Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Asian American and Pacific Islander student-faculty interactions: experiences of first-generation community college students
(USC Thesis Other)
Asian American and Pacific Islander student-faculty interactions: experiences of first-generation community college students
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 1
ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS:
EXPERIENCES OF FIRST-GENERATION, COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS
by
Eileen F. Ie
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2014
Copyright 2014 Eileen F. Ie
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 2
Acknowledgments
First, I thank my family for standing by me every step of the way. Papi, for your love and
sacrifice, Mi, for your tireless work each day, Sean, for your reliability and for teaching me to
take risks, Raymond for your ingenious ideas, and Rusmini & Jacky for reinventing our family.
Kyle, my life partner/best friend, without your constant love, support, and encouragement this
would not have been possible. I love you. I thank Mayle and Vance for their inspiration. I offer
thanks to my extended family for their endless moral support. I am deeply grateful for an
amazing committee that has been genuinely interested in my progress as an educator and as a
person. My deepest thanks to Dr. Tambascia, Dr. Kozeracki, and Dr. Chung. Tracy, you are my
role model. I knew as soon as I walked out of your presentation that I wanted to learn from you.
You have shown me the rare combination of profound intellect and humility, discipline and
kindness. Carol, for your tirelessness, passion to serve, and friendship. Ruth, it has been a
privilege to learn from you. A special thanks to my kindred spirit Michael Colling. Last but not
least, I thank my students who continue to inspire and teach me everyday and to remind me why
I do this work.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 3
Table of Contents
List of Tables 6
List of Figures 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Lack of data 11
Lack of qualitative data 12
Model minority myth 13
“Race-less” student development theories 14
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 18
Significance of the Study 19
Limitations 21
Delimitations 21
Assumptions 22
Definitions 22
Conclusion 26
Chapter Two: Literature Review 27
Vital Role of Community Colleges 28
History and purpose 29
Current trends in community college 31
Minority Serving Institutions 33
Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions 34
Asian American and Pacific Islander Students in Higher Education 35
Different Rate of Degree Attainment 37
Varying Levels of Socioeconomic Success 38
Lack of Mentors 39
Model Minority Myth – A Critical Approach 39
Ethnic Identity 43
Student-Faculty Interaction in Higher Education 44
Campus Racial Climate 47
Theoretical Framework 49
Critical Race Theory 49
Pierre Bourdieu’s Habitus 53
Alexander Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement 57
Application of Theoretical Frameworks 59
Conclusion 61
Chapter Three: Methodology 63
Research Design 65
Qualitative Research Paradigm 65
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 4
Phenomenological Research Design 66
Population and Sample 67
Gaining Access to the Research Site 67
Site Description 68
Purposive Sampling 69
Instrumentation 70
Interviews 70
Data Collection 71
Interview Protocol Development 73
The Researcher’s Role 77
Informed Consent 78
Data Analysis 79
Conceptual Framework 80
Phases 81
Conclusion 82
Chapter Four: Presentation of Data and Findings 83
The Participants 83
Participant Profiles 90
Emergent Themes 98
Summary 115
Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusions 117
Overview and Purpose of Study 119
Discussion of Findings 121
Critical Race Theory 121
Model Minority Myth 121
Community College as Stigma 125
Respectfulness and Politeness 126
Guilt and Obligation 129
Pierre Bourdieu’s Habitus 130
First-Generation Challenges 130
Resourcefulness is born out of necessity 133
Professors as socializing agents and sources of
encouragement 135
Alexander Astin’s Theory of Student of Involvement 138
Genuine interest and approachability matter 139
Implications for Policy and Practice 142
Recommendations for Future Research 146
Conclusions 148
References 150
Appendix A 174
Appendix B 176
Appendix C 178
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 5
Appendix D 180
Appendix E 181
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Percentage of 25-34 Year Olds with an Associate’s Degree or
Higher in 2010 by Race 30
Table 2: Percentage of 25 to 29 Year Olds with a Bachelor’s Degree or
Higher in 2012 31
Table 3: Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Asian American Subgroups, Above 40% 32
Table 4: Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Asian American Subgroups, Below 30% 33
Table 5: Percentage of Bachelor’s Degree Attainment for U.S. Population and Asian
Americans 33
Table 6: Fall 2011 Connole Community College, Race/Ethnicity 64
Table 7: Demographics of Participants 79
Table 8: Student Club Involvement and Use of Campus Resources 83
Table 9: Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status of Participants 86
Table 10: Themes Organized by Theoretical Frameworks 116
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 7
List of Figures
Figure A: Relationship between lack of data, model minority myth, and lack of
Asian American and Pacific Islander research. 6
Figure B: Theoretical Frameworks, Venn diagram of theoretical frameworks. 55
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 8
Abstract
This study focuses on Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) student experiences with
faculty in community colleges, specifically focusing on out-of-classroom interactions. The
research on student-faculty interactions overwhelmingly supports its role in student achievement,
persistence, and overall educational satisfaction (Astin, 1993; Lamport, 1993; Terenzini,
Pascarella, & Blinding, 1999). Yet, AAPIs have the lowest rates of interactions with faculty
(Chang, 2005; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004) and the lowest satisfaction rates of their college
experience compared to other students of color (Chang, 2005; Lew, Chang & Wang, 2005; Park,
2010; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). Few studies have explored the voices of
AAPI students at the community college. This study explores the lived experiences of nine
AAPI first-generation college students (FGCS) and their interactions with faculty at a southern
California community college. Using critical race theory as an analytical framework, this study
focuses on the ways in which an AAPI identity shapes students’ perceptions of their interactions
with faculty outside of the classroom. Data was collected through in-depth interviews with nine
students. Findings suggest that: (1) faculty member’s genuine interest and approachability
matters to AAPI FGCSs, (2) AAPI FGCSs face unique challenges, (3) resourcefulness is born
out of necessity, (4) community college enrollment served as a stigma, (5) professors serve as
socializing agents and sources of encouragement, and (6) respectfulness and politeness is valued.
Listening to the voices of AAPI students is critical to understanding the realities they encounter
during their time in community college. Their ideas can be used to assist the educational
community to promote practices that encourage out-of-classroom interactions with faculty.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 9
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Asian Americans have the highest rates of college degree attainment in the nation.
Nearly 50% of Asian Americans 25 years and older have a bachelor’s degree compared to 28%
of the U.S. population overall (Pew Research Center, 2012). More than half of Asian Americans
hold professional positions and Asian Americans are the highest earning group in America, with
a median household income exceeding that of Whites (Pew Research Center, 2012). Such
aggregated and oversimplified statistics depict a rosy but inaccurate portrayal of Asian
Americans. The term “Asian American” signals the image of a single, uniform, and similar
group of people. However, Asian Americans are a highly diverse group comprised of over 48
ethnicities, more than 400 languages combined, and eight major religions. Asian American and
Pacific Islanders range in levels of education, socioeconomic status, language, and culture. Data
on this population is rarely disaggregated by ethnicity, and therefore creates the perception that
Asian Americans are a homogenous group with similar experiences and outcomes. Nearly all of
the educational research conducted on this group report findings using the term “Asian
American” or “Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI)” which serves to conceal the
differences between ethnic subpopulations. While the term “AAPI” is necessary to address
issues concerning this population, it also perpetuates the idea that various ethnic subpopulations
are more similar than they really are (National Commission on Asian American and Pacific
Islander Research in Education [CARE], 2011; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009).
An accurate and more complete understanding of the Asian American population is not
feasible without more data (specifically qualitative data) and data that are disaggregated. This
study focuses on Asian American and Pacific Islander student experiences with faculty in
community colleges. This chapter begins with the introduction of three interrelated problems in
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 10
education that both constrained and served to inspire the focus of this study. The first problem is
the lack of data on AAPIs in higher education (Chang, 2005; Museus & Kiang, 2009). Secondly,
many of the false perceptions of AAPIs stem from the model minority myth that is often
reinforced in educational settings (Museus, 2009). These two problems lead to a vicious cycle.
One reason for the paucity of scholarly AAPI research in higher education is the myth that
AAPIs are all succeeding in college. This myth is perpetuated by lack of disaggregated data and
the model minority stereotype. That is, the idea that Asian Americans achieve exceptional
academic and occupational success (Chou, Lee, & Ho, 2009; Panelo, 2010; Teranishi, Behringer,
Grey, & Parker, 2009). Figure A below shows how aggregated data contributes to the model
minority myth, leading to AAPIs as an under-researched group in higher education.
Figure A. Relationship between lack of data, model minority myth, and lack of AAPI research.
Lastly, some student development theories used by practitioners overlook student development
processes by race and ethnicity (Patton, McEwan, Rendon, & Howard-Hamilton, 2007;
Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). In order to better understand AAPI student
Strengthening
of
Model
Minority
Myth
Lack
of
AAPI
Research
Aggregated
Data
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 11
development, theories that acknowledge the role of racial and/or ethnic identity must be
considered because race can be, and often is, a powerful factor in student experiences. This is
more apparent for AAPIs for whom academic stereotypes are widespread (Teranishi, Behringer,
Grey, & Parker, 2009).
Lack of Data
Lack of disaggregated data. Of the most widely read peer-reviewed academic journals
in the field of higher education over the past decade, only one percent of articles published gave
specific attention to Asian American or Pacific Islander college students (Museus, 2009).
Although scholarly research on AAPIs in education has increased significantly over the last 20
years (Hune, 1995), Asian Americans are rarely researched in and of themselves (Buenavista,
Jayakumar, & Misa-Escalante, 2009). Typically, when Asian Americans appear in scholarly
research, they are used to legitimate or devalue the experiences of other racial minorities
(Takagi, 1992), placing AAPIs in a disparate position.
One of the most significant problems in AAPI research is the lack of disaggregated data
(Teranishi, 2002; 2012; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). The National Center for
Education Statistics (1997) indicated that aggregated data homogenizes the experiences of
AAPIs and portrays a distorted image of AAPI participation in higher education. Based on
statistical data, it is reasonable to conclude that AAPIs are educationally successful and
overrepresented in higher education (Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). Without
disaggregated data, one would not know that Chinese Americans are seven times more likely to
attend University of California, Berkeley than Filipino Americans despite their equal population
size (Teranishi, 2002). Also, that over half of all Asian Indians and Pakistanis have attained a
bachelor’s degree compared to less than 10% of Laotians, Cambodians, and Hmong (US Census
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 12
Bureau, 2004b). In fact, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Hmong, and Laotians have college
completion rates below the total U.S. population (CARE, 2011). Southeast Asian American
populations (Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, Vietnamese) hold degrees at far lower rates in
comparison to East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Korean) and South Asians (Bangladeshi, Indian,
Pakistani). Southeast Asians also hold degrees at lower rates than the national average (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2004b). Such disparities are concealed when data is aggregated. Aggregated
data conceals the diversity of the AAPI population with respect to ethnicity, social class, and
institutional experiences.
Disaggregated data is crucial for raising awareness about the differential social and
educational outcomes among AAPIs. It would also enable researchers, policy makers, educators,
and practitioners to identify specific needs for AAPI students and target resources where it can
be most effective (Teranishi, 2012). Lastly, disaggregated data would help reduce the extent to
which AAPI needs are confused with other minorities needs or lumped together with other Asian
Americans, thereby concealing the unique needs of underrepresented Asian Americans
(Teranishi, 2012).
Lack of qualitative data. Until this point, the discussion has focused on the need for
disaggregated data. It is equally important to conduct qualitative research on AAPI educational
experiences to more fully understand this population. Currently, very few studies have used
qualitative research methods when studying AAPIs in higher education. Asian American and
Pacific Islander scholars (Chang, 2005; Teranishi, 2002) have recommended that qualitative
studies be conducted in order to gain a richer and more meaningful understanding of AAPI
students.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 13
Model Minority Myth
The model minority myth is the racially constructed stereotype that Asian Americans
achieve universal academic and occupational success (Museus & Kiang, 2009). This myth
paints Asian Americans as “poster children” in higher education, uninhibited by racial barriers
and racism (Bonilla-Silva & Embrick, 2007; Chou & Feagin, 2008; Teranishi, 2010). Takagi
(1992) and critical race theorists have argued that this pervasive and long standing
misconception of Asian Americans has been used to support the notion of a meritocratic society
by overcoming the challenges associated with minority status and persevere despite inequalities
in America. As stated in the opening paragraph of this chapter, the model minority stereotype
has contributed to the omission of AAPIs in scholarly research by reinforcing the perception that
AAPI students do not face challenges in higher education and therefore research on this group is
unnecessary. The absence of empirical knowledge prohibits learning about this group and helps
perpetuate the stereotype, thereby forming a vicious cycle that can perpetuate ignorance and
distorted perceptions of the realities that this population of college students faces.
The model minority status has led to the “deminoritization” of Asian Americans (Lee,
2006). Teranishi and Nguyen (2011) noted that federal agencies have excluded AAPIs in their
definition of underrepresented racial minorities. Additionally, some scholars have excluded
AAPIs from their studies of minorities in higher education because they determined that AAPIs
are not educationally disadvantaged (Astin 1982; Museus & Kiang, 2009). In reality, AAPIs
face many challenges similar to other racial minorities (Museus & Truong, 2009; Panelo, 2010).
AAPI college students report experiences with racial prejudice and discrimination, pressure to
conform to racial stereotypes, and challenges posed by cultures of predominantly White
institutions (Cress & Ikeda, 2003; Lewis, Chesler, & Forman, 2000; Museus, 2007, 2008;
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 14
Panelo, 2010; Teranishi, 2010). Thus, contrary to the “almost White” status (Chou & Feagin,
2008), AAPIs are racial/ethnic minority students who share similar experiences with other
students of color.
