Development and Validation of a Survey to Identify Predictors of Choice and Early Departure Among Tennessee Promise Scholarship Recipients
Buy Issue for $25 at JHUP- Development and Validation of a Survey to Identify Predictors of Choice and Early Departure Among Tennessee Promise Scholarship Recipients
The decision to attend community or technical college is influenced by a variety of individual and institutional factors, including financial barriers, academic preparation and self-efficacy, and support structures (Perna, 2006). To address the cost of college, the most consistent barrier to enrollment for students (Kelchen et al., 2017; Kinzie et al., 2004), several states and individual institutions introduced “free” college, or “promise” initiatives (Perna et al., 2017). Early research on these programs has shown that although enrollment rates increased (Collom, 2022; Jaggars, 2020), traditionally underserved students, including low-income and marginalized populations, still face significant barriers (Collom et al., 2021; Perna et al., 2021). Many of these factors persist beyond the initial barrier of enrolling in college and influence the decision to drop out. To date, no survey instruments specific to the college choice and early departure process within the context of promise programs have been published.
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an instrument to reveal factors affecting college choice and early community or technical college departure among promise-eligible students. The instrument was developed using a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2017), where the results of an initial exploratory qualitative phase were used to develop and validate a survey in a sequential quantitative phase (Biddix, 2018; Greene et al., 1989). The resulting instrument may be used by student and academic affairs professionals, especially in admissions, advising, and retention, to understand factors that specifically affect college choice and departure for this population. In addition, such understanding bears implications for policy, practice, and research on student success.
BACKGROUND
In 2014, the state of Tennessee enacted Tennessee Promise, a state-funded scholarship providing tuition and fees on a last-dollar basis (after all other state and federal aid has been applied) for students who pursue a certificate or associate degree at in-state public colleges. Evaluations of the program showed initial recipients enrolled in postsecondary institutions at higher rates, accumulated more college credits, stayed enrolled longer, and earned more credentials than their peers, especially in state community colleges [End Page 364] (Carruthers et al., 2018; Nguyen, 2020). More recently, Odle et al. (2021) found participation reduced the percentage of students borrowing as well as overall loan amounts. However, the most recent state evaluation showed that 2021 enrollment declined for the first time since the Tennessee Promise program began, and slightly fewer students remained on track to graduate in 2017 than in 2015 (Spires & Mumpower, 2022). Failure to attend mandatory mentor meetings and complete required community service were the two most common reasons why Promise recipients did not maintain their eligibility for the program (Spires & Mumpower, 2022). It is important to identify what factors, beyond financial concerns, influence college choice and departure in this environment.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The framework for this study was Perna’s (2006) conceptual model for college choice, which proposed that college decisions are shaped by four layers. Layer 1 represents habitus, or the belief in what one can achieve based on socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. Layer 2 is the school and community context. This layer reflects “the ways in which social structures and resources facilitate or impede college choice” (Perna, 2006, p. 177). Layer 3 is the higher education context and reflects the role postsecondary education institutions have in college choice through marketing and admission practices. Last, Layer 4 reflects macro-level effects on college choice due to social forces, economic conditions, and public policies. Perna’s model captures many of the same concepts as persistence and retention theory: academic, financial, and social influences on adjustment and coping (Bean, 1980; Braxton, 2000; Tinto, 1987). However, the model for college choice also incorporates college admissions and marketing practices, as well as self-efficacy positioned within socioeconomic characteristics (Perna, 2006). Perna’s college choice model drew from multiple fields to create a broad model of college choice, making it a better fit to address the nuances affecting college choice and departure.
The four-layer model was used to identify initial concepts to inform the...
