Academically Eligible and Ineligible Pell Grant Community College Students: A Qualitative Investigation

IF 1.7 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Mia Ocean
{"title":"Academically Eligible and Ineligible Pell Grant Community College Students: A Qualitative Investigation","authors":"Mia Ocean","doi":"10.1177/0091552120982010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The purpose of this research is twofold: first, to investigate financially eligible Pell Grant community college students’ perceptions of barriers and enablers to student success, and second, to critique the financial aid satisfactory academic progress (SAP) criteria through a cross-case comparison of students who are meeting and are not meeting the academic requirements. Method: To complete this investigation, I conducted semistructured interviews with financially eligible Pell Grant community college students (N = 62) who were meeting SAP (n = 31) and who were not meeting SAP (n = 31). To analyze the data, I drew on Brint and Karabel’s theory of democratization and diversion as well as Gutiérrez and Lewis’s conceptualization of empowerment theory, and I followed Braun and Clarke’s six-step iterative thematic approach. Results: Financially eligible Pell Grant community college students believe students need motivation, enough resources to meet their responsibilities, and cultural capital to succeed. Observable differences were identified between the two student groups in three areas: environmental responsibilities to resources ratios, cultural capital, and powerlessness. Contributions: Through this article, I created a platform for the voices of financially eligible Pell Grant community college students and their perceptions of barriers and enablers to student success. By conducting the cross-case analysis, the potentially arbitrary nature of the SAP criteria is apparent, despite the real consequences they create for students. This research contributes a long overdue qualitative critique of the SAP criteria, but additional research is warranted.","PeriodicalId":46564,"journal":{"name":"Community College Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0091552120982010","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community College Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552120982010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this research is twofold: first, to investigate financially eligible Pell Grant community college students’ perceptions of barriers and enablers to student success, and second, to critique the financial aid satisfactory academic progress (SAP) criteria through a cross-case comparison of students who are meeting and are not meeting the academic requirements. Method: To complete this investigation, I conducted semistructured interviews with financially eligible Pell Grant community college students (N = 62) who were meeting SAP (n = 31) and who were not meeting SAP (n = 31). To analyze the data, I drew on Brint and Karabel’s theory of democratization and diversion as well as Gutiérrez and Lewis’s conceptualization of empowerment theory, and I followed Braun and Clarke’s six-step iterative thematic approach. Results: Financially eligible Pell Grant community college students believe students need motivation, enough resources to meet their responsibilities, and cultural capital to succeed. Observable differences were identified between the two student groups in three areas: environmental responsibilities to resources ratios, cultural capital, and powerlessness. Contributions: Through this article, I created a platform for the voices of financially eligible Pell Grant community college students and their perceptions of barriers and enablers to student success. By conducting the cross-case analysis, the potentially arbitrary nature of the SAP criteria is apparent, despite the real consequences they create for students. This research contributes a long overdue qualitative critique of the SAP criteria, but additional research is warranted.
学业合格和不合格的佩尔助学金社区大学生:一项定性调查
目的:本研究的目的有两个:第一,调查符合佩尔助学金条件的社区大学生对学生成功的障碍和促进因素的看法;第二,通过对满足和不满足学业要求的学生的跨案例比较,对经济援助学业进步满意(SAP)标准进行批评。方法:为了完成这项调查,我对符合经济条件的佩尔助学金社区大学生(N = 62)进行了半结构化访谈,他们符合SAP (N = 31)和不符合SAP (N = 31)。为了分析数据,我借鉴了Brint和Karabel的民主化和转移理论,以及gutisamurez和Lewis的赋权理论概念化,并遵循了Braun和Clarke的六步迭代主题方法。结果:符合佩尔助学金条件的社区大学生认为,学生需要动力、足够的资源来履行自己的责任,以及文化资本才能成功。两个学生群体在三个方面存在显著差异:环境责任与资源比率、文化资本和无力感。贡献:通过这篇文章,我创建了一个平台,让有经济条件的佩尔助学金社区大学生发声,以及他们对学生成功的障碍和促进因素的看法。通过进行跨案例分析,SAP标准潜在的任意性是显而易见的,尽管它们给学生带来了真正的后果。这项研究为SAP标准提供了一个迟来已久的定性批评,但还需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Community College Review
Community College Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: The Community College Review (CCR) has led the nation for over 35 years in the publication of scholarly, peer-reviewed research and commentary on community colleges. CCR welcomes manuscripts dealing with all aspects of community college administration, education, and policy, both within the American higher education system as well as within the higher education systems of other countries that have similar tertiary institutions. All submitted manuscripts undergo a blind review. When manuscripts are not accepted for publication, we offer suggestions for how they might be revised. The ultimate intent is to further discourse about community colleges, their students, and the educators and administrators who work within these institutions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信