“Race-less” Student Development Theories
The research on student-faculty interactions in higher education overwhelmingly finds
the positive relationship between such interactions and student achievement and satisfaction
(Astin, 1993; Lamport, 1993; Terenzini, Pascarella, & Bliming, 1999). Yet, AAPIs have the
lowest rates of interactions with faculty (Chang, 2005) and the lowest satisfaction rates of their
college experience compared to other students of color (Chang, 2005; Lew, Chang & Wang,
2005; Park, 2010; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). According to Patton, McEwen,
Rendon, and Howard-Hamilton (2007), student development theories are “race-less” (p. 41)
because they do not consider the role or impact of race on student identity, development, and
experiences. These theories render students experiences and development as similar regardless
of race or ethnicity. However, race can be, and often is, a powerful factor in student experiences,
particularly for AAPIs and other minority groups for whom stereotypes are pervasive and
persistent (Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). Because these theories do not contain
AAPI perspectives or the perspectives of other people of color, they may not be useful for
developing policies and programs for AAPIs.
A critical perspective recognizes that racism is a part of everyday life and shapes society
(Patton, McEwen, Rendon, & Howard-Hamilton, 2007). Institutions of higher education are not
immune to the racism that is part of larger society but rather reflect and reinforce cultural values,
including racism (Blossfeld & Shavit, 1993; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995, Lopez, 2003;
Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Consequently, race and racism intersect and permeate the educational
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 15
landscape (Lopez, 2003, Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Using critical race theory (CRT) as a lens
allows counterstories that challenge universality and conventional viewpoints (Patton, McEwen,
Rendon, & Howard-Hamilton, 2007) to be heard and be recognized as legitimate, relevant, and
central in contextualizing race and racial realities (Solorzano, 1998). Critical race theory can be
an important tool for developing a deeper understanding of AAPI student experiences in that it
provides an alternative lens to dominant ways of seeing (Ladson-Billings, 2000).
First-generation College Students
First-generation college students (FGCS) are defined as those students whose parents
never attended college or did not earn a college degree (NCES, 1998; Majer, 2009). First-
generation college students face unique challenges and are some of the most educationally
disadvantaged students in higher education (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). These students
are more likely to attend two-year colleges, be ethnic minorities, and come from low-income
families (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). First generation students are also more likely to be
employed and work more, are less likely to live on campus, participate in college activities
(Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak & Terenzini), have lower grade point averages (Riehl, 1994) and
take longer to obtain a degree (Ishitani, 2006). Compared to continuing students, first-generation
students perceive themselves as less prepared for college (Inman & Mayes, 1999), a finding
supported in this study. This perception is founded on FGCSs awareness that they lack
procedural knowledge and exposure to parent's experiences about the college going process
(Riehl, 1994).
Statement of the Problem
The research on student-faculty interactions overwhelmingly supports its role in student
achievement, persistence, and overall educational satisfaction. While there is much research on
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 16
student-faculty interactions, nearly all employ quantitative methodology to study a highly
personal and complex experience (Cox & Orehovec, 2007). Moreover, very few studies of
student-faculty interactions take into account racial differences or examine the effects of race on
student-faculty interaction patterns (Mook, 2002; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009).
Studies on student-faculty interactions are typically couched in student-development theories that
have been critiqued for being “race-less” (Patton, McEwen, Rendon, & Howard-Hamilton,
2007). Therefore, the use of CRT as an analytic framework is necessary to better understand the
role of race and ethnicity on students’ experiences.
Studies on student-faculty interactions with a particular focus on race mostly examine
differences between African American, Latino, and AAPI students rather than the unique
experiences of each group in and of themselves (Loo & Rolison, 1986). As previously stated,
AAPIs in higher education have not been well-researched, perhaps due to the combination of the
model minority stereotype and their designation as a “non-minority minority” (CARE, 2011).
When AAPIs are included in such research, they are used to perpetuate the dichotomized Black-
White racial spectrum where AAPIs and Whites occupy one end of the spectrum and juxtapose
Blacks and Latinos on the other end of the spectrum (Chang, Witt, Jones, & Hakuta, 2003).
Only a limited number of studies exclusively research AAPI students and their interactions with
faculty.
Of those that focus on AAPIs and their interactions with faculty, the data is neither
disaggregated by ethnicity, college generational status, or qualitative. Aggregation of AAPI data
does not depict an accurate picture of AAPIs educational outcomes and quantitative data is
unable to capture the nuances of AAPI student experiences. Moreover, the data on first-
generation college students find that compared to continuing students they lack procedural
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 17
knowledge and exposure to parent's experiences about the college going process (Riehl, 1994),
which may contribute to FGCSs perceiving themselves as less prepared for college (Inman &
Mayes, 1999). The need for disaggregated racial data is crucial when wide disparities exist
between East and South Asians, and Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders completion rates. As
stated earlier, East and South Asians exceed national levels of bachelor’s degree attainment
whereas most Southeast Asians and Pacific Islanders fall below the national level of bachelor’s
degree attainment (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004b). Furthermore, nearly all research on student-
faculty interactions focus on four-year institutions, leaving a gap in knowledge about the
interactions of community college students and faculty (Hagedorn, Maxwell, Rodriguez,
Hocevar & Fillpot, 2000). Almost half of AAPIs in higher education are enrolled at two-year
institutions (CARE, 2011) yet there is very little attention paid to this population in scholarly
research. Furthermore, many of these students do not have parents who attended college and it is
important to focus on the unique needs of first-generation college students. To this extent, a
qualitative exploration using a critical race perspective of AAPI FGCS experiences with faculty
at community colleges requires attention.
While there may be a seemingly inherent contradiction in emphasizing the importance of
disaggregating AAPI data and using critical race theory rather than theories of ethnic identity or
acculturation theories, the use of CRT as a theoretical and analytic framework is simply to call
attention to race and racial identity as a factor in student-faculty interactions and in response to
“race-less” student development theories (Patton, McEwen, Rendon, & Howard-Hamilton, 2007,
p. 41). According to Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, and Parker (2009), “CRT has been particularly
useful for the critique of deficit thinking—the framing of racial inequities as a result of
individual deficiencies . . .” (p. 58). This is especially relevant for the study of AAPIs given the
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 18
extent to which stereotypes and assumptions have motivated the treatment of this population in
educational landscapes. Ethnic identity is indeed important but is typically unrecognized by non-
AAPIs. In other words, race, not ethnicity is more noticeable and serves as a master status
(Henslin, 2008).
AAPI self-development may be understood through George Herbert Mead’s (1959)
conceptualization of self. Mead (1959) states, “it is only by taking the roles of others that we
have been able to come back to ourselves” (p. 184). Mead (1959) explains that the self develops
through the process of role taking, meaning the self develops from imagining the perceptions of
others about one’s self. For example, AAPIs who role-take with non-AAPIs will perceive
themselves as the broader category of Asian American or Pacific Islander rather than a specific
ethnic group. Ethnic identity and levels of acculturation are indeed an important aspect of
student development but is not explored in-depth in this study.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the lived experiences of AAPI FGCSs and their
interactions with faculty in the community college setting. Using CRT as an analytical
framework, this study focuses on the ways in which an Asian American Pacific Islander identity
shapes students’ perceptions of their educational experiences. This study uses a qualitative
approach to reveal the nuanced experiences of AAPI students (Babbie, 2005; Hesse-Biber &
Leavey, 2006; Maxwell, 2013). Data reveal that AAPI students have the lowest levels of
interactions with faculty but the reasons why are unknown. This study uncovers some of these
reasons and in doing so hopes to inform practices that will better serve this population and in
turn contribute to the broader Completion Agenda.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 19
The Completion Agenda is President Obama’s initiative to increase the number of
Americans to attain a college degree (The College Board, 2013). The Completion Agenda aims
to ensure that all Americans have access to higher education and to make America the leader in
educational attainment by having the highest proportion of young adults to hold college degrees
by 2025. As the only truly open access institution of higher education, community colleges are
currently the only route available to help meet the numbers projected in these educational goals.
As the numbers of AAPI students enrolled at these institutions increase, it is important to
understand their experiences in order to improve practices that will better serve this group.
The research question guiding this study is:
1. What are the experiences of AAPI first-generation college students with faculty
at the community college?
Sub-questions include:
a. How might AAPI racial identity shape the perceptions of AAPI students’
experiences?
b. How might first-generation college status influence interactions with faculty?
c. How might the model-minority stereotype affect AAPI student’s educational
experiences?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant because it contributes knowledge about AAPIs in higher
education. Specifically, this study narrows the gap in scholarly research on AAPIs in community
colleges. This study recognizes and identifies participant’s ethnicities, adding depth and
complexity to existing research on AAPI students. This study also adds to the paucity of
qualitative data about AAPIs in higher education, allowing for counter-stories to emerge.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 20
AAPI students are enrolling in community colleges at a growing rate (CARE, 2011) but
few studies examine their experiences. Therefore, scholarly research whose focus is to
understand the ways in which student-faculty interactions contribute to academic achievement
benefits all educators. Although AAPIs as a whole are the most college-educated group in
America, many report negative educational experiences, including racial discrimination and
unwelcoming campus climates (Uba, 1994; Cress & Ikeda, 2003). Such experiences and
environments can have adverse impacts on AAPI students’ campus involvements, persistence,
and achievement. Presumably, these experiences differ by Asian ethnic group and a better
understanding of these experiences will contribute to practices that can increase AAPI student
satisfaction that may lead to persistence, thereby contributing to the nation’s Completion
Agenda. As the nation’s second fastest growing racial group (Pew Research Center, 2012),
educators would benefit from a deeper understanding of AAPI student experiences in higher
education.
Findings from this study may be used to inform administrators, student affairs
practitioners as well as instructors to better serve this often-misunderstood population,
particularly at Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions
(AANAPISIs) whose student population is comprised of at least 10% of AAPI students. First,
this study provides a greater and deeper understanding of the lives and experiences of AAPI
FGCSs. Specifically, this study illustrates the ways in which racial identity and the perceptions
of AAPIs impact student success. Second, the findings provide implications for institutions to
develop strategies and programs geared specifically for AAPI FGCSs to increase AAPI student
involvement on campus that can lead to increased satisfaction and achievement. A more
accurate understanding of the diversity of this group also helps those underrepresented AAPIs in
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 21
higher education. Furthermore, findings from this study may be applied to other student
populations confronting the issue of low student-faculty interactions.
Findings from this research may also be useful for policymakers focused on meeting the
Completion Agenda’s goal to increase the number of college graduates to 55% (The College
Board, 2013). As Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, and Pacific Islanders face low
college attainment rates (CARE, 2011), an understanding of the factors that contribute to this
problem will increase persistence and college degree attainment. Finally, this research adds to
existing literature for future research on the topic of AAPI FGCSs in community colleges and
research on student-faculty interactions.
Limitations
This study was conducted at a single community college in the greater Los Angeles area.
The AAPI students from this campus may not be representative of AAPI students from the
surrounding area, other parts of the state, or the country. Findings from this study may not be
indicative of other California community college students. Additionally, only pre-survey and
interview data were used, limiting the scope of data sources.
Delimitations
Socioeconomic status, gender, and age of students are important variables that influence
how interactions with faculty are experienced but was not examined explicitly. As a qualitative
study, focus on FGCS status is not used to the exclusion of socioeconomic status, gender, and/or
age, but rather as a starting point to allow other factors to emerge. These variables were collected
in a pre-survey as part of interviewee background characteristics.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 22
Assumptions
One assumption is that AAPI FGCSs adhere to cultural norms that may hinder the
likelihood of their interacting with faculty, thereby diminishing their chances for developing
academic relationships (Panelo, 2010). Asian culture emphasizes deep respect for authority and
for elders, which may be values that AAPI students embody. In addition, Asians also prize
independent problem solving, particularly for males (Hu, 1985). Consequently, help-seeking
behavior is somewhat looked down upon. Therefore, reverence for faculty (authority figures)
coupled with independent learning may constrain AAPI students from interacting with faculty
members outside of the classroom. These assumptions are based on personal observations,
counter-stories shared with me over the years, and the researcher’s personal experiences as an
AAPI FGCS.
Definitions
For the purposes of this study, the following are definitions of relevant terms.
• Acculturation - The process undergone by different cultural groups when they interact
and adopt cultural patterns from one another. The process of acculturation is one of being
changed through assimilation into an alternate culture. Frequently, the acculturated
culture in reference is the dominant one in the society (Sullivan, 2009).
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institution – a two or
four-year institution with at least 10% of its students identified as Asian-American or
Pacific Islanders, and if at least 50% of its entire student body has demonstrated financial
need, measured by participation in federal financial aid programs (U.S. Department of
Education, 2012).
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 23
• Asian American Pacific Islander – Socially constructed racial category used differently
in different contexts. When used for interracial group comparisons, AAPIs represent a
single entity; when studying within the AAPI population, represents a complex set of
social realities for individuals who fall within this category. The U.S. Census Bureau
(2010) defines Asian Americans as, “People with origins in the Far East, Southeast Asia
and the Indian Subcontinent. Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders are “people having
origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.”
• Community college – two-year, government subsidized college that offers an associate’s
degree (Merriam-Webster, 2013).
• Cultural capital – a form of capital that resides in relationships among individuals that
facilitate transaction and the transmission of different resources (Pascarella, Pierson,
Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004); familiarity with the dominant culture in a society, and
especially the ability to understand and use ‘educated’ language (Bourdieu, 1977).
• Ethnicity – one’s ethnic affiliation or quality (Conley, 2008); an ethnic group set apart
from others primarily because of its national origin or distinctive cultural patterns (Witt,
2009).
• Faculty – instructional staff of a college or university.
• First-generation college student (FGCS) – a student whose parents never attended
college or did not earn a college degree (NCES, 1998; Majer, 2009).
• Habitus - a mental structure through which individuals engage with the social world and
is comprised of values, dispositions and expectations of particular social groups that are
acquired through the activities and experiences of everyday life. Habitus is a mental
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 24
structure characterized by a set of acquired schemata, sensibilities, dispositions and taste
(Bourdieu, 1977, 1984).
