View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Rural Students' Sense of Belonging: The Influence of Academic Campus Climate

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Rural Students' Sense of Belonging: The Influence of Academic Campus Climate
Language: English
Authors: John Yang (ORCID 0000-0003-0289-6691), Shadman Islem, Ty C. McNamee
Source: New Directions for Higher Education. 2025 (209):47-56.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Sense of Belonging, School Culture, Educational Environment, Rural Population, Demography, Student Characteristics, Psychological Patterns, Student Behavior, Public Colleges, Private Colleges
Geographic Terms: California (Los Angeles)
DOI: 10.1002/he.20526
ISSN: 0271-0560
1536-0741
Abstract: Pulling from a sample of students from rural backgrounds (n = 1847), multilevel modeling was used to explore how the academic campus climate can predict sense of belonging for rural students. Findings offer insights into how certain perceptions, behaviors, and institutional characteristics may influence sense of belonging. For instance, higher perceptions of one's academic abilities and the campus diversity, participation in academic advising and intergroup dialogue, and attending a campus located in less urban locations and with higher proportions of racially similar peers all positively influence sense of belonging for rural students. The implications and significance of the study are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1464200
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFj8ITjL8-MgddW233Vv0qdAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDH856UA8ukpOO9S05QIBEICBm-ep11Y5RUP9-ELiiAhCoVw7IZCYkIkWCBaW71TUmX-3wfyvpuG8ZfU4B_dosBtfjA1wufI9aV4QPfctFKSWtXeC7tSAgVNtujMUnaUZEFfZHZgLj0ZFoevjxl__uhaljHUlTbQkcMGCIbIOgF8-yxQIX-Jo5zKgz4js9_-wm7OcrbKag-LWwexT9FJrNBkDiY1lCBPQ0GmzOb7V
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0183987836;ndh01mar.25;2025Mar26.06:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0183987836-1">Rural Students' Sense of Belonging: The Influence of Academic Campus Climate </title> <sbt id="AN0183987836-2">Introduction</sbt> <p>Pulling from a sample of students from rural backgrounds (n = 1847), multilevel modeling was used to explore how the academic campus climate can predict sense of belonging for rural students. Findings offer insights into how certain perceptions, behaviors, and institutional characteristics may influence sense of belonging. For instance, higher perceptions of one's academic abilities and the campus diversity, participation in academic advising and intergroup dialogue, and attending a campus located in less urban locations and with higher proportions of racially similar peers all positively influence sense of belonging for rural students. The implications and significance of the study are discussed.</p> <p>The progress in bachelor's degree attainment rates in the United States over the past four decades is noteworthy, yet persistent demographic disparities underscore the inequitable distribution of this improvement. Research from College Board's Education Pays series reveals disparities in degree attainment among ethnic groups, socioeconomic quintiles, and genders, shedding light on the unequal educational landscape (Ma et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref1">26</reflink>]; Ma and Pender [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref2">25</reflink>]). Surprisingly absent from this comprehensive analysis is a crucial demographic category—students from rural areas. Even though 20% of Americans reside in rural counties (Ratcliffe and Sisson [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref3">44</reflink>]) and 32% attend rural high schools (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref4">40</reflink>]), these students have been largely overlooked in discussions on access and completion.</p> <p>While statistics indicate that rural students graduate high school at slightly higher rates than their urban and suburban counterparts (NCES [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref5">38</reflink>]), their postsecondary enrollment and persistence rates are lower (NCES [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref6">39</reflink>]; Wells et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref7">54</reflink>]). This underscores the need for increased attention from researchers, policymakers, and practitioners toward this underserved population. National events such as the 2016 presidential election and the COVID‐19 pandemic have sparked some discourse, but it often leans negative, lacking an appreciation for the strengths, and values of rural communities (Porter [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref8">43</reflink>]; Martin [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref9">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>While recent efforts by passionate rural‐focused researchers have generated interest in rural populations, the focus remains relatively nascent compared to other underrepresented groups in higher education. Existing research predominantly centers on access, with only a fraction exploring the experiences of rural students once enrolled in college (Sowl and Crain [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref10">47</reflink>]; McNamee and Ganss [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref11">32</reflink>]). This research gap means that there are limited resources, scholarly or otherwise, for institutional leaders, and practitioners when seeking information on how to best support their rural students. This study addresses this gap by investigating the experiences of rural students and their impact on a crucial aspect of their academic journey—sense of belonging.</p> <hd id="AN0183987836-3">Summary</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Rural identity can be hard to standardize and recognize in student data. Therefore, this study's approach in determining rurality centers students' voices and utilizes self‐identification using a 7‐point rurality/urbanicity scale to determine rural background.</item> <p></p> <item> Rural students from less affluent family backgrounds, with first‐generation status, and LGBTQ+ identities tended to report lower levels of sense of belonging. Black, Asian, Hispanic, and Multiracial rural students tended to report higher levels of sense of belonging after controlling for campuses with respectively higher proportions of racially similar peers.</item> <p></p> <item> Rural students' perceptions about their selves and their campus support systems played a more influential role in sense of belonging than their own personal behaviors, actions, and co‐curricular activities.</item> <p></p> <item> Providing financial support services, inclusive diversity programming, and more specialized support for rural students at more urbanized campuses may improve rural students' sense of belonging.</item> </ulist> <p>The importance of a positive sense of belonging for academic persistence and success is well‐established across diverse student populations (Strayhorn [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref12">51</reflink>]). However, there is a notable dearth of literature examining this aspect specifically for rural students. Leveraging data from a nationally administered survey, this study seeks to explore the association between organizational, psychological, and behavioral campus climate factors, along with student demographics, and the sense of belonging experienced by rural students (Heinisch [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>]). We choose to focus on behavioral and psychological measures that are easily observable or collectable by practitioners who wish to explore similar topics at their own institution.</p> <p>Our overarching research question is:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To what extent are organizational, psychological, and behavioral campus climate factors, along with student demographics, associated with the sense of belonging for rural students?</item> </ulist> <p>This investigation aims to contribute to the growing need for comprehensive research that delves into the nuanced experiences of rural students during their college journey, addressing a critical gap in the current academic discourse while utilizing methods that are applicable for institutional leaders who wish to see change on their campuses (Means and Pyne [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref14">34</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183987836-4">Literature Review</hd> <p>To comprehend the formation of a sense of belonging among rural students during their postsecondary education, it is crucial to explore the multidimensional aspects of rurality as an identity and how these factors influence their navigation through the college experience. Geographically, rural communities face isolation from higher education institutions, restricting the options available for pursuing, and completing higher education (Hillman and Weichman [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref15">17</reflink>]; Hillman et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]). Culturally, these populations often prioritize work over higher education, resulting in rural students holding limited cultural capital valued by higher education institutions (Tieken [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref17">53</reflink>]; Ardoin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>]; McNamee [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref19">31</reflink>]). Scholars