Introduction
The main aim is to answer the research questions and test the hypothesis using the data that has been collected. Literature found out that a significant number of students drop out of college before they achieve their academic goals. The investigation done is skewed to the faculty’s point of view. The study is basically confined to the perceptions of faculty regarding the dropouts in community colleges in the state of Georgia. The main focus is on students’ academic preparations, the work ethic regarding their school responsibility and the support they receive from the institutions. The research mainly explores community college faculty member perceptions on the characteristics of those students who drop out of college without completion by identifying their needs and possibly shed light on measures to prevent student dropout in community colleges. A number of hypotheses will be investigated in this research.
Description of the sample
The sample selected was done using a stratified sampling method. The participants selected were either employed in the colleges on full-time or part-time basis. The sample was selected from community colleges in Georgia, in urban and non-urban areas. The characteristics of the participants were based on gender; urban-non urban community colleges, full-time, part-time faculty, and areas of specialization. Two rural and two urban schools were used in the study. Eleven participants were selected from each school to make a sample of 44 participants.
Summary of the Results and Analysis
The data analysis involves both qualitative and quantitative data analysis. Each of these analyses seeks to answer specific questions and test specific hypotheses. For qualitative analysis, the first question that was looked into concerned the role of community colleges in supporting students who are academically unprepared. Most of the respondents showed the need to have remedial classes that would help the students internalize the concepts learned. This will give them time to prepare. The respondents also pointed out the issue of providing learning support to the students. The faculty is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the students get the necessary support while learning. Other respondents stated that the students should be taught study skills. They should know about quality studies to ensure success. They also stated that there should be guidance and counseling, improving high school studies to ensure students get high entry grades, and raising admission grades to a level that will ensure high performance. A number of ways that could help students acquire and practice good work ethics were also mentioned. The respondents who actively participated said that community colleges should equip students with good time management skills and should ensure they intake qualified students. The work ethic should be part of the curriculum and students should be motivated by their instructors to practice it while on internships. They should be role models of good work ethic for students to emulate. There should be a reward system to honor the students who practice work ethic. Only a few respondents did not give answers to any of the questions asked. Institutional support could be improved to ensure high pass rate through providing adequate resources and on timely basis. There should also be success centers where students could be monitored and guided on the way to success. Providing for the needs of underperforming students is another strategy. The faculty/institutions should ensure there are good advisors to cancel these students on the right course of action if a deviation is noted early enough.
Generally, there are institutional practices that were pointed out that could either help students succeed or harm them. These include learning support courses, inadequate academic advisors, and success centers, not listening to students, discrimination by instructors who favor some students, cooperation help, and lack of proper feedback among others.
For quantitative data analysis, SPSS output gave a comprehensive report that was used to test hypotheses. Several regressions are done to ensure that all variables are taken into consideration. The regression analysis had students’ preparation before entering college, work ethics, and institutional support as dependent variables. The independent variables are Rural-urban schools, age group, race, ethnicity, level of education, and years of experience as independent variables. The results showed that the independent variables combined only explained only 21.7% of the variation in the independent variable. This is too low and it shows that most of the factors that can predict the work ethics of the students are left out of the model. The t-ratios are also too small, showing that the variables may not be significant determinants of the independent variables. The coefficients of the independent variables explain the relationship they have with the student’s acquisition and practice of work ethics. Work Ethic = – 0. 219 + 0.099 College name – 0.019 Race – 0.030 Teaching Experience + 0.009 Gender + 0.107 Degree Earned. For instance, college name or basically the nature of college was found to be directly correlated to the acquisition and practice of work ethics. The coefficient is positive showing that rural-urban schools improve work ethic. Gender, degree earned and college name has positive coefficients and therefore they improve work ethic. Race and teaching experience have negative coefficients and therefore they impact the work ethics of students negatively. The overall test of significance as indicated by ANOVA shows that F-statistic is 0.739. This indicates that the variables are jointly insignificant. They contribute to variation in work ethics but a very slight, insignificant margin.
The second regression analysis was conducted for Institutional support as dependent variable. The independent variables are the same as the ones used above. The regression results showed that all variables jointly explain 30.1% of the variations in the Institutional Support. The regression line estimated is as follows:
Institutional Support = 0.526 + 0.029 College Name – 0.021 Race – 0.083Teaching Experience – 0.123Gender – 0.154 Level of Education – 0.097 Age. This indicates that there is an inverse relationship between Work ethics on one side and Race, Teaching experience, Gender, Level of Education, adage on the other side. The College name or nature of college is directly related to the Acquisition and practice of work ethic. The t-ratios are tested at α = 0.05. At this point, the level of t-critical values at n-k degrees of freedom is 1.691. The decision criterion is that if t-statistic is greater than t-critical value, we reject the null hypothesis. In this case, all variables are insignificant apart from degree_earned whose t-ratio is 1.735. This means that level of education is a significant determinant of institutional support.
Summary of Analysis
Based on the analysis given, the success of student and dropout rate is dependent on several factors. It is largely dependent on the work ethic acquisition and practice, institutional support, and the students’ academic preparation before entering college. These factors are also influenced by such factors as level of education, gender, race, years of experience, and the nature of schools among others. These factors may not be significant determinants but they play a role.