• Institutional racism – racism that exists when cultural values, beliefs, laws, and norms
allow acts by individuals to deny others access to valued resources. These acts or
practices are part of the way a social structure normally operates and are pervasive and
persistent features of interaction between people (Aguirre & Turner, 2010).
• Individual racism – racism that exists within individuals; one person treating another
person badly on the basis of race or ethnicity (Parillo, 2010).
• Race – a socially constructed label that uses physical features such as skin color and
facial features as highly visible markers of organizational, behavioral, and cultural
differences among individuals. Thus, when someone is labeled “Asian,” “Asian
American,” or “Pacific Islander,” more than skin color is involved; whole clusters of
assumptions about historical experiences, behavior, organization, and culture are
associated with this label (Aguirre & Turner, 2010).
• Social capital – a form of capital that can be converted into socially valued resources and
opportunities. Social capital 1) is cumulative, 2) possesses the capacity to produce profits
or benefits in the social world, 3) is convertible into tangible resources or other forms of
capital, and 4) possesses the capacity to reproduce itself in identical or in expanded form
(Bourdieu, 1986; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Valued social relations between people (Ritzer,
2000).
• Student-faculty interactions – a form of academic involvement consisting of formal and
informal aspects (Chang, 2005) that take place outside of the classroom. Contact must be
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 25
more than incidental (Cox & Orehovec, 2007) and what Cox and Orehovec (2007) label
as “functional,” “personal,” or “mentoring” interactions.
o Functional interactions – one of the types of student-faculty interactions in Cox
and Orehevoc’s (2007) typology of faculty-student interaction for a specific,
institutionally related purpose (Cox & Orehevoc, 2007). Out of class interactions
that “usually is directly or indirectly related to academic activities and concerns”
(Kuh, Shuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991, p. 174); “can include students asking
professors academic questions, students and faculty members working on a
college project together, or faculty members asking students institution-related
questions” (Cox & Orehevoc, 2007, p. 353).
o Personal interactions – one of the types of student-faculty interactions in Cox
and Orehevoc’s (2007) typology of faculty-student interaction wherein the
“interaction is purposeful and revolves around the personal interest(s) of a faculty
member and/or student” (p. 354). These interactions have “humanizing” and
“personalizing” effects (Colwell & Lifka, 1983)
o Mentoring – one of the types of student-faculty interactions in Cox and
Orehevoc’s (2007) typology of faculty-student interaction described as the
“highest end on a continuum of helping relationships” (Jacobi, 1991, p. 511). The
relationship must include (a) direct assistance with career and professional
development, (b) emotional and psychosocial support, and (c) role modeling.
Mentoring requires an extended relationship built on both functional and personal
interactions (Cox & Orehevoc, 2007).
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 26
Conclusion
Scholarly research on AAPI FGCSs in higher education is scarce. Contributing to this
paucity is the combination of the model-minority stereotype, which assumes that all AAPIs are
academically successful, and the notion that AAPIs are a homogenous group (Teranishi,
Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). While some groups of AAPIs indeed have high degrees of
college degree attainment, a particular segment of AAPIs have college completion rates below
the national average. Additionally, FGCSs tend to be at a distinct disadvantage with respect to
basic knowledge about higher education (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004),
which may be a contributing factor to AAPI students having the lowest levels of interactions
with faculty.
The subsequent chapter provides a review of the literature beginning with an account of
the role of community colleges in the Completion Agenda. A detailed discussion of AAPIs and
the challenges confronting this population follows. The last section of the literature review
focuses on research on student-faculty interactions and the theoretical framework used in this
study.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 27
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The need for a deep and more meaningful understanding of Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders (AAPIs) in higher education is increasingly important. Asian Americans are the
second fastest-growing racial group in the nation and recent projections suggest that almost one
in every ten residents will be of Asian descent by 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004b). Given the
rapid growth of the AAPI population and their presence in institutions of higher education, it is
imperative to develop a fuller understanding of this ethnically diverse group. Asian American
and Pacific Islanders will undoubtedly contribute to meeting the goals of the nation’s
Completion Agenda and for this reason a more refined understanding of AAPI college student
experiences is in order. The first part of this chapter will begin with an overview of the role of
community colleges in the Completion Agenda, the history and current trends of community
colleges, and a summary of minority serving institutions. The second half of this chapter
examines AAPIs in higher education, the role of student-faculty interactions in higher education,
a synopsis of campus racial climate, and concludes with the theoretical framework utilized for
this study.
While AAPIs constitute 6.1% of the total population in higher education (NCES, 2010)
and 7% of the community college population (CARE Report, 2011), data for this group is rarely
disaggregated by ethnicity or national origin, thereby leading to inaccurate representations of this
group as a whole. Furthermore, the research on AAPIs at community colleges is sparse (Chang,
2005; Museus & Kiang, 2009). Based on the little research conducted on this group, we know
that many AAPIs in higher education are first-generation college students (FGCS) and many
begin their journey in higher education at the community college (NCES, 1998). The research
on student-faculty interactions in higher education overwhelmingly finds a positive relationship
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 28
between such interactions and student achievement and satisfaction (Astin, 1993; Lamport, 1993;
Terenzini, Pascarella, & Bliming, 1999). Yet, AAPIs have the lowest rates of interactions with
faculty (Chang, 2005) and the lowest satisfaction rates of their college experience (Chang, 2005;
Lew, Chang & Wang, 2005; Park, 2010; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). Findings
about this group have largely been based on quantitative studies, revealing a gap in the literature
(Chang, 2005). To this extent, an exploration of AAPI student experiences with faculty requires
attention. Following the recommendations of AAPI researchers, this study takes a qualitative
approach to uncover the experiences of AAPI students with faculty in community colleges.
Vital Role of Community Colleges
In 2009, President Obama placed America’s community colleges squarely in the public
spotlight when he announced the college Completion Agenda (U.S. Department of Education,
2011). Overnight, higher education in general and community colleges in particular became part
of the public discourse. The Completion Agenda has two goals: First, to ensure all Americans
have access to higher education and second, to make America the leader in educational
attainment by having the highest proportion of young adults to hold college degrees by 2025.
Returning as the world’s leader in educational attainment is imperative for the United States to
maintain its economic competitiveness both nationally and internationally (U.S. Department of
Education, 2011).
Currently, the United States ranks fourteenth in the world for young adults with college
degrees (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2012). In addition to
President Obama’s Completion Agenda, the Lumina Foundation introduced its “Big Goal” of
increasing the proportion of Americans with college degrees to 60% by 2025. In real numbers,
this means an additional eight million 25 to 34 year old Americans must obtain a degree by 2025
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 29
in order to close the gap. Internationalization has bifurcated the world into knowledge-producing
nations and manufacturing nations, and if the United States is to maintain its global standing as
the world hegemon, having an educated workforce is compulsory. As the only truly open access
institutions of higher education, community colleges are currently the primary route available to
help meet the numbers projected in these educational goals. Remaining competitive in the global
economy means reaching these educational targets and in this way, the community college plays
a vital role for America’s future.
History and Purpose
A distinctively American invention, community colleges have always responded to the
needs of its community. In its beginnings, community colleges focused on general liberal arts
studies (Bogue, 1950). During the decade of the Great Depression, the focus shifted to job-
training programs, and after World War II and the GI Bill, the focus changed again to greater
options in higher education. Although the first community college was established in 1901,
widespread growth did not take place until the 1960s and early 1970s (Breneman & Nelson,
1981). Today, there are 1,166 community colleges nationwide and when satellite campuses are
included, the number increases to nearly 1,600 (AACC, 2000). In 2008, nearly 12% of all 18 to
24 year olds, a total of 3.4 million students, were enrolled in a community college (Pew Research
Center, 2010).
Historically, the community colleges provided an essential component of higher
education in the United States (Jurgens, 2010) and currently they play a key role in fulfilling the
President’s Completion Agenda. Serving as education’s front-line interface with society,
community colleges provide general and liberal education, vocational and technical education,
adult and continuing education, and developmental and remedial college-preparatory education
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 30
(American Association of Community Colleges [AACC], 2009). The mission of the community
college is to provide quality education for individuals in its service region. Most community
colleges have a commitment to serve all segments of society through an open-access policy that
offers equal and fair treatment, offer a comprehensive educational plan, serve its community as a
community-based institution of higher education, teaching, and lifelong learning (American
Association of Community College, 2009).
In California, this commitment has been legislated and is part of the California Master
Plan (California Master Plan, 1970). In addition to its accessibility, community colleges are
attractive because of their lower tuition. The average annual cost of tuition for community
college is $2,500, versus a public four-year institution of over $7,000, and approximately
$22,500 for a private, four-year education (White House Summit on Community College Report,
2011). Community colleges confer associate’s degrees and have come to play a key transfer role
to four-year institutions for those wishing to pursue baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate
degrees.
Community colleges have been called the “people’s college” or “democracy colleges”
(Shaw, Valadez, & Rhoades, 1999) and represent the largest sector of higher education (AACC,
2009). Nearly half of all students enrolled in institutions of higher education are enrolled in
community colleges (AACC, 2000). From its inception, the community college offered an
opportunity towards reaching the American dream. Its open access admission policy inherently
invites a diverse student population—from those wishing to earn an associate’s degree to those
seeking to retool employment skills (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2006). In
this way, the community college system is the system closest to meeting the diverse educational
needs of the US population. Community colleges provide access and educate those who have
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 31
traditionally been underserved, including working adults, low-income students, people of color,
and those whose K-12 schooling underprepared them for higher education (Dowd, 2007;
Hagedorn, 2009; Shaw & London, 2001). Community colleges serve a democratic function and
stand at the crossroads of social mobility in American society.
Current Trends in Community Colleges
Although two-year institutional enrollments continue to grow at a faster rate than that of
four-year institutions (Jurgens, 2010) and students enroll because of the promise of educational
access, many students are not successfully completing a degree (McClenney, 2004). Among all
students who started at a two-year public institution only 36% received a degree or certificate
within six years (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2012). Fewer than 3 in 10
full time students pursuing a two-year degree graduate within three years and part time students
graduate at even lower rates (White House Summit on Community College Report, 2011). One
reason for this trend is that 60% of community college students are required to complete
remedial education (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013). The term “remedial” is
used interchangeably with “developmental” and “basic skills” (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2013). Remedial education refers to all classes below college-level for which
students do not receive college credit, thereby delaying graduation (National Conference of State
Legislatures, 2013).
Students who are underprepared for college-level courses are referred to remedial
education and the need for remediation is widespread. On average, 43% of community college
students require remediation (Strong American Schools, 2008). Low-income, Hispanic and
African-American students are more likely than their wealthier White peers to need remediation
(National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013). Of those who require developmental courses,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 32
less than a quarter graduate within eight years (Bailey, 2009). On average, it takes most students
six years to complete an associate’s degree (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2013).
While community colleges may serve as gateways to higher education, upon closer
review they also act as gatekeepers (Brint & Karabel, 1991; Dowd, 2007). Because of the
community college’s open access nature, they continue to enroll the majority of entering students
when compared to other higher education institutions. According to Astin and Oseguera (2004)
and Bowen, Kurzweil, and Tobin (2005), universities have become increasingly selective,
making the collegiate student population more stratified by socioeconomic status and ability. In
other words, the most capable and privileged students are concentrated in fewer elite universities.
These current trends are important to note in exploring the experiences of AAPI FGCS
interaction with faculty at community colleges because most AAPIs begin their higher education
experience at the community college (CARE, 2011), where the issues described here take place.
Community colleges serve as educational advocates, but they also serve to channel low-
income and FGCSs into occupational tracks or lower academic aspirations (Brint & Karabel,
1991). According to Brint and Karabel (1991), community colleges promoted their vocational
programs more than academic programs to situate themselves favorably for the next available
market niche. In other words, by matriculating students with vocational certificates, a newly
skilled workforce is available to fill positions. Subsequently, universities do not see large
numbers of transfer students (students who complete their general education requirements in
community college) applying for admission to their institutions (Turner, 2004). While the
community college mission in California has always been dual, Brint and Karabel (1991) argue
the “vocationalization” of community colleges assist in maintaining the American class system
and social division of labor. This claim is strengthened with increased funding and focus
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 33
directed to vocational aspects of community colleges (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
According to Brint and Karabel (1991) and other Marxist and functionalist critics of community
colleges, students are diverted from associate’s degree attainment to vocational education, a
phenomenon referred to as the “cooling-out” function in higher education (Clark, 1960).
Moreover, there are no data that track students’ initial educational goal upon community college
entry and educational goal at exit, making it impossible to assess whether diversion mirrors
racial or class stratification. It is possible that AAPI FGCSs in community college, like other
first-generation college students, may not recognize the benefits of developing relationships with
faculty if they are on the vocational track.
Minority Serving Institutions
According to Strauss (2009), community colleges are experiencing an unprecedented
spike in enrollments, and growth is predicted to be especially strong among low-income and
minority students. Today, community colleges enroll 6.8 million students nationwide and in
California, community colleges serve 1.4 million students (AACC, 2013). Of those enrolled in
California, 54% are students of color (AACC, 2013). The percentage of racial and ethnic
minorities in the United States is projected to increase from 31% to 40% by 2020 and to over
50% by 2050 (Institute for Higher Education Policy [IHEP], 2012). Connecting this
demographic shift to the Completion Agenda requires a closer examination of minority-serving
institutions (MSIs), which have been deemed as “critical partners in the completion agenda”
(IHEP, 2012, p. 1). Minority-serving institutions include Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), Tribal College and Universities
(TCUs), and most recently Asian American Native American Pacific Islander- Serving
Institutions (AANAPISIs) (IHEP, 2012). Almost half of the 4.3 million students of color
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 34
enrolled in degree-granting institutions of higher education in 2000 were enrolled in two-year
colleges (Wang, Chang, & Lew, 2009). In 2007-08, MSIs granted nearly 187,000 degrees and
certificates to students of color (IHEP, 2012). Minority serving institutions provide hope and
access for many, including FGCSs of color who may never have attended college.