also highlight a lack of understanding or engagement with rural community cultures by some higher education institutions, particularly those located outside rural areas, leading to a failure to create campus environments that resonate with rural students' cultures and experiences (Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]; McDonough et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref21">28</reflink>]; McNamee [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]; Museus [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref23">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Socially, rural students originate from small, close‐knit towns fostering strong connections with family, teachers, school staff, and community members. However, these tight social networks can hinder their ability to establish relationships with individuals possessing college degrees and limiting access to crucial information about attending college (McNamee [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref24">30</reflink>]). Transitioning to larger and less socially connected campuses can induce feelings of dissonance for rural students (Heinisch [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>]; A. Stone [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref26">48</reflink>]). Academically, limited access to advanced classes, especially Advanced Placement (AP) coursework, poses challenges for rural students as they grapple with rigorous higher education curricula (Chatterji et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref27">7</reflink>]; C. Stone [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref28">49</reflink>]; Ganss [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]). Economically, rural students face higher poverty rates, impacting their postsecondary trajectories, affordability of college, and academic and co‐curricular success on campuses (Ardoin and McNamee [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]; Hudacs [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref31">19</reflink>]; Koricich et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]; McNamee [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref33">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Demographically, rural areas are diverse, and populations within them face additional challenges based on various identities and backgrounds. People of color, individuals with disabilities, queer individuals, and immigrants in rural areas confront exacerbated poverty and heightened systemic barriers to economic, health, and community resources (Ajilore and Willingham [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref34">1</reflink>]). Structural barriers impact postsecondary access and success for specific groups, such as rural Black and Latinx students, rural undocumented students, rural women, and rural queer students (Gonzales and Ruiz [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref35">12</reflink>]; Goodrich and McClellan [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref36">13</reflink>]; McHenry‐Sorber and Swisher [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref37">29</reflink>]; Means et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref38">33</reflink>]; Sansone et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref39">45</reflink>]; Sorgen et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref40">46</reflink>]).</p> <p>Synthesizing the geographic, cultural, social, and demographic components of rural identity reveals the myriad ways in which the lived experiences of rural students may diverge from institutional expectations and assumptions. This misalignment can hinder their perceptions of social support and connectedness (Strayhorn [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref41">50</reflink>]), underscoring institutional inequities. While established frameworks for conceptualizing student success traditionally prioritize individual perspectives, recent research emphasizes the significance of external factors like campus structures and climate in influencing student behavior (Nora et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]; Hurtado et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref43">21</reflink>]; Museus [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref44">37</reflink>]). These models have been applied to diverse populations but have rarely explored rural students. This study addresses this gap, employing a quantitative analysis of rural students' sense of belonging through Hurtado et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref45">21</reflink>]) Multicontextual Model for Diverse Learning Environments.</p> <hd id="AN0183987836-5">Conceptual Framework</hd> <p>This study employs Hurtado et al.'s [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>] Multicontextual Model for Diverse Learning Environments (MMDLE) to contextualize the experiences of rural students and elucidate their impact on the development of a sense of belonging. The MMDLE comprises four interconnected contexts: the socio‐historical context, the policy context, the institutional context, and the community context (refer to Figure 1). At the core of the model lies the institutional context, suggesting that curricular and co‐curricular processes contribute to five dimensions of campus climate, ultimately influencing student outcomes in areas such as skills development, multicultural competence, retention, and achievement. These dimensions encompass the diversity of the student body ("compositional" dimension), the historical legacy of inclusion/exclusion at an institution ("historical" dimension), organizational structures of the institution ("organizational"), thoughts and perspectives of students ("psychological"), and behaviors and interactions of students with staff and peers ("behavioral"). Understanding these dimensions is crucial, particularly for students from diverse backgrounds (Hurtado et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref47">21</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/NDH/01mar25/he20526-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="he20526-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 The Multicontextual Model for Diverse Learning Environments. Source: Printed from Hurtado et al. ([21])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Hurtado et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref48">21</reflink>]) emphasize the significance of students' social identities in shaping their college experiences, prompting institutions to ensure inclusive organizational practices for students from varied backgrounds, such as rural students. This study applies three dimensions of the MMDLE to frame predictor variables and gain insight into the influence of campus structures (organizational/structural dimension), students' perceptions (psychological dimension), and students' behaviors (behavioral dimension) on the sense of belonging among students from rural backgrounds.</p> <p>The organizational/structural dimension encapsulates campus policies and practices directly impacting students' college experiences, including COVID‐19 policies, leadership training availability, diversity requirements, and campus orientation activities. The psychological dimension delves into the views, attitudes, and paradigms of college students, providing insights into intergroup relations and implicit bias. The behavioral dimension explores the quality and frequency of interactions between students and faculty, staff, and administration, shedding light on cultural norms and conflicts within an institution.</p> <hd id="AN0183987836-7">The MMDLE and Sense of Belonging</hd> <p>Sense of belonging, as characterized by Strayhorn ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref49">50</reflink>]), represents students' perceived social support, connectedness, and feelings of mattering within the campus community. Widely linked to student success, involvement, wellness, motivation, and degree completion, sense of belonging is a crucial construct in higher education research (Morrow and Ackerman [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref50">35</reflink>]; Strayhorn [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref51">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref52">51</reflink>]). Hurtado et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref53">21</reflink>]) propose studying sense of belonging as a distinct construct from the dimensions of campus climate, positing that the curricular and co‐curricular processes influencing campus climate also inform a student's sense of belonging. In this study, we explore the transitive relationship between student experiences related to campus climate factors and their sense of belonging.</p> <p>For example, the behavioral dimension of the MMDLE, represented in our instrument by questions about academic advising utilization, participation in intergroup dialogue, and time spent working on campus, theoretically impacts sense of belonging by providing support and fostering a sense of community contribution. By grouping these experiences within the MMDLE dimensions, we examine which dimensions are more strongly associated with belonging for rural students. While we focus on three dimensions, the remaining ones are implicitly represented in our analysis, contributing to factors such as campus homogeneity, selectivity, socioeconomic diversity, and racialized attitudes and beliefs of students.