty or loss of benefits. You may withdraw at any
time without penalty or loss of benefits.
If you agree to participate, please continue to the electronic survey.
Completion of the survey indicates your willingness to participate. If you wish to revisit this consent form at anytime during the survey, please click the link provided. If
you have any questions about this research project, please contact me, Myshel
Pimentel, at 209-564-7506 or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Jim Riggs at 209-664-6789. If
you have any questions regarding your rights and participation as a research subject,
please contact Campus Compliance, California State University, Stanislaus at 209667-3747.
Only people 18 years of age or older will be allowed to participate in the study.
172
APPENDIX P
STUDENT INTERVIEW CODES
Amount of Effort
Better Life
Career/Job
Chance for Success
Equality
Fairness
Familial Pride
Family Influence
Increase Knowledge Base
Instructor Quality
o Caring
o Explicitness of material covered
o Instructor fairness
o Justification
o Preparation
o Discipline
o Appropriateness of material covered
Need-based Deservingness
Self-improvement
Self-pride
Socio-economic Status
Support Family
Time on Task
Understanding of Academic Entitlement
o 1—does not understand at all
o 2—understands somewhat
o 3—understands and answered confidently