Asian American Native American and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions
This study focuses specifically on Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) student
experiences, therefore a definition of AAPIs is in order and a brief overview of Asian American,
Native American, Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs) is necessary to provide
greater context. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010, para 6), “Asian” refers to “a person
having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian
subcontinent, including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan,
the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.” The Asian American and Pacific Islander
classification consists of 48 different groups occupying every point on the socioeconomic
spectrum, from the very poor to the highly affluent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Each
subpopulation has a distinct language, culture, religion and organizational pattern (Aguirre &
Turner, 2009; Teranishi & Nguyen, 2011). However, the image of Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders continues to be a single monolithic group in broader society and at universities.
AANAPISIs are the most recent MSI designation, and were first recognized in 2008
(IHEP, 2012). Asian American, Native American, Pacific Islander Serving Institutions are two-
and four-year public institutions located primarily on the East Coast or West Coast. Based on a
2009 report by the Congressional Research Service, 116 institutions meet the AANAPISI
eligibility criteria. However, as of fiscal year 2010, only 27 institutions had received an
AANAPISI designation, and only 15 had received funding (U.S. Department of Education,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 35
2012). Of the 27 designees, 17 are located in California (IHEP, 2012). Asian American, Native
American, Pacific Islander Serving Institutions serve a population of students that encompasses
over 48 different ethnicities and when data is disaggregated, the AAPI population reveals a
complex and varied demography (Harmon, 2012). Criteria to qualify for an AANAPISI grant
are a minimum of 10% Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander undergraduate
enrollment and a minimum of 50% of degree-seeking students receiving federal financial
assistance (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).
Asian American and Pacific Islander Students in Higher Education
Over the past few decades, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) have captured
public and scholarly attention for their increasing presence in institutions of higher education.
Although comprising just below six percent of the American populace, AAPIs constituted six
percent of the college student population in 2010, an increase of 200% since 1976 (CARE
Report, 2011). In California, AAPI students constitute 15% of community college students
(AACC, 2013). As shown in Table 1, in 2010, 68% of AAPIs ages 25 to 34 had an associate’s
degree or higher, followed by Whites at 42%, African Americans at 30%, and Hispanics at 20%
(The College Board, 2013). In Table 2, 62% of Asians, 40% of Whites, 23% of African
Americans, 15% of Hispanics, and 26% of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders had a
bachelor’s degree or higher in 2012.
Table 1
Percentage of 25 to 34 Year Olds with an Associate’s Degree or Higher in 2010 by Race
Race Percentage
African Americans 30%
Asian American and Pacific Islanders 68%
Hispanics 20%
Whites 42%
Source: The College Board (2013)
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 36
Table 2
Percentage of 25 to 29 Year Olds with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher in 2012
Race Percentage
African Americans 23%
Asian American 62%
Hispanics 15%
Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders 26%
Whites 40%
Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2013)
Since the 1990s, college enrollment for every racial group has steadily increased (CARE,
2011). Today, 42% of 18 to 24 year-olds are enrolled in college. While educational attainment
among all racial groups has increased in recent decades, it is markedly higher for AAPIs.
Among AAPIs 25 and older, 49% hold at least an associate’s degree, compared to 28% of the
U.S. population overall (Pew Research Center, 2012). However, AAPIs in the nation’s
community colleges have been largely ignored and misperceptions about various ethnic groups
within the AAPI community are great. Moreover, despite the relatively high number of degrees
earned, little is known about underserved AAPI groups. Attention for this understudied
population is essential for meeting the nation’s Completion Agenda.
Based on annual reports from the American Council on Education (2011) for the last
three decades, AAPI students comprise a considerable segment of those enrolled in community
colleges, although research on this group is minimal. Asian American and Pacific Islander
enrollment in two-year institutions increased by 28% nationwide from 1998 to 2008 (CARE
Report, 2011). AAPIs constitute 15.9% of the community college student body. In California,
which has the largest AAPI population of any state, the proportion of AAPI students in
community colleges more than doubled between 1980 and 2000 (Wassmer, Moore, & Shulock,
2003). In fact, Asian American student enrollment at public community colleges outpaced
Asian American enrollment at four-year institutions from 1990 to 2000 (Chang, 2005).
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 37
Furthermore, of community college students who stated transfer as an educational goal, AAPIs
had the highest proportion of goal attainment (Wassmer, Moore, & Shulock, 2009). Despite
these progresses, AAPIs still only make up a menial 6.5% of total enrollment in postsecondary
degree-granting institutions, compared to 65.7% for Whites (NCES, 2010).
Different Rates of Degree Attainment
The failure to disaggregate by ethnicity conceals differences in college degree attainment
rates among various Asian groups. As shown in Table 3, East Asians, South Asians, Thai,
Indonesians, and Filipinos have a bachelor’s degree or higher at or above for Asian Americans as
a whole. However, as shown in Table 4, most Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander college
completion rates fall considerably below the Asian American bachelor’s degree attainment as
well as the bachelor’s degree attainment for the whole U.S. population (Aguirre & Turner, 2009).
The percentage of Asian American bachelor’s degree attainment as well as the U.S. population
bachelor’s degree attainment is shown in Table 5.
Table 3
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher by Asian American Subgroups Above 40%, 2006-2010
Ethnic Group Percentage
Asian Indian 71.1%
Bangladeshi 49.9%
Chinese 51.5%
Filipino 48.1%
Indonesian 48.7%
Japanese 47.7%
Korean 52.7%
Pakistani 53.9%
Sri Lankan 57.4%
Taiwanese 74.1%
Thai 43.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Briefs (2012).
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 38
Table 4
Bachelors Degree or Higher by Asian American Subgroups, Below 30%, 2006-201
Ethnic Group Bachelor’s Degree
Cambodian 14.5%
Hmong 14.4%
Laotian 12.1%
Native Hawaiian 15.9%
Samoan 10.0%
Tongan 15.0%
Vietnamese 25.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Briefs (2012).
Table 5
Percentage of Bachelor’s Degree Attainment for U.S. Population and Asian Americans, 2006-
2010
Group Bachelor’s Degree
Asian Americans 50.2%
U.S. population 27.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Briefs (2012).
AAPIs that do not fit the model minority stereotype—low income and academically
unprepared—are left out of campus programs and services that focus its efforts on such
underrepresented groups (Panelo, 2010).
Varying Levels of Socioeconomic Success
Aggregation of AAPIs conceals important distinctions between groups and results in an
oversimplified portrayal of AAPIs as a homogenous group (Hune, 2002; Hune & Chan, 1997;
Liang, Ting, & Teraguchi, 2001). Not only do AAPIs differ in degree attainment, but also in
socioeconomic status. Hmong and Cambodian Americans have the highest rates of poverty
among AAPIs while Filipino-origin Americans have the lowest (CARE, 2008). In
disaggregating data, Liang, Ting, and Teraguchi (2001) found that over 94% of Tongan,
Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong Americans do not complete college, and only 31% of Hmong
Americans graduate from high school—a stark reality to the typical high-achieving model
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 39
minority stereotype. Although on average, AAPI households yield the highest incomes in the
U.S., poverty rates for AAPIs are nearly double the rates of Whites (Hune, 2002; Hune & Chan,
1997) and AAPIs with lower socioeconomic statuses face similar academic challenges as other
racial groups with low socioeconomic status, including lower levels of academic achievement.
Asian American and Pacific Islander students in this group may be expected to work long hours,
take care of siblings or children, or begin full-time work immediately upon graduating from high
school (Lew, Chang, & Wang, 2005). Asian American and Pacific Islander women, more so
than men, are expected to marry and have children at a young age. Parents of AAPI students
from low socioeconomic status backgrounds may also work long hours and therefore unable to
provide emotional support and guidance (Lew, Chang, & Wang, 2005). Hence, many AAPI
students fit the characteristics of “nontraditional” students (Teranishi & Nguyen, 2011).
Lack of Mentors
Researchers have largely overlooked the mentor relationships of Asian American college
students, despite evidence that suggests the potential importance of mentors to this population
(Liang, Allison, Kauh, Taylor, & Williams, 2006). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who
are also FGCSs may lack the cultural capital necessary to successfully navigate the higher
education system and cannot rely on parents who are often unfamiliar with the system and/or
lack proficiency in the English language (Chae, 2002). Interactions with faculty are especially
important for this group because faculty play an important role in these students’ social network
(Chang, 2005).
Model Minority Myth—A Critical Approach
In order to understand the barriers confronting the AAPI student population, attention
must be given to the myth of the model minority. This long-standing stereotype emerged in the
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 40
1960s and continues to be the dominant conception of AAPIs. Lee (2006) argued that the model
minority myth is used to “essentialize” Asian Americans and to pit them against other racial
minority groups (p. 4). This places AAPIs in a precarious position whereby they may be given
“honorary white” (Chou & Feagin, 2008) status but simultaneously excluded by Whites for not
being “White enough” (Kim, 1999). By assigning AAPIs to this exemplar status, other minority
groups are by default relegated to a lower status in the racial hierarchy wherein Whites occupy
the dominant position (Lee, 1996). The model minority stereotype serves to support the myth of
meritocracy in the United States and in so doing, makes invisible the institutional discrimination
AAPIs experience in higher education and society at large (Lee, 2006).
In large part, the power of this myth lies in its long-standing pervasiveness. In other
words, the model minority stereotype persists because it is left unquestioned (Chou & Feagin,
2008; Chou, Lee, & Ho, 2012). Although the model minority stereotype is just that—a
stereotype—the public at large, literature on AAPIs, and even AAPIs themselves may find this
notion impacting actual behaviors, leading to trends that then support the myth. This cyclical
trajectory demonstrates the psychological concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy (Henslin, 2008).
When the terms “minority students” or “students of color” are used, images of African
American, Latino, and Native American students come to mind because it has been widely
accepted that these groups are underrepresented in postsecondary institutions. Deservedly, much
political and social attention has been paid to these groups. AAPIs, also racial minorities, are left
out of such conceptions and discussions because unlike their racial counterparts, AAPIs as a
group are numerically overrepresented in higher education. In this way, Asian Americans have
been de-minoritized (Lee, 2006). In the late 1970s AAPIs were phased out of affirmative action
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 41
programs with the rationale that they were faring well in the admissions process and did not need
affirmative action protections (Lee, 2006).
Despite lacking affirmative action protections, AAPIs continued to flow into America’s
most prestigious universities and the backlash to this trend came in the 1980s when AAPI
admissions were curbed on the basis that Asian Americans were taking over campuses and
viewed as a threat to White students (Lee, 2006). According to then University of California
President David P. Gardner, “Asian students have been so successful they have become over-
represented at the university” (Scott-Blair, 1986, p. A37). Concerned with overrepresentation
and racial imbalance, Gardner’s statement denotes the belief that Asian American students were
all the same, and contribute to diversity in the same exact way. The contributions of a Chinese-
American student would be undifferentiated from the contributions of a Thai-, Japanese-, Indian-
, or Vietnamese-American student for example. Rather than recognizing the differences among
AAPI students, Gardner like so many others, classified AAPIs as a single homogenous group
(Scott-Blair, 1986).
It is clear that much of the subtle discrimination against Asian Americans comes from the
failure to recognize and appreciate the separate national and cultural identities of this group
(Aguirre & Turner, 2009). This failure can be applied to institutions of higher education,
whereby differences in AAPI populations are disregarded during the creation of programs,
interventions and policies. The model minority myth inherently hides differences among AAPIs,
and marginalized populations of AAPIs (Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). Mainly,
Southeast Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are overlooked when programs intentionally
created to support underrepresented groups are developed (Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker,
2009).
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 42
Moreover, Asian Americans are often victims of restrictive quotas that are informally
applied to college applicants (Aguirre & Turner, 2009). Data from the 1980s reveal that while
Asian (domestic and international) college applications increased by 70%, acceptance at any
given college decreased by almost 80% (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1992), evidence of
institutional discrimination. At some of the most elite institutions such as Harvard, Brown,
Princeton, Yale, Stanford, and the University of California, a pattern of lower admission rates for
AAPI applicants was discovered, even though those applicants had academic qualifications equal
to those of White applicants (Bunzel & Au, 1987; Nakanishi, 1989; Takagi, 1992).
While it is difficult to extract specific causes for these patterns, one can draw that such
trends point to a combination of factors such as racial quotas and institutional racism. Some
college admission officers argued that restrictive admission policies for Asian American
applicants are important “because Asian American college admits would overshadow White
college admits” (Takagi, 1992). Such statements and similar ideas point to the deeply
entrenched belief in the model minority myth among administrators and other key figures in
institutions of higher education.
In summary, three points are considered with respect to AAPI students in higher
education. First, although AAPIs have the highest college degree attainment of all students
(NCES, 2012) it is important to recognize that such statistical representations of AAPIs do not
provide a complete or accurate picture of this heterogeneous group. Secondly, the narrative of
AAPIs in higher education has been based in the model minority stereotype. As long as the
model minority myth remains the dominant perception of AAPIs, institutional discrimination
aimed at this group will persist. Lastly, many AAPI students, particularly those attending
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 43
community colleges fit the characteristics of “nontraditional” students in relation and having to
hold employment or care for family members (Teranishi & Nguyen, 2011).
Ethnic Identity
Ethnic identity is a highly complex and multi-dimensional construct (Ashmore, Deaux, &
McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Phinney & Ong, 2007; Romero & Roberts, 2003) that develops and
changes over time. According to Tajfel (1981, p. 255), ethnic identity is defined as “that part of
an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social
group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that
membership.” More recently, Ashmore, Deaux, and McLauglin-Volpe (2004) identified self-
categorization, commitment and attachment, behavioral involvement, in-group attitudes, ethnic
values and beliefs, salience of group membership, and ethnic identity in relation to national
identity, as components of ethnic identity.