</p> <hd id="AN0183987836-8">Study Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0183987836-9">Data Source and Sample</hd> <p>Our study draws upon data obtained from the 2021–2022 Diverse Learning Environments (DLE) survey, an annual administration conducted by the Higher Education Research Institution (HERI) at the University of California, Los Angeles. Designed for college students at public and private 2‐ and 4‐year institutions, the DLE survey captures background characteristics and self‐reported perspectives on institutional climate, campus practices, and learning outcomes, including measures of sense of belonging. In the 2021–2022 administration, a total of <emph>N</emph> = 9366 participants completed the survey across 19 institutions spanning 14 states. We leveraged these survey results to explore factors contributing to the sense of belonging for rural students. Additionally, we merged and extracted data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to investigate institutional characteristics influencing sense of belonging, such as student racial compositions and the institution's degree of urbanization, which were not available in the HERI datasets.</p> <p>Identifying rural students presents a challenge due to the lack of consensus among scholars on a standardized classification method, influenced by location, politics, sectors, participant roles, and the purpose of inquiry (Thier et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref54">52</reflink>]). To address this, we opted to utilize students' self‐reported information regarding their rural identities. We classified students into rural and non‐rural categories based on a question from the DLE survey, which asked, "On a scale of 1–7, with 1 being the most remote and 7 being the most urban, how remote/urban would you characterize the hometown you lived in during most of your high school experience?" The scale provided label markers at 1 (remote), 3 (rural), 5 (suburban), and 7 (urban).</p> <p>We created a dichotomous variable for rural students who selected options 1 through 4, assuming that students who chose 4 were from a rural/suburban hometown, representing an in‐between category. While acknowledging the imperfect nature of this approach, we deemed it appropriate, considering that rural identities develop before college attendance and continue to shape students' college experiences (Ganss et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref55">11</reflink>]). Consequently, we identified <emph>n</emph> = 2292 students from rural backgrounds, <emph>n</emph> = 4835 non‐rural students, and <emph>n</emph> = 2239 students with missing data, excluded from subsequent analyses.</p> <p>Addressing the underrepresentation of Native American students in regression analyses (Faircloth et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>]), we reclassified Multiracial Native American students as solely Native American to enhance group representation. While not without limitations, this approach promotes inclusivity within a large dataset. Following listwise deletion to handle missing values, our final analysis included <emph>n</emph> = 1847 rural students. Demographic information for the student sample in the final analysis is detailed in Table 1. Analyses were only conducted on rural students.</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographic profiles of student sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th>Rural students (%), <italic>n</italic> = 1847</th><th>Non‐rural students (%), <italic>n</italic> = 3882</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Urbanicity of Hometown (scale)</td></tr><tr><td> 1 Remote</td><td>8.3</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td> 2</td><td>10.6</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td> 3 Rural</td><td>39.4</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td> 4</td><td>41.7</td><td>—</td></tr><tr><td> 5 Suburban</td><td>—</td><td>67.8</td></tr><tr><td> 6</td><td>—</td><td>16.8</td></tr><tr><td> 7 Urban</td><td>—</td><td>15.4</td></tr><tr><td>Race/ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td>67.7</td><td>57.4</td></tr><tr><td> Black</td><td>2.5</td><td>5.4</td></tr><tr><td> Native</td><td>3.2</td><td>2.4</td></tr><tr><td> Asian</td><td>5.5</td><td>9.7</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td>11.0</td><td>11.4</td></tr><tr><td> Other</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td> Multiracial</td><td>9.1</td><td>12.8</td></tr><tr><td>Sexual orientation</td></tr><tr><td> Straight/heterosexual</td><td>74.4</td><td>72.2</td></tr><tr><td> Queer</td><td>25.6</td><td>27.8</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td></tr><tr><td> Man</td><td>29.2</td><td>29.3</td></tr><tr><td> Woman</td><td>65.6</td><td>65.4</td></tr><tr><td> Nonbinary</td><td>5.2</td><td>5.2</td></tr><tr><td>First‐generation status</td></tr><tr><td> Yes</td><td>18.4</td><td>14.6</td></tr><tr><td> No</td><td>81.6</td><td>85.4</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183987836-10">Variables, Model Selection, and Specification</hd> <p>The dependent variable in our study is a composite measure of sense of belonging, comprising three items. Participants were asked about their agreement levels regarding whether they perceived themselves as members of their college, experienced a sense of belonging on campus, and would recommend their college to others if asked. This composite measure mirrors the approach employed by Hurtado et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref57">20</reflink>]) in their examination of sense of belonging. To explore the factors influencing sense of belonging, an additional 13 independent variables were incorporated into a multilevel regression model.</p> <p>The first block of variables functions as controls for demographic differences in the sample. For each demographic criterion, we selected the group category with the highest representation as the referent group. Consequently, six race/ethnicity group categories were included, with white students serving as the reference group. The sexual orientation identification variable was recoded, grouping those outside the straight/heterosexual category as queer, an umbrella term frequently used to characterize the LGBTQIA+ community (Willis [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref58">55</reflink>]). Hence, straight/heterosexual students served as the referent group for sexual orientation. Given the overrepresentation of women in the sample, we controlled for those identifying as men or nonbinary. Lastly, control was exerted for students' family income backgrounds to delineate their socioeconomic status.</p> <p>The four variables in the second block were chosen for various reasons related to student perceptions about their academic timeline, abilities, and satisfaction with their campus' diversity, specifically concerning socioeconomic and immigration differences. Studies have indicated that rural students often encounter challenges related to retention and degree completion (Capik and Shupp [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref59">6</reflink>]; Byun et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref60">5</reflink>]). Therefore, we sought to explore whether students' agreement levels regarding whether it would take them longer to graduate than planned could influence their sense of belonging. In this vein, we also investigated whether students' higher self‐ratings of their academic ability could further influence belonging. Recognizing that some rural students may face challenges related to socioeconomic and citizenship status during college (Muñoz [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>]), we explored if students' satisfaction with their campus socioeconomic diversity and atmosphere for differences in immigration status influenced their sense of belonging.</p> <p>The third block included five variables exploring how academic, co‐curricular, transportation, and work behaviors influenced sense of belonging. In the final block of the organizational/structural dimension, four variables were included to provide insights into institutional character. Previous studies have shown that selectivity significantly influences sense of belonging for non‐rural students (Byun et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref62">5</reflink>]), so we included it in this final block. Due to the geographical nature of rural student identities, we explored whether the degree of urbanization of their campus influenced their sense of belonging. The degree of urbanization variable was directly extracted from IPEDS and assigned a classification to each institution based on its physical address. The homogeneity variable characterizes the proportion of racially similar peers at their institution for each respondent (Yang [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref63">56</reflink>]). Lastly, we included a variable capturing the extent of institutions' financial support to students for them to remain enrolled.</p> <p>Analyses commenced with descriptive statistics to examine means, standard deviations, and variable distributions to confirm assumptions of normality (refer to Table 2 for details). Subsequently, we analyzed the variables using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) or block regression modeling with four levels of analysis (Niehaus et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref64">41</reflink>]), guided by the MMDLE framework. HLM was used to explore variables contributing to students' sense of belonging.</p> <p>2 TABLE Descriptive statistics for variables used.