According to Phinney and Ong (2007), self-categorization is an important element of
ethnic identity. The individual must self-identify as a member of a particular group. For the
purpose of self-categorization, Phinney and Ong (2007) state that the individual’s self-
categorization as a member of an ethnic or racial group does not matter. Relevant to this study is
Phinney and Ong’s recognition that individuals may use several different self-labels depending
on the specific situation. For example, an individual may self-identify as Asian, Asian-
American, Chinese, or Chinese-American.
Portes and Rumbaut (2001) find strong evidence that individuals use different labels at
different times. Therefore, the “label one uses is influenced to some extent by the context and by
how one is seen by others” (Phinney & Ong, 2007, p. 272). Arguably, when AAPIs interact with
other AAPIs, they may be likely to self-identify by ethnicity and have higher levels of ethnic
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 44
salience. But, when interacting with non-AAPIs, they may be more likely to have higher levels
of racial salience. In other words, for a Chinese-American interacting with a non-AAPI, s/he is
likely to be aware that non-AAPIs may view AAPIs as a homogenous group. Consequently, the
Chinese-American’s racial identity (Asian or Asian-American) will become more salient.
However, when the Chinese-American interacts with another AAPI, regardless of ethnicity, s/he
is more likely to assume that the other AAPI understands the vast differences among the AAPI
population thereby decreasing racial salience and increasing ethnic salience.
It is often necessary to categorize individuals by ethnic group in order to study
differences among AAPIs (Phinney & Ong, 2007). With this understanding, this study collected
participant’s ethnic identifications. However, because this study focuses on AAPI student and
faculty interactions and because most interactions between AAPI students and faculty will be
interracial (rather than intra-racial) (Pham and Dykstra, 1996), the assumption is that AAPI
students’ racial (rather than ethnic) salience will be greater during such interactions. Although
ethnic identity development theories do not constitute the framework of this study, ethnicity was
briefly discussed when it emerged in the data.
Student-Faculty Interaction in Higher Education
Research on college student-faculty interaction support this integral relationship in
college student development and achievement (Astin, 1993; Lamport, 1993; Terenzini,
Pascarella, & Bliming, 1999). Higher education literature identifies the benefits of student-
faculty contact in increasing students’ feelings of belongingness, persistence and achievement
(Bean, 1985; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Gekoski & Schwartz, 1961; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976, 1977;
Spady, 1971, Tinto, 1993). Findings generally support the view that increased contact between
students and faculty translates to increased student development and satisfaction (Astin, 1993;
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 45
Kuh & Hu, 2001). However, frequency of contact alone does not lead to such benefits. The
nature of interactions is more important than frequency, but when frequent contact is combined
with interactions that have an intellectual or course-related focus, or career concerns, impact is
greatest (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
According to Tinto (1975), student-faculty interactions are doubly beneficial. First,
students who interact with faculty outside of the classroom increase social integration and
therefore institutional commitment, thereby increasing persistence. Secondly, interaction with
faculty increases students’ individual academic integration. However, research on student-
faculty interactions has primarily been conducted on students at four-year campuses. Little is
known about such impacts or student perceptions and experiences of interactions at the
community college level (Hagedorn, Maxwell, Rodriguez, Hocevar & Fillpot, 2010). Moreover,
the literature on student-faculty interaction does not disaggregate student samples by race (Kim,
2010). Therefore, only minimal information is available regarding racial differences associated
with student-faculty contact. This study adds to existing research by increasing understanding of
AAPI interactions with faculty at community colleges.
Interactions with faculty during freshman year influence the likelihood of subsequent
future interactions with faculty (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977), which are indispensible to
student satisfaction and achievement. Such background on student-faculty interaction is
important to this study because community college students are considerably less involved in
social relations outside of the classroom in comparison to students at four-year institutions
(Hagedorn, Maxwell, Rodriguez, Hocevar & Fillpot, 2000). However, metrics on levels of
involvement are not consistent across studies, making it inaccurate to conclude that community
college students are less involved altogether when in fact their type of involvement differs from
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 46
those typical of university students. Students at two-year institutions are less concerned with
social forms of engagement and more concerned with academic and curricular issues (Hagedorn
et al, 2000). The nature of community college students’ involvement is simply different than
those enrolled at four-year campuses. The Policy Information Center (2000) finds that the
majority of community college students contact faculty outside of class and nearly half of them
are involved in peer study groups.
While research finds the integral role of student-faculty interaction to college success, the
research on racial differences on student-faculty contact is scarce. Kim (2010) found that levels
of student faculty interactions vary by racial groups. Additionally, students of different races do
not benefit in the same way from such interactions. These interactions may arguably be more
beneficial for FGCSs of color because of the gap they fill in these student’s social networks
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Faculty members serve as instructors, role models, employers, advisors
and sources of support and guidance (Chang, 2005; Santos & Reigadas, 2000). They also play
important roles in minority students' social networks because they can serve as institutional
change agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) when offering information and contacts that students may
not have access to in their own social milieu (Santos & Reigadas, 2000).
While faculty members can provide much needed support, encouragement, and guidance
for all students, underrepresented minority students particularly benefit because many lack social
networks that can transmit cultural capital (Arredondo, 1995; Santos & Reigadas, 2000).
Similarly, faculty can serve as institutional barriers if the student perceives their initial
interactions with faculty as undesirable. Because student-faculty interactions positively
correlates with student satisfaction and persistence, students discouraged from interacting with
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 47
faculty due to a bad experience may unknowingly harm their chances of having a satisfying
college experience and attaining a degree (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Rendon and Valadez (1993) found that immigrant families' lack of familiarity with the
academic world inhibited students from asking questions or contacting individuals who could
help them. Because many AAPIs attending community colleges are FGCSs, they may lack the
cultural capital that other students possess (Lew, Chang, & Wang, 2005). Community college
students are also more likely to have non-academic obligations that make integration into the
college culture more challenging (Lew, Chang & Wang, 2005; Pope, 2002), a possible factor in
the higher rates of dropout at two-year institutions (Astin, 1975; Bayer, 1973). The sum of these
consequences, lacking cultural capital, low levels of integration, and incongruent cultural styles
decrease the likelihood of persistence and degree attainment.
Campus Racial Climate
In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of low levels of interactions between
students of color and faculty (Kim, 2010), campus environment must be considered (Hurtado,
2002). The literature is clear and consistent that campus climates directly shape the experiences
and outcomes of college students of color (Museus & Truong, 2009). Students dissatisfied with
campus racial climates and those that have experienced racial prejudice and discrimination on
campus demonstrate a decreased sense of belonging, lower levels of institutional attachment, and
a decreased likelihood of persistence (Eimers & Pike, 1997; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Museus,
Nichols & Lambert, 2008; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). AAPI students often face
unwelcoming environments, racism, and pressure resulting from racial stereotypes (Lewis,
Chesler, & Forman, 2000; Museus, 2007, 2008). These may be some of the factors contributing
to lower levels of satisfaction and well being that many AAPIs report of their college experience
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 48
(Chang, 2005; Lew, Chang & Wang, 2005; Park, 2010; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker,
2009).
Many minority students experience prejudice and a lack of connection on college
campuses, which negatively affects levels and quality of involvement (Eimers, 2000). In a study
by Pham and Dykstra (1996), AAPI students on community college campuses reported
unwelcoming attitudes and unhelpful teaching styles from faculty as well as dissatisfaction with
the lack of AAPI representation among the faculty. Other AAPI students expressed feelings of
marginalization. In Pope’s (2002) study of minority mentoring programs on community college
campuses, AAPI students were the most skeptical about institutional support for student-faculty
interactions when compared to Black, Hispanic, and White students. Additionally, Chang’s
(2005) study found that AAPI students might perceive a negative racial climate that impedes
interaction with faculty.
In particular, AAPI students have the lowest levels of interactions with faculty (Chang,
2005). As of now, only quantitative data is available; reasons for low AAPI student-faculty
interactions do not exist. Johnsrud and Sadao (1998) suggest that for AAPIs, assertively seeking
interactions with authority figures may be incongruent with their native culture. Differences
between AAPI students and non-AAPI faculty may be perceived to be greater given the
economic, social, and cultural gap often separating them (Young, 2003). Student-faculty
interaction is likely to increase when faculty initiates contact with non-traditional students, which
are the typical profile for community college students (Rendon, 1994). Specifically for AAPI
students, speaking up or asking for help is viewed as self-serving unless it is unquestionable that
the response would benefit the group (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998). This mode of thinking
(emphasizing the collective benefit) is a sharp contrast to individual-centered American values.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 49
The normative expectation that college students are to initiate dialogue with faculty and assert
their individuality may be ill fitting for AAPI students (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998). It is possible
then that the low levels of contact between AAPI students and faculty are rooted in fundamental
cultural differences. However, there is no research to date that examines interactions between
AAPI students and faculty at the community college, and none that examines interactions that is
disaggregated by ethnicity.
Theoretical Framework
The benefits of student-faculty interaction (SFI) are well established in higher education
literature. However, factors promoting or hindering SFI is less available and research on factors
that encourage or impede minority student-faculty interaction is more scarce (Chang, 2005).
Because a theoretical framework examining minority student involvement, institutional culture,
and cultural capital does not currently exist, this study will borrow from various bodies of work.
Specifically, critical race theory (Patton, McEwen, Rendon, & Howard-Hamilton, 2007;
Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009), Bourdieu’s (1984) concept of habitus, and Astin’s
(1984, 1993) theory of student involvement will be used to examine the experiences of AAPI
FGCSs and their interactions with faculty at the community college.
Critical Race Theory
Institutions of education do not exist independently from the rest of society. In fact, they
are products of, embody, and reflect greater society (Blossfeld & Shavit, 1993; Ladson-Billings
& Tate, 1995, Lopez, 2003; Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). Consequently, race and racism intersect
and permeate the educational landscape (Lopez, 2003, Sullivan & Artiles, 2011). To contest that
race or racism is not an issue in schools is to deny they are issues in society. Using critical race
theory (CRT) as the guiding perspective calls attention to and identifies racism as part of the
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 50
genetic makeup of educational institutions. Racism is always present in society, including within
institutions of higher education, and a part of our daily lives (Lopez, 2003).
Critical race theory makes race explicit (Lopez, 2003), and makes race a lens through
which all ideas, behaviors, and interactions are filtered. In doing so, race is in the forefront of all
analyses thereby forcing matters appearing to be racially neutral to be racialized. Racializing the
landscape uncovers entrenched race-based power that perpetuates itself by remaining invisible
(Wise, 2008). The reproduction of social inequities take place in situations where certain groups
experience differential treatment in terms of attention, teaching styles and counseling, and
circumstances where some students benefit from a position of socioeconomic privilege, having
more access to activities that further increase cultural and social capital (Solorzano, Ceja, &
Yosso, 2000). In turn, participation in such activities and preferred attention, teaching style, and
counseling bolster those who already possess the necessary capital to succeed in higher
education while diminishing capital from those lacking it (Bourdieu, 1977). These activities and
kinds of interactions appear racially neutral, considered simply as normative culture in higher
education (Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, & Torino, 2009).
However, by purposefully racializing the landscape, White normality is de-normed, exposing
“norms” as race and class specific. In other words, examining race as a factor that contributes to
positive benefits or detracts from potential benefits changes the subsequent analysis of minority
student experiences with faculty.
Although the most widely cited theory on student departure, Tinto’s (1987)
interactionalist theory has been criticized for its inability to explain racial minority student
persistence and departure (Attinasi, 1989; Kraemer, 1996; Rendón, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000;
Tierney, 1999). Additionally, fundamental student development theories have been criticized for
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 51
being “race-less” (Patton, McEwen, Rendon, & Howard-Hamilton, 2007, p. 41) for failing to
incorporate race and its impact on student identity and experiences (Teranishi, Behringer, Grey,
& Parker, 2009). Some theoretical frameworks may even contain some levels of inherent racism
(Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009).
While institutions of higher education attempt to prioritize student success, it may be
more accurate to state that aspirations for student success are aimed only at those students who
possess White middle class values that reflect the prevailing culture of higher education
(Rendón, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000; Tierney, 1999). In other words, “student success” is not
applied equitably to all students. Such forms of discrimination are not overt but performed in
subtle ways through inclusivity of some groups at the expense of excluding others. For example,
standards of assessment are based on White, middle class norms and values (Sue et al., 2009).
College students are expected to initiate contact with faculty during and outside of class (Mook,
2002). This expectation, a taken-for-granted norm, is rooted in the Western cultural value of
individualism. An AAPI student’s level of acculturation may be a factor in initiating contact
with faculty. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders who are less acculturated to American
values may be less likely to interact with faculty and less likely to interact in ways that could
benefit the AAPI student in the future. However, it is also likely that FGCS status impedes
initiating interactions with faculty. The consequences of multiple (minority) statuses may be
examined through Bourdieu’s (1986) framework.
Placement of this expectation on students ignores power and status differentials that may
interrupt, impede or discourage students who do not value individualism or who emphasize
deference to authority figures (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1999). This exclusion is not necessarily
intentional. Here, interpersonal and institutional racism must be defined and distinguished.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 52
Interpersonal racism exists when a member from the dominant group subordinates a member
from a minority group—the offense is committed between individuals (Parillo, 2010).
Institutional racism is systemic and typically covert; the organizational structure, policy, or
practice favor one group or disadvantages another group (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998). Faculty
members may simply be reproducing the institutional culture and perceive what they are doing as
a form of socialization, arguably committing institutional racism (Mook, 2002). In this way,
faculty members may unknowingly and unintentionally create barriers for students who, due to a
lack of cultural capital and one’s habitus, cannot identify and call attention to differential
treatment or inequity (Mook, 2002).