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th><italic>M</italic></th><th>SD</th><th>Scale</th><th>Factor loading</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Dependent variable</td></tr><tr><td>Sense of belonging (Cronbach's Alpha: 0.829)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Opinion: I feel a sense of belonging to this campus</td><td>2.92</td><td>0.787</td><td>1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree</td><td>0.905</td></tr><tr><td>Opinion: I feel that I am a member of this college</td><td>3.08</td><td>0.742</td><td>1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree</td><td>0.828</td></tr><tr><td>Opinion: If asked, I would recommend this college to others</td><td>3.13</td><td>0.729</td><td>1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree</td><td>0.634</td></tr><tr><td>Independent variables</td></tr><tr><td>Opinion: It will take me longer to graduate than I had planned</td><td>1.97</td><td>0.960</td><td>1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Self‐Rating: Academic ability</td><td>3.87</td><td>0.776</td><td>1 = lowest 10%, 2 = below average, 3 = average, 4 = above average, 5 = highest 10%</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Satisfaction: Socioeconomic diversity of the student body</td><td>3.33</td><td>1.005</td><td>1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, 5 = very satisfied</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Satisfaction: Atmosphere for difference in immigration status</td><td>3.58</td><td>0.893</td><td>1 = very dissatisfied, 2 = dissatisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, 5 = very satisfied</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Utilized: Academic advising</td><td>2.06</td><td>0.640</td><td>1 = not at all, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Act: Participated in ongoing campus‐organized discussions on racial/ethnic issues (e.g., intergroup dialogue)</td><td>1.91</td><td>1.151</td><td>1 = never, 2 = seldom, 3 = sometimes, 4 = often, 5 = very often</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Affect: Had difficulty in commuting/getting to campus</td><td>1.38</td><td>0.623</td><td>1 = not at all, 2 = occasionally, 3 = frequently</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Work: On‐campus</td><td>1.77</td><td>1.379</td><td>1 = none, 2 = 1–5 h, 3 = 6–10 h, 4 = 11–15 h, 5 = 16–20 h, 6 = 21–30 h, 7 = 31–40 h, 8 = over 40 h</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Work: Off‐campus</td><td>2.67</td><td>2.269</td><td>1 = none, 2 = 1–5 h, 3 = 6–10 h, 4 = 11–15 h, 5 = 16–20 h, 6 = 21–30 h, 7 = 31–40 h, 8 = over 40 h</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Selectivity</td><td>1137</td><td>107.1</td><td>Average composite measure of students' SAT scores</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Urbanicity</td><td>3.24</td><td>2.012</td><td>1 = Town: Distant, 2 = Town: Fringe, 3 = Suburb: Midsize, 4 = Suburb: Large, 5 = City: Small, 6 = City: Midsize, 7 = City: Large</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Homogeneity index</td><td>0.449</td><td>0.299</td><td>Proportion of students with racially similar identity as respondent</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Opinion: This college provides the financial support I need to stay enrolled</td><td>2.77</td><td>0.813</td><td>1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0183987836-11">Limitations</hd> <p>There are a few limitations to consider when interpreting the findings of this study. First, the sample is confined to a specific subset of rural students who self‐identified as hailing from rural or remote hometowns, potentially limiting the representativeness of the findings across the broader rural student population. The study did not extensively investigate variations in demographics, college environments, and regional factors among rural students, which may influence the applicability of the results to different contexts. Second, the study is cross‐sectional and nonexperimental, thus the findings are correlational and noncausal. Meaning, they are not outright generalizable, and best thought of as associations to keep in mind when developing institutional policy. Finally, unmeasured variables influencing sense of belonging among rural students not included in the analysis could confound the observed relationships. We were limited to utilizing variables found in the DLE survey or available through IPEDS, and thus there are other factors that could be relevant that we are unable to discuss.</p> <hd id="AN0183987836-12">Findings</hd> <p>The findings from the blocked regression analysis, presented in Table 3, reveal significant insights into the factors influencing the sense of belonging among rural students (<emph>n</emph> = 1847). The analysis was conducted by categorizing variables into four distinct blocks: Demographic Inputs, Psychological Dimension, Behavioral Dimension, and Organizational/Structural Dimension. Below, we summarize the key findings from each block:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Block 1: Demographic inputs (R<sups>2</sups> change = 0.026)</emph> </item> <item>locked standardized beta coefficients of variables in predicting sense of belonging for rural students (n = 1847).</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th>Blocked variables</th><th><italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> change</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Demographic inputs</td><td>0.026<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Race: Black</td><td /><td>0.01</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.08<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Race: Native</td><td /><td>−0.08<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>−0.07<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>−0.07<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td> Race: Asian</td><td /><td>0.05<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>0.03</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.13<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Race: Hispanic</td><td /><td>0.05</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.09<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Race: Other</td><td /><td>−0.02</td><td>−0.02</td><td>−0.03</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td> Race: Multiracial</td><td /><td>−0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.12<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Queer</td><td /><td>−0.05<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>0.01</td><td>−0.01</td><td>−0.01</td></tr><tr><td> Man</td><td /><td>−0.07</td><td>−0.04</td><td>−0.03</td><td>−0.04</td></tr><tr><td> Nonbinary</td><td /><td>−0.04</td><td>−0.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td> First Gen</td><td /><td>−0.05</td><td>−0.05<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>−0.05<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>−0.06<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Income</td><td /><td>0.07<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Psychological dimension</td><td>0.179<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> It will take me longer to graduate than I had planned</td><td /><td /><td>−0.15<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>−0.10<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>−0.08<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Self‐rating: Academic ability</td><td /><td /><td>0.13<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>0.11<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>0.10<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Satisfaction: Socioeconomic diversity of the student body</td><td /><td /><td>0.21<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>0.23<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>0.20<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Satisfaction: Atmosphere for difference in immigration status</td><td /><td /><td>0.19<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>0.18<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>0.18<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Behavioral dimension</td><td>0.052<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Utilized academic advising</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.10<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>0.09<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Participated in intergroup dialogue</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.12<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>0.14<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Had difficulty commuting/getting to campus</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.13<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td>−0.12<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Hours per week working on‐campus</td><td /><td /><td /><td>0.05<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>0.06<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Hours per week working off‐campus</td><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.06<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td><td>−0.06<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td>Organizational/structural dimension</td><td>0.037<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td> Selectivity</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.03</td></tr><tr><td> Degree of urbanization</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>−0.04<ext-link /><sup>*</sup></td></tr><tr><td> Homogeneity</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.22<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr><tr><td> This college provides the financial support I need