This study uses critical race theory as an analytic framework through which to examine
the experiences of AAPI FGCSs interaction with faculty in community colleges and how racial
inequality may be reproduced through campus cultural expectations and practices. Using CRT
as an analytic lens to explore how AAPI FGCSs interact with faculty in two-year institutions and
how they perceive such experiences allows for an examination of (dominant) norms that may be
perpetuating racial inequality.
Solorzano (1998) states “critical race theory in education challenges the traditional claims
of the educational system and its institutions to objectivity, meritocracy, color and gender blind-
ness, race and gender neutrality, and equal opportunity” (p. 122). Critical race theory has been
particularly effective in helping scholars and students “unlearn” (Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, &
Parker, 2009) racial stereotypes. Given the long-standing stereotypes and assumptions about
AAPIs, particularly in academic settings, CRT is extremely important for the study of AAPIs.
Furthermore, using CRT as an analytic lens exposes the normative framework that often places
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 53
AAPIs beside Whites at one end of the racial spectrum and Blacks and Latinos on the other
(Chang, Witt, Jones, & Hakuta, 2003).
The three tenets of CRT are to take into account the experiences of those that are often
unheard, interest convergence, and social justice as a central theme in higher education
(Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). Qualitative scholars use CRT to highlight
individual experiences and tell the stories of students related to campus environments and
campus racial climate. Interest convergence suggests that equality and equity is pursued when
the interests of people of color overlap with the interests of the dominant group. It has been used
to analyze educational policy decision-making processes that often go unchallenged (Teranishi,
Behringer, Grey, Parker, & 2009). The social justice piece calls to identify elements in the
American educational system that are perceived to be oppressive to students and families of
color (Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009).
A central belief of CRT is that racism is normative and embedded in institutions and the
interactions that emerge within such institutions. However, it should be noted that this central
belief does not suggest that the majority of Whites or others in positions of power are organized
with a goal to intentionally subjugate AAPIs or other ethnic groups. Rather, most unequal
structures and practices in contemporary society are more likely to be attributed to apathy rather
than ill will (Ballard & Cintron, 2010).
Pierre Bourdieu’s Habitus
Central to Bourdieu’s (1977) work on higher education is the notion that institutions of
higher education contribute to the maintenance and reproduction of social inequalities (Naidoo,
2004). According to Bourdieu (1977), agents occupy dominant and subordinate positions within
the field of education. Determination of such positions lies in both institutionalized roles
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 54
(faculty, student) as well as the amount of capital one possesses. There are three types of
capital: economic, cultural, and social. Although distinct, cultural and social capital is
contingent upon economic capital and economic capital is also affected by cultural and social
capital (Bourdieu, 1986). In this way, Bourdieu’s (1986) conception of forms of capital is
economically deterministic. Economic capital comes in the form of resources such as material
wealth and assets; cultural capital comes in the form of knowledge, skill, education, or any
advantages that increases one’s status in society, including high expectations; and social capital
are resources based on group membership, social networks, or other relationships (D. Boyns,
personal communication, 2005). One’s economic capital is inherited from one’s family and
determines socioeconomic status, cultural and social capital. In institutions of higher education,
students entering with specific types of cultural capital learned in the home and through social
networks are more likely to succeed.
These forms of capital give rise to one’s habitus—a mental structure through which
individuals engage with the social world. The habitus serves as an internalized filter through
which one perceives, understands, and evaluates the world (Lareau &Weininger, 2003). One’s
habitus is shaped by the positions one occupies, including economic and social positions.
Bourdieu (1977) describes the habitus as the “dialectic of the internalization of externality and
the externalization of internality” (p. 72). In this way, the habitus structures the social world but
is also structured by the social world (Ritzer, 2000). Therefore, one’s habitus does not simply
respond to the world but actively shapes it. A student’s habitus determines the kinds
(frequent/infrequent, positive/negative, substantive/superficial) of interactions she or he will
have with faculty members.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 55
One’s habitus is connected to one’s inability to recognize their own domination as well as
their own complicity to domination (Bourdieu, 1986). Following this idea, individuals facing
disadvantages contribute to their own disadvantage. Students occupying multiple minority
statuses--giving rise to a specific habitus—do not fit into the culture of higher education, an idea
Bourdieu (1986) describes as ‘cohesion without concept.’ Essentially, minority students (FGCS,
ethnic minority, working class) can be likened to fish out of water and must learn how to operate
within this new field with different rules.
Bourdieu (1996) sees the educational system as a site that inherently practices symbolic
violence on people. Symbolic violence is “violence which is exercised upon a social agent with
his or her complicity” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 167). It is practiced indirectly through
the control of cultural mechanisms such as language, values, norms and symbolic meaning. This
form of violence allows the subjugated to accept their condition as legitimate, particularly
because they participate in their own subjugation (Swartz, 1997) by accepting and practicing the
culture of higher education institutions. From this perspective, interactions between students and
faculty are interactions that practice symbolic violence.
The concept of habitus is significant to this study because only specific habitus fit the
educational culture, and institutions of higher education function to transform students’ habitus
(Bourdieu, 1977). The concept of habitus also has implications for social dominance. Students
with a well fitting habitus for higher education will respond well to the institutional culture and
receive advantageous treatment from faculty and staff, adding to the student’s cultural and social
capital (Naidoo, 2004, Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The acquisition of cultural and social capital
within the field of higher education, like that acquired in the home, yields exponential effects
through the application of privileged knowledge in various areas of social life. In other words,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 56
the gains one receives in college is applied in all aspects of life, thereby adding to one’s status as
well as quality of life.
Underlying Bourdieu’s (1977, 1986) highly critical vantage point is the myth of
meritocracy. Although cultural capital is acquired in the home and school through a set of
cultural practices and is viewed as having a social origin, because it is embodied in certain
people, it is typically perceived to be an inborn 'talent' or natural quality of the individual
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). However, schools value this type of cultural capital and label it
“scholastic,” and because knowledge must be earned, scholastic cultural capital is perceived as
an individual achievement (Lareau & Weininger, 2003), or the result of one’s merit. For
example, children raised by English-speaking, middle-class parents often have larger
vocabularies that will assist them in scoring better on standardized tests. Similarly, students who
are born to immigrant or working class parents lack this form of cultural capital and are
perceived as academically deficient (White & Lowenthal, 2011; Sue et al., 2009). From this
perspective, institutions of higher education function less as vehicles that promote upward social
mobility and more as maintenance machines to direct students largely into the class of their
origin (Lareau & Weininger, 2003). Within higher education, degree attainment is solely
accepted as the result of one’s merit and persistence and not as the consequence of cultural
privilege and ascribed statuses (Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000).
Couched within critical race theory, Bourdieu’s (1984) concept of habitus and ideas of
social reproduction served as a framework to generate the interview protocol and analyze
subsequent data. Acknowledging institutions of higher education as fields that reproduce social
inequities changes both the operational definitions as well as the analysis that follows.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 57
Alexander Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement
Astin’s (1984) theory of involvement offers a framework to explain student integration in
the college environment as it relates to persistence. Findings from Astin’s (1975) study suggest
that factors contributing to student persistence stem from their level of involvement. Astin
(1984) describes involvement as the amount of physical and psychological energy that the
student devotes to the academic experience. Thus, a highly involved student is one who, for
example, devotes considerable energy to studying, spends much time on campus, participates
actively in student organizations, and interacts frequently with faculty members and other
students. Astin (1984) also recognized the motivational aspect of involvement but focuses only
on what an individual actually does. Defining involvement this way makes involvement easier
to empirically observe or measure.
Theories of student involvement fail to address the consequences of socioeconomic and
cultural standing. Astin’s (1975, 1984) work and subsequent research supporting the
significance of student involvement considers how social class position and/or amount of cultural
capital may affect level of student involvement. However, without applying Bourdieu’s (1977,
1986) framework, low levels of student involvement are blamed on the individual’s social class
position rather than viewing the institution as preserving the status quo. Faculty training, even
those at the community colleges, is based on the implicit, widespread shared belief that faculty
should socialize incoming students into the culture of higher education. Those students who do
not change to fit the institutional culture may be viewed and treated as not being college
material.
Tinto’s (1987) model suggests that students enter college with differing family back-
grounds, skills and abilities, prior schooling experiences, goals, and objectives. In other words,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 58
students enter college with a habitus. These goals and objectives, as part of one’s habitus, are
modified as students become involved with the institution, through formal or informal
interactions with faculty and other students. Students who are satisfied with the formal and
informal interactions with faculty and other students are more likely to be academically and
socially integrated with the institution; students who are dissatisfied with their experiences may
feel marginalized and withdraw (Wang, Chang, & Lew, 2009). Level of satisfaction is
determined by how one’s habitus fits with the institutional culture.
Similar to Bourdieu’s (1977) conception of fields of higher education, Tinto’s (1987)
theory of student departure is rooted in the premise that college is its own social system with its
own values and social structures. Lack of integration with the social system leads to low
commitment to that system and leads to leaving the system. Tinto (1975) argues that student
interaction with faculty is doubly beneficial. First, such interactions increase social integration
and therefore institutional commitment and secondly it increases individual's academic
integration. While Tinto (1975, 1987) and Bourdieu (1977) share similar definitions of the field
of higher education, Tinto (1987) does not consider the possibility that student-faculty
interactions may be symbolically violent.
National data collected by the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (1994) and
multi-institutional data from Cole’s (2010) study using the College Student Experiences
Questionnaire reveal different groups of students interact with faculty at different rates and in
different ways. A self-fulfilling prophecy emerges wherein students with a positive self-concept
(a habitus well suited for higher education) are typically ones that succeed and also ones who
interact with faculty with relatively high frequency. Similarly, students with a low self-concept
(an ill-suited habitus) interact with faculty less frequently (Mook, 2002). Students’ ability to
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 59
identify with the institution increases persistence (Astin, 1984), and identification depends upon
one’s habitus.
According to Astin (1984), the most precious resource is students’ time. The more time a
student spends on activities, the more they learn—not just discipline specific content but the
values and norms of the institution. But students who are employed off campus or those who do
not live on campus may not be able to meet with faculty during office hours or attend other
college activities, limiting their chances of gaining valuable capital. The degree of flexibility
faculty express regarding meeting times and locations impact the likelihood of interaction
(opportunity to acquire cultural capital) as well as the interaction experience (social
reproduction). In comparison to universities, community colleges exhibit a lower degree of
involvement for both faculty and students (Astin, 1984). Astin (1984) asserts part-time
enrollment, commuter status, and part-time faculty employment as possible reasons for minimal
involvement. When applying Bourdieu’s (1977) notion of social reproduction, rather than the
accepted belief of community colleges as a vehicle for social mobility, community colleges may
actually serve to reproduce social inequalities.
Application of Theoretical Frameworks
The three theoretical frameworks used here may be organized through a stacked Venn
diagram. Astin’s (1984) theory of student involvement is couched within the framework of
Bourdieu’s (1977) ideas of social reproduction and Bourdieu’s (1977) ideas are couched within
the lens of critical race theory as shown in the figure below.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 60
Figure B. Theoretical frameworks. Venn diagram of theoretical frameworks.
The combination of these theories provides a framework for understanding the experiences of
minority students with faculty in institutions of higher education by examining several
assumptions. Critical race theory places race at the forefront; Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of
habitus uncovers the diversity of minority statuses and their intersections (socioeconomic status,
FGCS, gender, language, ethnicity, religious minority) and exposes institutions of higher
education as fields that contribute to social reproduction; and student involvement in higher
education literature is assumed under the hubris of racial neutrality.
The use of CRT and Bourdieu’s critical approach of higher education institutions
acknowledges the existence of social reproduction through campus practices. This study
investigates student-faculty interactions from the standpoint of the subaltern. Furthermore, the
use of these conceptual frameworks as analytic lenses challenges preconceived notions of race
and other minority statuses that are overlooked in studies that do not acknowledge racial and
other inequities.
Critical
Race
Theory
Bourdieu's
Habitus
Astin's
Theory of
Student
Involvement
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 61
Conclusion
Community colleges continue to play an important role in educating the American
populace and specifically AAPI students. As the only truly accessible system in higher
education, the community college will unquestionably answer the Completion Agenda’s call to
raise college completion rates to 55% by 2025 (The College Board, 2013). Because two-year
institutions continue to serve as gateways for many AAPI students, a closer examination of
campus cultural practices, namely student-faculty interactions, is in order to meet the educational
demands of this growing population (CARE, 2011). Moreover, community colleges must learn
how to better serve the needs of this overlooked student population and recognize the unique
issues confronting first generation AAPI college students.
According to Chang (2005) and Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, and Parker (2009), AAPI
students have the lowest rates of interactions with faculty and report lower rates of satisfaction
with regard to their college experience when compared to other students of color. However,
most research on this topic has been quantitative, leaving nearly no analysis to provide an in-
depth explanation for why AAPIs exhibit these patterns. Following the recommendations of
nearly all researchers on this topic, this study utilizes a qualitative approach to exploring the
experiences of AAPI FGCSs with faculty in community colleges (Chang, 2005; Cole, 2007;
Hagedorn, Maxwell, Rodriguez, Hocevar & Fillpot, 2000; Lew, Chang, & Wang, 2005; Kim,
2010; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Mook, 2002; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009)
There are many reasons for why students of color have low rates of interactions with
faculty (Cole, 2010; Hurtado, 2002; Museus & Truong, 2009). Johnsrud and Sadao (1998)
suggest that for AAPIs, assertively seeking interactions with authority figures may be
incongruent with their native culture. Lewis, Chesler, and Forman, (2000), Museus (2007,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 62
2008), and Chang (2005) argue AAPI students face unwelcoming environments, prevalent
racism, and pressure resulting from racial stereotypes. Other possible reasons that have been
offered include family obligations, gender role expectations, as well as low socioeconomic status
for the low rates of AAPI student-faculty interactions (Lew, Chang, & Wang, 2005). However,
the low rate of AAPI student-faculty interactions requires actual data, rather than mere
assumptions to be clearly understood.