to stay enrolled</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>0.17<ext-link /><sup>**</sup></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</p> <p>2 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001</p> <p>The racial background of students significantly impacts their sense of belonging. Based on our model and variables considered, Black (<emph>β</emph> = 0.08**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), Asian (<emph>β</emph> = 0.13**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), Hispanic (<emph>β</emph> = 0.09**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), and Multiracial (<emph>β</emph> = 0.12**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) students exhibited a positive association with a sense of belonging compared to their white counterparts, while Native students showed a negative relationship (<emph>β</emph> = −0.08**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). Queer (<emph>β</emph> = −0.05*, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) and First Gen (<emph>β</emph> = −0.06*, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) students had less a sense of belonging compared to their referent counterparts. Lastly, income background had a positive influence (<emph>β</emph> = 0.07*, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) on sense of belonging, suggesting that students from more affluent backgrounds exhibited slightly higher levels of sense of belonging than those from less affluent backgrounds.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Block 2: Psychological dimension (R<sups>2</sups> change = 0.179)</emph> </item> </ulist> <p>Students who anticipated taking longer to graduate than planned (<emph>β</emph> = −0.15**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and those who rated their academic ability higher (<emph>β</emph> = 0.13**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) had contrasting levels of belonging. Furthermore, students who reported satisfaction with socioeconomic diversity (<emph>β</emph> = 0.21**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and an atmosphere conducive to differences in immigration status (<emph>β</emph> = 0.19**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) demonstrated higher levels of belonging.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Block 3: Behavioral dimension (R<sups>2</sups> change = 0.052)</emph> </item> </ulist> <p>Engaging in academic advising (<emph>β</emph> = 0.10**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) and participating in intergroup dialogue (<emph>β</emph> = 0.14**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) positively influenced the sense of belonging among rural students. Conversely, students who faced difficulties in commuting to campus (<emph>β</emph> = −0.13**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) reported lower levels of belonging. The number of hours worked on‐campus (<emph>β</emph> = 0.06*, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) and off‐campus (<emph>β</emph> = −0.06*, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) also had significant but opposing effects.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Block 4: Organizational/structural dimension (R<sups>2</sups> change = 0.037)</emph> </item> </ulist> <p>Within this block, only three variables exhibited significant effects on the sense of belonging. Students who perceived their college as providing the necessary financial support to stay enrolled reported higher belonging (<emph>β</emph> = 0.17**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001). However, the degree of urbanization (<emph>β</emph> = −0.04*, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) had a negative association, meaning that rural students who attended institutions located in more geographically urban locations tended to exhibit lower senses of belonging. Homogeneity (<emph>β</emph> = 0.22**, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), or attending a campus with higher proportions of racially similar peers, had significantly positive influence on students' sense of belonging, particularly for students of color. The selectivity of the institution did not play a significant role in sense of belonging for rural students.</p> <p>In summary, these findings highlight the multifaceted nature of factors contributing to the sense of belonging among rural students. While demographic characteristics, psychological factors, and behaviors play crucial roles, the organizational and structural aspects of the college environment also significantly impact students' perceptions of belonging. Understanding and addressing these factors can be instrumental in promoting a stronger sense of belonging among rural students, ultimately enhancing their overall college experience and success.</p> <hd id="AN0183987836-13">Discussion</hd> <p>The findings from this study shed light on the multifaceted nature of factors influencing the sense of belonging among rural college students. Understanding these factors is crucial for institutions striving to create inclusive and supportive environments for this particular student demographic. In this discussion, we delve deeper into the implications and significance of the study's key findings.</p> <p>Our analysis underscores the significant role of racial identity in predicting the sense of belonging among rural college students. This finding aligns with the demographic dimension of the MMDLE, which highlights the importance of tailored support for diverse racial and socioeconomic groups. Supporting rural first‐generation or low‐income students should address their unique challenges, such as navigating relationships with community members and providing funding for essential travel. For example, rural students often experience dissonance when transitioning from small, close‐knit communities to larger, less socially connected campuses (Heinisch [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref65">14</reflink>]; A. Stone [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref66">48</reflink>]). This suggests that demographic factors are intricately linked to the behavioral and organizational/structural dimensions of the MMDLE, as these challenges impact students' ability to engage with campus life and access necessary support systems (Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref67">8</reflink>]; Museus [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref68">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>The psychological dimension underscores the significance of academic self‐perceptions and satisfaction with diversity. Bolstering students' confidence and fostering an inclusive campus culture that welcomes diversity are essential. Satisfaction with socioeconomic diversity and an inclusive atmosphere for differences in immigration status positively influences belonging, emphasizing the importance of recognizing and supporting students' academic potential. These findings connect with existing research, indicating that psychological support and a sense of inclusion are fundamental for student success and retention (Strayhorn [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref69">50</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref70">51</reflink>]). Moreover, the sense of being out of place within higher education due to rural and social class backgrounds can contribute to these challenges (McNamee [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref71">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>Examining the behavioral dimension, we find that student engagement and challenges related to commuting and work commitments impact belonging. Academic advising and participation in intergroup dialogue positively influence belonging, while difficulties in commuting and longer work hours off‐campus decrease it. Rural students from communities where counselors and advising staff are under‐resourced and overstressed may not initially recognize the value of seeking advising services (McDonough et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref72">28</reflink>]). These findings reinforce the MMDLE framework by illustrating how organizational structures, such as transportation access and academic advising, influence student behaviors and outcomes (Hillman et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref73">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>The fourth block, related to the organizational/structural dimension, revealed that perceptions of financial support from the college and the degree of urbanization played significant roles. Students who feel their financial needs are met report a stronger sense of belonging, which underscores the importance of targeted financial aid policies (Hillman and Weichman [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref74">17</reflink>]). This ties back to our analysis on demographics and behaviors, as what is deemed "necessary financial support" may be different for students from rural areas. Additionally, limited cultural capital among rural students can affect their ability to engage with the campus environment (Tieken [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref75">53</reflink>]; Ardoin [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>]). Colleges located in more urbanized areas had students reporting lower levels of belonging, which may be related to precollege factors such as limited exposure to diverse environments (Ganss [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref77">10</reflink>]; McNamee [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref78">31</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0183987836-14">Implications for Practice</hd> <p>Based on the MMDLE framework, we offer a variety of strategies that institutions may implement to advance rural students' sense of belonging. The most important structural consideration that we offer is that institutional databases should have flags for their rural students, using home zip codes to identify who they are. Our following recommendations hinge on being able to identify and communicate with this population, and establishing rurality as a trackable demographic marker signifies institutional commitment toward supporting rural students.</p> <p>In terms of diversity and inclusion, institutions should prioritize initiatives that not only promote racial and cultural diversity but also foster an inclusive atmosphere for students from rural, first‐generation, and low‐income backgrounds. According to our model, the homogeneity variable—attending a campus with higher proportions of racially similar peers—positively influenced the sense of belonging (Yang [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref79">56</reflink>]), which reinforces the idea that sense of belonging is linked to being around others with similar life experiences, especially for rural students of color. Practitioners can focus on promoting ethnic student organizations as safe havens where students of color might find a sense of belonging within their campus, supporting them with the funding and resources needed to host programs where students can form community (Hussain and Jones [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref80">23</reflink>]). In areas with many colleges, institutional leaders might even consider partnering with local minority‐serving institutions to create cross‐campus spaces where rural students of color might find a higher sense of belonging. Efforts to address challenges specific to students from underrepresented backgrounds strongly improve their sense of belonging, which is further reinforced through the other dimensions of the MMDLE.</p> <p>The MMDLE emphasizes the role of personal motivation and self‐concept in learning (Hurtado et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref81">21</reflink>]). Colleges should foster a campus culture that actively promotes inclusivity and supports students' academic self‐perceptions. In other words, colleges should take more seriously the importance of maintaining a campus culture that readily welcomes students of all backgrounds, particularly those from rural backgrounds. This suggestion can manifest in various ways, including offering tailored academic advising, providing flexible course scheduling, creating accelerated or catch‐up programs, and offering peer tutoring or study groups specifically designed to support rural students in staying on track with their academic goals. An example of tailored academic advising for rural students could include having a meeting early in a student's first year where an advisor reviews their secondary school curriculum with them (Hoffman et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref82">18</reflink>]). Through this conversation, the advisor can understand what academic offerings were previously available to the student, get a sense of where they might need support, and introduce new subjects or majors that they may have not been exposed to before.</p> <p>There are many things a college can do to address the behavioral aspects of learning, such as participation and use of support services (Hurtado et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref83">21</reflink>]). Specialized support services, such as academic advising and mentorship programs, should be readily available to help students navigate their college journey. Even though every student might not utilize academic advising, colleges should try to get as many students to use those services as possible, as it can improve their sense of belonging. In considering who to reach out to, program administrators should make sure rural students are included in their target groups. Moreover, creating spaces for rural students to participate in intergroup dialogue and meet other students may boost sense of belonging, which can happen through curricular or co‐curricular engagements. Other potentially helpful ways to support rural students would be to provide more opportunities for on‐campus employment and transportation services to reduce the negative impact of commuting.</p> <p>As discussed, the organizational and structural factors of an institution are directly linked to students' psychological and behavioral outcomes (Hurtado et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref84">21</reflink>]). More broadly, we offer different overarching suggestions that relate back to previous dimensions of the MMDLE. For instance, colleges should strengthen financial aid programs and tailor them to the needs of rural students, considering the indirect costs that rural students might face. For example, many rural communities are distant from major airports, and thus traveling home between semesters may involve renting a car in addition to a flight or paying for a costlier flight to a regional airport. Travel costs are an indirect cost that pose a greater burden to rural students compared to nonrural peers, and a Dean of Students office might be well positioned to offer a holiday or emergency travel fund for these students. This is just one way financial aid programs can be pivotal in addressing economic disparities and promoting a sense of belonging. Moreover, programs aimed at addressing work‐related challenges can also enhance the college experience for rural students. Students may have limited work opportunities in their home communities that are related to their intended careers. In cases such as this, a Career Center at an institution that is reliably tracking their rural students can use their data to find smaller, regional companies closer to where the students are from and invite them to recruitment events.</p> <p>By integrating these considerations into institutional policies and practices, colleges can better support rural students and enhance their overall sense of belonging. Overall, these suggests underscore the importance of programs that consider rural student needs, as inclusive policies require specific attention to all the dimensions of campus climate. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of a holistic approach to fostering a sense of belonging among rural college students. It highlights the need for institutions to address demographic, psychological, behavioral, and structural factors to create supportive and inclusive environments that enable all students, regardless of their background and including rural students, to thrive and belong within the college community.</p> <hd id="AN0183987836-15">Author Contributions</hd> <p> <bold>John Yang</bold>: conceptualization (lead), writing – original draft (lead), data curation (lead), project administration (lead), writing – review and editing (equal). <bold>Shadman Islem</bold>: formal analysis (lead), methodology (supporting), writing – review and editing (equal). <bold>Ty C. McNamee</bold>: supervision (lead), writing – review and editing (equal).</p> <ref id="AN0183987836-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref34" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ajilore, O., and Z. Willingham. 2019. Redefining Rural America. Center for American Progress. https://<ulink href="http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2019/07/17/471877/redefining‐rural‐america/">www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2019/07/17/471877/redefining‐rural‐america/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref18" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ardoin, S. 2018. College Aspirations and Access in Working‐Class Rural Communities: The Mixed Signals, Challenges, and New Language First‐Generation Students Encounter. Lexington Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref30" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ardoin, S., and T. C. McNamee. 2021. " Spatial Inequality and Social Class: Suggestions for Supporting Rural Students Across Social Class Backgrounds." New Directions for Student Services 2020, no. 171–172 : 37 – 46. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20363.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Astin, A. W. 1999. " Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education." Journal of College Student Development 40 : 518 – 529.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref60" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Byun, S., J. L. Meece, and M. J. Irvin. 2012. " Rural‐Nonrural Disparities in Postsecondary Educational Attainment Revisited." American Educational Research Journal 49, no. 3 : 412 – 437. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211416344.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref59" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Capik, D., and M. Shupp. 2021. " Addressing the Sophomore Slump: First‐Generation College Students' completion of Year Two of Study in a Rural Bachelor's Degree Granting College." Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 25, no. 3 : 632 – 656. https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251211014868.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref27" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chatterji, R., N. Campbell, and A. Quirk. 