The fundamental question for community colleges is how faculty can improve
interactions with AAPI students in ways that will boost achievement and satisfaction. This study
explored the “lived experiences” (Creswell, 1998, p. 4) of AAPI FGCSs with faculty in the
community college setting. Uncovering the stories of AAPI students’ perceptions and
experiences with faculty contributes to the paucity of qualitative data on this topic. In chapter
three, the rationale for selecting a qualitative approach to studying student-faculty interactions is
explained.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 63
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Student-faculty interactions are an integral part of the collegiate experience and are
beneficial for student achievement (Astin, 1993), persistence (Tinto, 1993), and satisfaction
(Astin, 1977). The majority of studies regarding student-faculty interactions in institutions of
higher education are based on quantitative data. While quantitative data is effective for grasping
the breadth of an issue, it cannot capture the depth or nuanced details that tell the stories of
students’ experiences (Babbie, 2005; Cresswell, 1998; Maxwell, 2013). This chapter describes
the basic characteristics of qualitative inquiry, the researcher’s role, sampling technique, data
collection method including data collection procedure, and data analysis. Actual names are not
used at any point in the study. Instead, pseudonyms are employed in order to maintain
institutional and participant confidentiality and maintain compliance with the Institutional
Review Board protocol. This study sought to understand the experiences of Asian American and
Pacific Islander (AAPI) first-generation college students (FGCS) who had experiences
interacting with faculty outside of the classroom and had the goal of transfer to a university.
President Obama’s Completion Agenda strives to have the highest proportion of college
graduates in the world by the year 2025 (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). To ensure that
this goal is met, the Obama administration aims to ensure that all Americans have access to
higher education. As community colleges are currently the only truly open access institution of
higher education it is important to understand the experiences of students who are enrolled at
these institutions. In the last two decades, the number of AAPI students attending community
colleges has doubled and currently there are more AAPIs in America’s community colleges than
in its universities (CARE, 2011). As the numbers of AAPI students enrolled at these institutions
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 64
increase, it is important to understand their experiences in order to improve practices that will
benefit this group.
The research question guiding this study is:
1. What are the experiences of AAPI first-generation college students with faculty
at the community college?
Sub-questions include:
a. How might AAPI racial identity shape the perceptions of AAPI students’
experiences?
b. How might first-generation college status influence interactions with faculty?
c. How might the model-minority stereotype affect AAPI student’s educational
experiences?
The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions and lived experiences of AAPI
FGCSs and their interactions with faculty in the community college setting. As such, an
inductive approach was used to build themes from the ground up. Rather than deducing from a
general theory to specific data, qualitative methods allows exploration of the empirical world
through direct observation or subject interviews to the discovery of a pattern that represents some
degree of order among all the given events (Babbie, 2005). This population has been
understudied and research on AAPIs has been largely misleading because data have not been
disaggregated by ethnicity. As the numbers of AAPIs in community colleges increases (CARE,
2011), it is important to understand their experiences as research on student-faculty interactions
overwhelmingly supports its role in student achievement (Astin, 1993), persistence (Tinto,
1993), and overall educational satisfaction (Astin, 1977).
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 65
Research Design
Qualitative Research Paradigm
Qualitative research originates in the social sciences (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008) and has
become increasingly valuable in many disciplines (Marshall & Rossman, 2011). According to
Wilding and Whiteford (2005), qualitative inquiry is used as a “broad-brushed descriptor” for a
variety of separate approaches but is founded on common philosophical tenets (p. 98). First, it is
grounded in the notion that “reality is constructed and contextually bound” (Wilding &
Whiteford, 2005, p. 98). This means that knowledge is subjective—an idea shared with the
postmodern view that there is no objective reality to observe, only several subjective views
(Babbie, 2005). The qualitative research paradigm posits that “science” or “facts” are not
independent from the values, biases, and perceptions of human beings and in this way, science is
not value-free (Doppelt, 2007; Kincaid, 2007; Roush, 2007). In an effort to provide researchers
with a clear understanding of qualitative research design, several authors have created definitions
for qualitative inquiry (Babbie, 2005; Creswell, 1994; Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2006; Maxwell,
2013; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). For example, Creswell (1994) defines qualitative research
as:
An inquiry process of understanding based on distinct methodological traditions of
inquiry that explores a social or human problem. The researcher builds a complex,
holistic picture, analyzes words, reports detailed views of informants, and conducts the
study in a natural setting. (p. 1)
The primary goal of a qualitative study is to uncover and interpret meaning (Merriam, 2009). In
qualitative research, the participant is positioned as the expert while the investigator takes the
role of learner (Wilding & Whiteford, 2005). Learning about a phenomenon, albeit a commonly
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 66
perceived mundane phenomenon, requires allowing the phenomenon to reveal itself (Heidegger,
1962). Embedded within qualitative research, which aims to explore participants’ “lived
experiences” (Creswell, 1998, p. 54) is the phenomenological inquiry selected for this study.
The combination of Critical Race Theory, Pierre Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of habitus,
and Alexander Astin’s (1984) theory of student involvement appropriately calls for the use of a
qualitative research design in order to engage in a holistic examination (Merriam, 1998) of AAPI
student interactions with faculty in their community colleges. By applying a qualitative design
instead of the traditional quantitative approach used in most of the studies examining student-
faculty interactions, this study sought to reveal students’ “lived experiences” (Van Manen, 1990,
p. 9) as well as uncover ethnic, cultural and socioeconomic factors that may contribute to levels
of engagement with faculty outside the classroom.
Phenomenological Research Design
Phenomenological research is a strategy of inquiry wherein the researcher identifies the
essence of human experiences about a phenomenon as described by the participants (Creswell,
2009). This type of research is a philosophy in that it attempts to understand lived experiences
and also a method in that its procedures involves studying a small number of subjects through
prolonged engagement to generate patterns and relationships of meaning (Moustakas, 1994).
Merriam (2009, p. 25) defines phenomenology as the “study of people’s conscious experience of
their life-world” and Schram (2003, p.71) defines phenomenology as “everyday life and social
action.” Using CRT as an analytical framework, this study focused on the ways in which an
Asian American or Pacific Islander identity shaped students’ perceptions of their educational
experiences. The goal of this study was to explore AAPI students’ experiences with faculty in
the community college. Data reveal that AAPI students have the lowest levels of interactions
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 67
with faculty but the reasons why are unknown (Chang, 2005; Kim, 2010). This study aimed to
uncover some of these reasons and in doing so inform practices that will better serve this
population.
Population and Sample
The population for this study is AAPI FGCSs in community college who have had at
least two interactions with faculty outside the classroom, and have a goal to transfer to a four-
year institution. International students were not considered in this study. Although students of
any age were eligible to participate in the study, preference was given to those between 18 and
25 years old. Students older than 25 may be closer in age with faculty, which may intervene
with the cultural value of deference to elders due to perceived closeness in age with certain
faculty members. Subjects also had to be first generation college students. This meant that
neither parent had enrolled in postsecondary education or attained a college degree (NCES,
1998; Majer, 2009).
Gaining Access to the Research Site
The research site has a sizeable AAPI student population and therefore was an
appropriate case for this study. To gain access to the research site where participants were drawn
from, the following procedures were executed:
1. An email was sent to the dean of the institution’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness
requesting approval to conduct the study. Data collection procedures were included in
the request which involved contacting select faculty members to assist in announcing the
study in their classes as well as posting recruitment flyers on campus.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 68
2. An email was sent to the president of the college, which included an introduction letter
with a copy of the research plan as well as the approval memo from the institution’s
Office of Institutional Effectiveness.
Site Description
The California Community Colleges (CCC) is the largest system of higher education in
the nation, with 72 community college districts, housing 112 colleges, and serving 2.4 million
students (California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, 2010). Its relatively low tuition
costs keeps enrollments high and serves as the primary provider of higher education in
California. Connole Community College is a comprehensive, two-year institution located in Los
Angeles County. The college supports transfer goals and provides career and technical education
as well as basic skills development. Connole Community College offers associate degrees in 41
programs of study, 62 certificates of achievement and skill awards in career and technical
programs of study, 8 transfer degrees, continuing and distance education as well as a STEM
(Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) program (California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office, 2010).
In California, Asian American and Pacific Islander students make up 15% of the
community college student body (AACC, 2013). At the research site, AAPI students make up
16% of the overall population in 2012. The college’s service area has a population of nearly 1.5
million people. Moreover, current population estimates report that over 43% of Connole
Community College’s service area population is under the age of 25. The college’s service area
includes more than 50,000 households below the poverty line (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). The
college’s service area is racially diverse, with Latino residents representing the largest
demographic group and Asian Americans as the second largest group. In 2010, over 90% of
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 69
residents residing in the college’s service area was Hispanic. The second largest racial group
residing in the area was Asian, approximately 17% of the student population (California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2010).
In the fall 2011 semester, 16% of students identified as Asian American or Pacific
Islander at the research site (Table 6). Forty-two percent of students reported their educational
goal was to transfer to a four-year institution. The number of AAPI students who reported
transfer to a four-year institution as an educational goal was unknown because the data was not
disaggregated by race. Additionally, the number of students who identified as FGCS was also
unknown.
Table 6
Fall 2011 Connole Community College, Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity Headcount % of Total
African American 549 1.9%
Asian/Pacific Islanders 4,586 16.1%
Caucasian 630 2.2%
Hispanic/Latino 21,805 76.6%
Multi-ethnic 135 0.5%
Native American 0.0%
Other Non-Caucasian 0.0%
Decline to State 220 0.8%
Unknown 526 1.8%
Total 28,451 100.0%
Source: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2012).
Purposive Sampling
The focus of this research is on AAPI FGCSs enrolled in a large community college
located near a major metropolitan area in southern California. Although literature on qualitative
methodology explains how to select participants and provide factors to consider when using
nonprobabilistic sample sizes, only a handful of sources provide guidelines for actual sample
sizes (Guest, Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). Morse (1994) recommended at least six participants for
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 70
phenomenological interviews whereas Creswell (1998) suggested 5 to 25 interviews for
phenomenological studies. Kuzel (1992) advised a sample size of six to eight interviews for
homogenous groups. For this study, nine participants were selected for interviews.
Recruitment of subjects utilized two concurrent techniques. The first technique involved
assistance from faculty members at the site to refer specific students who they believed would be
well suited for the study. Faculty were identified based on course sections that had historically
high AAPI student enrollment. The college’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness provided this
information. The selected faculty members were emailed a detailed explanation of the study
with participant criteria and the recruitment flyer (Appendix D). Students that were referred by
faculty were contacted through email. The email included a detailed explanation of the study
and a link for the online pre-survey (Appendix B). The online pre-survey was used to determine
eligibility for study participation. The second technique involved posting recruitment flyers
(Appendix D) around campus in high traffic areas such as classrooms, eating areas, and
restrooms to increase exposure of the study to the student population. Students who responded
to the recruitment flyer were also emailed the online pre-survey link to determine eligibility.
Instrumentation
Interviews
Interviews are necessary when the behaviors, feelings, or how people interpret the world
around them cannot be observed. Interviews were also appropriate for this study because it is
interested in past events that cannot be replicated (Merriam, 2009). A total of nine open-ended,
semi-structured interviews were conducted in March 2014. Interviews were used as a stand-
alone method. Observation as a method was not employed because the research questions aimed
to understand the perceptions of AAPI students’ past interactions with faculty. Furthermore,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 71
interactions between students and faculty typically occur in private spaces such as faculty
offices, where having an observer present would likely affect the natural phenomenon (Merriam,
2009).
Interviews were semi-structured and conducted in person. The use of semi-structured
interviews assumes that respondents define the world in unique ways and thus questions must be
open-ended to allow the respondent to explore their worldview (Wilding & Whiteford, 2005). In
this interview format, the largest portion of the interview is guided by a list of questions to be
explored and exact wording or order of the questions was not determined ahead of time
(Appendix C). This flexible style allowed the researcher to respond to the informant in real time
and in ways that elicited the worldview of the respondent and to explore new ideas on the topic
(Merriam, 2009).
This study utilized phenomenological interviewing which attempts to uncover the essence
of an individual’s experience. These interviews “focuses on the deep, lived meanings that events
have for individuals, assuming that these meanings guide actions and interactions” (Marshall &
Rossman, 2006, p. 105). The researcher reflected on her own experiences with faculty members
and had a colleague interview her to “bracket” her experiences before collecting data. The
engagement of reflection and bracketing is common for phenomenological researchers (Merriam,
2009).
Data Collection
Administration of the interview protocol took approximately 60 minutes between two
separate meetings. The first interview was used primarily for building rapport, to acquaint the
student with the interview process, and gather information related to the participant’s level of
campus involvement, including interactions with faculty. Between the first and second
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 72
interviews, participants were emailed the questions that would be posed during the second
interview. The purpose of exposing participants to the questions was to allow time before the
second interview to reflect on their past experiences with faculty and their Asian American
upbringing.
The specific location of interviews was determined on a case-by-case basis that was most
convenient for the respondent. Most of the interviews were held in a quiet space on campus and
a coffee shop near the research site. At the start of each interview, respondents were reminded of
the purpose of the study, given a copy of the Information Sheet (Appendix A), and asked
whether they permitted the use of an audio-recording device during the entirety of the interview.
Use of an audio-recording device allowed the researcher to focus on the participant’s response
rather than on dictating the response on paper. In this way, the researcher was able to engage in
a natural conversation with the participant (Merriam, 2009). The participant was also informed
that s/he may stop the interview at any time. Recordings were transcribed after all nine
interviews were completed. As a strategy to build rapport, the researcher shared personal
background information before the initial interview questions were presented. The interview
guide was composed of 17 questions (Appendix C).