2021. Closing Advanced Coursework Equity Gaps for All Students. Center for American Progress. https://<ulink href="http://www.americanprogress.org/article/closing‐advanced‐coursework‐equity‐gaps‐students/">www.americanprogress.org/article/closing‐advanced‐coursework‐equity‐gaps‐students/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref20" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Davis, L., K. Watts, and J. Ajinkya. 2019. Innovative Strategies to Close Postsecondary Attainment Gaps: Four Regional Approaches to Support Rural Students. Institute for Higher Education Policy. https://<ulink href="http://www.ihep.org/publication/innovative‐strategies‐to‐close‐postsecondary‐attainment‐gaps‐four‐regional‐approaches‐to‐support‐rural‐students/">www.ihep.org/publication/innovative‐strategies‐to‐close‐postsecondary‐attainment‐gaps‐four‐regional‐approaches‐to‐support‐rural‐students/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref56" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Faircloth, S. C., C. M. Alcantar, and F. K. Stage. 2015. " Use of Large‐Scale Data Sets to Study Educational Pathways of American Indian and Alaska Native Students." New Directions for Institutional Research 2014, no. 163 : 5 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganss, K. M. 2016. " The College Transition for First‐Year Students From Rural Oregon Communities." Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 53, no. 3 : 269 – 280. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2016.1157487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ganss, K. M., T. McNamee, and S. Islem. 2022. " Higher Education Access and Success of Rural Students: Ensuring College‐Going Advice Is Relevant to Rural Populations." Theory & Practice in Rural Education 12, no. 1 : 133 – 137. https://doi.org/10.3776/tpre.2022.v12n1p133‐137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzales, R. G., and A. G. Ruiz. 2014. " Dreaming Beyond the Fields: Undocumented Youth, Rural Realities and a Constellation of Disadvantage." Latino Studies 12 : 194 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1057/lst.2014.23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodrich, J. D., and M. J. McClellan. 2022. " Supporting Rural LGBTQ+ Communities in Higher Education." In Affirming LGBTQ+ Students in Higher Education, edited by D. P. Rivera R. L. Abreu, and K. A. Gonzalez, 173 – 188. American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinisch, B. 2017. " Small Fish Out of Water: Rural First‐Generation Student Experience at a Large University." Journal of College Orientation and Transition 24, no. 1 : 21 – 33. DOI: 10.24926/jcotr.v24i1.2904.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heinisch, B. 2018. " Rural Students' Sense of Belonging at a Large Public University." Publication No. 10787122. Doctoral diss., The University of Nebraska—Lincoln. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillman, N., J. Colston, J. Bach‐Hanson, and A. Peek. 2021. Mapping Rural Colleges and Their Communities. Student Success Through Applied Research. https://mappingruralcolleges.wisc.edu/documents/sstar_mapping_rural_colleges_2021.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hillman, N., and T. Weichman. 2016. " Education Deserts: The Continued Significance of 'Place' in the Twenty‐First Century." In Viewpoints: Voices From the Field. American Council on Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.acenet.edu/Documents/Education‐Deserts‐The‐Continued‐Significance‐of‐Place‐in‐the‐Twenty‐First‐Century.pdf">www.acenet.edu/Documents/Education‐Deserts‐The‐Continued‐Significance‐of‐Place‐in‐the‐Twenty‐First‐Century.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoffman, M., J. Richmond, J. Morrow, and K. Salomone. 2002. " Investigating "Sense of Belonging" in First‐Year College Students." Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 4, no. 3 : 227 – 256. https://doi.org/10.2190/DRYC‐CXQ9‐JQ8V‐HT4V.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hudacs, A. 2020. " An Examination of College Persistence Factors for Students From Different Rural Communities: A Multilevel Analysis." Journal of Research in Rural Education 36, no. 2 : 1 – 21. https://doi.org/10.26209/jrre3602.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurtado, S., J. C. Han, V. B. Sáenz, L. L. Espinosa, N. L. Cabrera, and O. S. Cerna. 2007. " Predicting Transition and Adjustment to College: Biomedical and Behavioral Science Aspirants' and Minority Students' First Year of College." Research in Higher Education 48 : 841 – 887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162‐007‐9051‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurtado, S., C. L. Alvarez, C. Guillermo‐Wann, M. Cuellar, and L. Arellano. 2012. " A Model for Diverse Learning Environments." In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, edited by J. Smart and M. Paulsen, Vol. 27, 41 – 122. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐94‐007‐2950‐6_2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurtado, S., and A. Ruiz Alvarado. 2015. Discrimination and Bias, Underrepresentation, and Sense of Belonging on Campus. Higher Education Research Institute. https://<ulink href="http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/Discriminination‐and‐Bias‐Underrepresentation‐and‐Sense‐of‐Belonging‐on‐Campus.pdf">www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/Discriminination‐and‐Bias‐Underrepresentation‐and‐Sense‐of‐Belonging‐on‐Campus.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hussain, M., and J. M. Jones. 2021. " Discrimination, Diversity, and Sense of Belonging: Experiences of Students of Color." Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 14, no. 1 : 63 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000117.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koricich, A., X. Chen, and R. P. Hughes. 2018. " Understanding the Effects of Rurality and Socioeconomic Status on College Attendance and Institutional Choice in the United States." Review of Higher Education 41, no. 2 : 281 – 305. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2018.0004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, J., and M. Pender. 2023. Education Pays 2023: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. College Board. https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/education‐pays‐2023.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, J., M. Pender, and M. Welch. 2019. Education Pays 2019: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. College Board. https://research.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/education‐pays‐2019‐full‐report.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, R. 2016. " Salvaging Education in Rural America." The Atlantic. January 5. https://<ulink href="http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/americas‐rural‐schools/422586/">www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/01/americas‐rural‐schools/422586/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonough, P. M., R. E. Gildersleeve, and K. McClafferty Jarsky. 2010. " The Golden Cage of Rural College Access: How Higher Education Can Respond to the Rural Life." In Rural Education for the Twenty‐First Century: Identity, Place and Community in a Globalizing World, edited by K. A. Schafft and A. Y. Jackson, 191 – 209. Penn State Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McHenry‐Sorber, E., and K. Swisher. 2020. " Negotiating Place and Gender: Appalachian Women's Postsecondary Transition Experiences." Review of Higher Education 43, no. 4 : 1193 – 1226. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2020.0017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNamee, T. C. 2019. " Social Capital in the Rural United States and Its Impact on Educational Attainment." In Contemporary Perspectives on Social Capital in Educational Contexts, edited by R. D. Bartee and P. George, 201 – 219. Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNamee, T. C. 2022. The Cultural Transition Into and Navigation of Higher Education for Rural Students From Poor and Working‐Class Backgrounds. Publication No. 29397176. Doctoral diss., Teachers College, Columbia University. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNamee, T. C., and K. M. Ganss. 2023. " Rural Students in Higher Education: From College Preparation and Enrollment to Experiences and Persistence." Peabody Journal of Education 98, no. 4 : 380 – 395. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2023.2238508.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Means, D. R., A. B. Clayton, J. G. Conzelmann, P. Baynes, and P. D. Umbach. 2016. " Bounded Aspirations: Rural, African American High School Students and College Access." Review of Higher Education 39, no. 4 : 543 – 569. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2016.0035.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Means, D. R., and K. B. Pyne. 2017. " Finding My Way: Perceptions of Institutional Support and Belonging in Low‐Income, First‐Generation, First‐Year College Students." Journal of College Student Development 58, no. 6 : 907 – 924. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0071.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrow, J. A., and M. E. Ackerman. 2012. " Intention to Persist and Retention of First‐Year Students: The Importance of Motivation and Sense of Belonging." Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice 4, no. 3 : 227 – 256. https://doi.org/10.2190/dryc‐cxq9‐jq8v‐ht4v.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muñoz, S. M. 2013. " "I Just Can't Stand Being Like This Anymore": Dilemmas, Stressors, and Motivators for Undocumented Mexican Women in Higher Education." Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice 50, no. 4 : 367 – 382. https://doi.org/10.1515/jsarp‐2013‐0018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Museus, S. D. 2014. " The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model: A New Theory of Success Among Racially Diverse College Student populations." In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research : Volume 29, edited by M. B. Paulsen, 189 – 227. Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. 2015a. Table B.3.a.‐1 Average Freshman Graduation Rate for High School Students, by Locale: School Year 2009–10. Data set. Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/tables/b.3.a.‐1.asp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. 2015b. Table B.3.b.‐1 Percentage of Persons Ages 18–29 Enrolled in Colleges or Universities, by Age Group, 4‐category Local, and Sex: 2015. Data set. Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/tables/b.3.b.‐1.asp.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSC). 2022. High School Benchmarks – 2022. https://nscresearchcenter.org/wp‐content/uploads/2022_HSBenchmarksReport.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niehaus, E., C. M. Campbell, and K. K. Inkelas. 2014. " HLM Behind the Curtain: Unveiling Decisions Behind the Use and Interpretation of HLM in Higher Education Research." Research in Higher Education 55 : 101 – 122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162‐013‐9306‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nora, A., E. Barlow, and G. Crisp. 2012. " Student Persistence and Degree Attainment Beyond the First Year in College: Existing Knowledge and Directions for Future Research." In College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success, edited by A. Seidman, 2nd ed., 229 – 250. Praeger Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Porter, E. 2018. The Hard Truths of Trying to 'Save' the Rural Economy. The New York Times. December 18. https://<ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/14/opinion/rural‐america‐trump‐decline.html">www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/14/opinion/rural‐america‐trump‐decline.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ratcliffe, M., and J. Sisson. 2016. Rural Statistical Areas: Proposal and Considerations. Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau. https://www2.census.gov/about/partners/sdc/events/steering‐committee/2016‐10/2016‐rural.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sansone, V. A., C. S. Sparks, and P. Cano‐McCutcheon. 2020. " Metro and Non‐Metro Variation in Postsecondary Enrollment: The Role of Race, Ethnicity, and Residential Location in Texas." Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis 9, no. 1 : 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.31274/jctp.11013.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sorgen, C. H., T. C. McNamee, B. C. Tate, and P. Shannon‐Baker. 2024. " Supporting Queer Students From Rural Backgrounds: Navigating Challenges and Building Resilience in Higher Education." In Perspectives on Transforming Higher Education and the LGBTQIA Student Experience, edited by A. Herridge and K. Prieto, 164 – 186. IGI Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sowl, S., and A. Crain. 2021. " A Systematic Review of Research on Rural College Access Since 2000." The Rural Educator 42, no. 2 : 16 – 34. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v42i2.1239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, A. N. 2017. Where no Place Is Home: Understanding Rural Students in Higher Education. Doctoral diss., The University of Texas at Austin. https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/61547.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, C. C. 2014. Rural Routes: First Year College Experiences of Students From Rural Backgrounds. Publication No. 3630558. Doctoral diss., Montana State University. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strayhorn, T. L. 2012. College Students' Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All Students. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strayhorn, T. L. 2019. College Students' Sense of Belonging: A Key to Educational Success for All Students. 2nd ed. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thier, M., J. M. Longhurst, P. D. Grant, and J. E. Hocking. 2021. " Research Deserts: A Systematic Mapping Review of US Rural Education Definitions and Geographies." Journal of Research in Rural Education 37, no. 2 : 1 – 24. https://doi.org/10.26209/jrre3702.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tieken, M. C. 2016. " College Talk and the Rural Economy: Shaping the Educational Aspirations of Rural, First‐Generation Students." Peabody Journal of Education 91, no. 2 : 203 – 223. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2016.1151741.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells, R. S., C. A. Manly, S. Kommers, and E. Kimball. 2019. " Narrowed Gaps and Persistent Challenges: Examining Rural‐Nonrural Disparities in Postsecondary Outcomes Over Time." American Journal of Education 126 : 1 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1086/705498.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willis, P. 2012. " Constructions of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Queer Identities Among Young People in Contemporary Australia." Culture, Health, Sexuality 14, no. 10 : 1213 – 1227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2012.724087.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, J. 2024. " Racial Diversity Influences Community Leadership Identity Development: Homogeneity as a Baseline for Measurement." International Journal of Educational Reform. 0, no. 0 : 1 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879241285035.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By John Yang; Shadman Islem and Ty C. McNamee</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref82"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1464200
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Rural Students' Sense of Belonging: The Influence of Academic Campus Climate
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22John+Yang%22">John Yang</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0289-6691">0000-0003-0289-6691</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shadman+Islem%22">Shadman Islem</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ty+C%2E+McNamee%22">Ty C. McNamee</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22New+Directions+for+Higher+Education%22"><i>New Directions for Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 (209):47-56.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sense+of+Belonging%22">Sense of Belonging</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Culture%22">School Culture</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rural+Population%22">Rural Population</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Demography%22">Demography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Behavior%22">Student Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Public+Colleges%22">Public Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Private+Colleges%22">Private Colleges</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California+%28Los+Angeles%29%22">California (Los Angeles)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/he.20526
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0271-0560<br />1536-0741
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Pulling from a sample of students from rural backgrounds (n = 1847), multilevel modeling was used to explore how the academic campus climate can predict sense of belonging for rural students. Findings offer insights into how certain perceptions, behaviors, and institutional characteristics may influence sense of belonging. For instance, higher perceptions of one's academic abilities and the campus diversity, participation in academic advising and intergroup dialogue, and attending a campus located in less urban locations and with higher proportions of racially similar peers all positively influence sense of belonging for rural students. The implications and significance of the study are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1464200
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1464200
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/he.20526
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 47
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Sense of Belonging
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Culture
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rural Population
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Demography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Behavior
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Public Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Private Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California (Los Angeles)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Rural Students' Sense of Belonging: The Influence of Academic Campus Climate
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: John Yang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shadman Islem
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ty C. McNamee
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0271-0560
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1536-0741
          Numbering:
            – Type: issue
              Value: 209
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: New Directions for Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1