Data from audio recordings were stored as audio files on the researcher’s personal
computer. Any notes that were taken during the interviews were also stored on the researcher’s
personal computer. Only the researcher and the transcription service had access to the audio
recordings. All data collected were used only for educational purposes. Personal identities were
shielded through the use of pseudonyms and audio-recordings will be destroyed June 2018. Any
personal information, research data, and related records are stored on the researcher’s password
protected personal computer.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 73
Interview Protocol Development
The language of items is intentionally open and casual to establish that the interviewer’s
role is to learn from the interviewee. The first five questions were created to build rapport at the
beginning of the interview with the hope that disclosing relevant but relatively neutral personal
information would put the informant at ease (Appendix C). Item six (What kind of resources on
campus do you use that involve interacting with faculty?) is the first substantive question and
was developed because it is relatively neutral, and would likely yield descriptive data (Merriam,
2009). There are three sub-questions (a. Do you feel like you are well informed of all the
resources available to you? b. How did you learn about these resources? c. If you knew there
were more resources available to you, would you take advantage of them?) in item six that were
also neutral that served to prepare the informant for more personal questions. Item seven (If you
were a faculty member what would you do to encourage students to interact with you?) aimed to
get the respondent thinking about ideal types of interaction and how they may be initiated
whereas item eight (Tell me about the interactions you have had with faculty outside of class on
this campus) aimed to get the respondent thinking about their interactions with faculty on
campus. The ninth item (Tell me what a typical interaction with a faculty member outside of
class like) was motivated by Merriam’s (2009) claim that good interview questions are those that
yield descriptive information about the phenomenon.
Questions 10 through 14 were arranged in a way that followed a logical order for the
researcher even though there are no rules to determine which questions should be posed earlier
or later in an interview (Merriam, 2009). Items 13 (Tell me how your upbringing taught you
how to interact with adults and/or authority figures), 14 (How do you perceive your faculty (you
can think of 1 or 2 of your favorite faculty in the last year) and 15 (Tell me how you think your
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 74
experiences as a first-generation college student compares to a student who has one or both
parents who went to college?) were intentionally placed at the end of the protocol, with the hope
that by that point of the interview rapport had been established, as these items were more
sensitive and personal in nature. Additionally, question wording was modified to ensure that
items were worded in language clear to the respondent (Merriam, 2009).
The interview protocol was produced with the awareness and understanding that although
qualitative researchers generally attempt to reduce any hierarchy between the researcher and
researched (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006), such power dynamics are inherent in the interview
design (Merriam, 2009). In developing the protocol, questions were created with the goal of
natural conversation flow, allowing for the conversation to go in new and unexpected directions
(Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2006). Given the semi-structured interview type, exploring new topics
that are relevant to the respondents was also possible (Merriam, 2009).
Among Patton’s (2002) six types of interview questions, experience and behavior,
opinion and values, and feeling questions were generated. Questions were worded to reflect the
language of the respondents. In posing questions that are clearly worded to the respondent, the
researcher hoped to be perceived by interviewees as someone who acknowledged that s/he had
something to contribute, had experiences worth sharing, and had an opinion of interest to the
research (Merriam, 2009). Following the first seven questions, ordering of the items became less
important.
The eighth question, “Tell me about the types of interactions you had with faculty outside
of class on this campus,” aimed to get the respondent thinking about his/her interactions with
faculty on campus. The follow-up question, “Who usually initiates the interaction?” attempted to
uncover patterns of contact initiation and whether who initiates contact influenced the way the
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 75
respondent perceived the interaction. This question was related to item seven, “If you were a
faculty member, what would you do to encourage your students to interact with you?” which
posed a hypothetical and ideal situation by placing the student in the dominant position of faculty
member. For instance, when students stated they would interact with faculty members more
frequently if faculty initiated contact or personally invited them to meet outside of class, it
revealed that faculty members serving these respondents do not currently initiate contact or do so
insufficiently. Such findings may serve to inform future policy.
The ninth question, “What is a typical interaction with a faculty member outside of class
like”, attempted to understand the topics of student-faculty interactions, whether most
discussions with faculty outside of class were about course-related material, mentoring, or some
other topic. Question eight, “How important do you think interacting with faculty outside of
class is for your academic success?” was intentionally posed later in the interview because it
touched on how much value the respondent placed on interactions with faculty in connection to
their academic success. Asking this question too early in the interview, before rapport was
established, could prompt the respondent to give a socially desirable response (Babbie, 2005).
Related to this value question (Patton, 2002) was item 11 in the protocol, “How have your
interactions with faculty so far influenced how you currently interact or will interact with faculty
in the future?” This item uncovered the respondent’s past experiences with faculty. The
relationship between this question and item eight is when the respondent placed little value on
faculty interactions, negative experiences deterred future action to interact with faculty.
However, when the respondent understood the benefits of interacting with faculty and perceived
such interactions as highly valuable, past negative experiences had less of a deterring effect.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 76
Item 11, “Please describe your idea of an ideal relationship with a faculty member”
intended to get the informant thinking about her/his ideal student-faculty relationships and item
11a, “How similar do you feel your interactions with faculty is with what you just described?”
was intended to expose whether the informant’s ideal image was similar to or different from their
own experiences. The aim of exposing this connection was to learn how the informant makes
sense of why such similarities or differences exist and whether cultural capital had a role in these
experiences. This question hoped to expose whether FGCS status yielded low expectations from
faculty. For example, that the role of faculty during office hours is to answer course-related
questions only. Question 12, “How would you describe your overall interactions with faculty
outside of class and why?” served to confirm to the researcher and the informant that the
information shared so far was accurate and was acceptable to conclude that the participant’s
experiences with faculty thus far was perceived as overall positive or negative.
Items 14, and 15, forced the respondent to think of racial and cultural identities. These
items were posed later in the protocol because of their sensitive and deeply personal nature.
When piloting the protocol, these items yielded a surprised reaction from all respondents,
prompting them to stop and really think of their response. Two of the respondents expressed that
they had never considered their cultural upbringing in relationship to interacting with faculty (T.
Li & V. Hong, personal communication, May 3, 2013).
According to Maxwell (2013), interview questions do not necessarily follow a logical
deduction from the research question. There are protocol items that may not appear directly
related to the research question but are asked because the researcher was genuinely interested in
the answer, rather than questions designed to elicit particular sorts of data (Maxwell, 2013).
Asking such questions also created a more collaborative relationship with participants and
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 77
allowed them to bring their knowledge in ways that the researcher had not anticipated (Maxwell,
2013). The research question formulated what the researcher wanted to understand about
student-faculty interactions, and the interview questions were posed to the participants with the
hope to gain that understanding (Maxwell, 2013).
The Researcher’s Role
Defining the role of the researcher is important in qualitative research. Moreover, in
phenomenological inquiry, understanding the role of the researcher is especially important
because the process has a personal component. Moustakas (1994) explains, “in
phenomenological research, the question grows out of an intense interest in a particular problem
or topic” (p. 104). As an Asian American FGCS, the researcher has always been curious about
her own interactions with faculty as well as the interactions of other AAPI students.
Qualitative research is interpretive (Creswell, 2009) and the researcher recognized that
her identity as an Asian American woman and faculty member in a community college, as well
as her experiences as a FGCS, would shape the interpretation of the study. The researcher
entered the study with assumptions about Asian American culture and its influence on AAPI
students’ interactions with faculty. In particular, the researcher believed that Asian values such
as deep respect for adults, deference to authority, reserve in manner (enyo in Japanese),
conformity and the suppression of individual attributes that might disrupt group harmony (han in
Chinese), and dependence upon the benevolence of others (amae in Japanese) (Hu, 1985)
influenced the frequency, degree, and the type of interactions AAPI students had with faculty
outside the classroom.
As an associate professor in a community college that is comprised of 98% students of
color, the researcher serves as a faculty mentor to many AAPI and Latino students. In that role,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 78
the researcher is responsible for advocating and supporting students of color in pursuit of their
educational and professional goals. In recognizing that the researcher possessed knowledge
about the low interactions between AAPI students and faculty, the researcher’s
phenomenological inquiry offered an acknowledgment to biases and preconceptions.
One reason the researcher selected phenomenological inquiry as a method was because it
requires a process called epoche, a Greek word meaning “to refrain from judgment” (Moustakas,
1994, p. 33). According to Moustakas (1994), “In the Epoche, the everyday understandings,
judgments, and knowings are set aside, and the phenomena are revisited” (p. 33). This method
of inquiry requires that before contact with those who have had direct experience with the
phenomenon, the researcher should explore his/her own experiences to become aware of
personal prejudices and assumptions (Merriam, 2009). The researcher explored her own ideas
and assumptions about AAPI students, FGCS status, and the field of community colleges
through journaling and informal discussions with colleagues.
Informed Consent
Respondents were informed that participation was voluntary (Babbie, 2005) and offered
incentives in the form of gift cards. At the start of each interview, participants were informed of
the purpose of the research, expected duration of the interviews, and procedures (Weiss, 1994).
A copy of the information sheet (Appendix A) with a request for the respondent to sign was also
given to the respondent before interview questions were posed. All ethical guidelines for
obtaining consent were followed. Participants were also informed that pseudonyms would be
used for all analyses (Patton, 2002).
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 79
Data Analysis
Before data analysis can be discussed, it must be noted that in qualitative design, data
collection and analysis should be a simultaneous process. Qualitative design is emergent and as
such the researcher can have a road map to guide data collection but unless data is analyzed
simultaneously during data collection, the researcher typically does not know in advance what
steps will be most appropriate for the study (Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) explains that,
“The process of data collection and analysis is recursive and dynamic” (p. 169). Therefore, data
analysis for this study was conducted simultaneously during data collection and was ongoing
(Merriam, 2009).
In phenomenological research, the process of horizontalization is commonly practiced.
This process entails laying out all the data for examination and treating the data as having equal
value during the initial stage of analysis (Merriam, 2009). The data is then organized by themes
(Merriam, 2009). Once themes were established, the data was examined from various
perspectives and given a composite description that represented the structure of the experience
being studied (Merriam, 2009). In other words, the reader of the phenomenological study should
feel as though they have a better understanding of what it is like to be someone who experiences
the phenomenon (Creswell, 2007).
According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), member checking is a technique that consists of
continually checking with informants the researcher’s data, analytic categories, interpretations,
and conclusions. The purpose of member checking the data is to increase validity of findings by
minimizing the risk that the researcher has not inaccurately translated the interviewee’s
viewpoints (Krefting, 1991). Peer-debriefing, which involves the researcher discussing the
research process and findings with impartial colleagues who have experience with qualitative
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 80
methods (Krefting, 1991) was also used to increase validity of findings. Engaging in peer-
debriefing also served to keep the researcher honest and assisted the researcher in deeper
reflexive analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Conceptual framework
In using CRT (Critical Race Theory) as a conceptual framework, themes specific to race
emerged. Critical race theory refers to a framework used to examine and challenge the ways
race and racism explicitly and implicitly influence social structures, practices, and discourses
(Yosso, 2006). Hence, the CRT model for analysis was relevant for a study that sought to
explore the interactions between AAPI students and faculty. Specifically, how the institution is
organized, including the racial makeup of faculty (social structure), how interactions are initiated
(practices), and the flow of conversation and language used during interactions (discourses).
Critical Race Theory is a useful framework for studying higher education phenomenon
because of Delgado’s (1995) work regarding the conceptual framework used by people of color.
According to Delgado (1995), stories from people of color come out of a different frame of
reference as a result of minority status. The history of racism and discrimination against Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders as well as persistent racial stereotypes of this group provides a
unique conceptual understanding that represents an experience dissimilar from the dominant
culture and deserves to be heard (Delgado, 1995). Acknowledgement of this frame of reference
created from minority statuses served as the starting point of data collection and analysis.
Solorzano (1998) states that, “a critical race theory in education challenges the traditional
claims of the educational system and its institutions to objectivity, meritocracy, color and gender
blindness, race and gender neutrality, and equal opportunity” (p. 122). Thus, an understanding
of the educational experiences of AAPI students requires a framework that recognizes the unique
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 81
racialized position of AAPIs in society (Teranishi, 2010). The researcher used CRT as a lens to
problematize traditional ideas of race by examining the intersectionality of ethnicity, FGCS
status, and immigration status among AAPI students at Connole Community College.
Teranishi (2010) argues that because Asian Americans are considered to have educational
achievement levels equal to or greater than Whites, studying and understanding of the actual
educational experiences of Asian American students, as a whole and as distinct ethnic groups,
have been neglected and undermined. A central aim in CRT is to give voice to subjugated
populations (Solorzano, 1998). Hence, the researcher asked AAPI students to describe their
experiences and perceptions of their interactions with faculty outside the classroom. Applying a
CRT lens allowed students to challenge the discourse of AAPIs as a monolith and model
minority by uncovering the ethnic and capital diversity among AAPI ethnic groups through their
stories.
Phases
The following is a timeline detailing the phases taken to collect and analyze data.
1. Request to conduct study sent to dean of Connole Community College Office of
Institutional Effectiveness.
2. Inform president of Connole Community College of research study.
3. Inform faculty of study information and request their assistance in participant
recruitment.
4. Post recruitment flyers on campus.
5. Selected and informed participants the purpose of the study and confirmed initial
interviews.
6. Conducted interviews.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 82
7. Transcribed interview recordings in March 2014.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of AAPI students’ interactions
with faculty outside of the classroom in the community college setting. Using a qualitative
design, this study sought to uncover the role of ethnic identity, generational (college student
status), and immigration status in AAPI student interactions with faculty. The use of CRT as a
conceptual framework for data analysis intentionally sought to reveal racial themes that intersect
with ethnic, generational (college student status), and immigration status. In doing so, this study
sought to increase the understanding of AAPI students’ educational experiences in the
community college setting, which will allow practitioners to better serve this population.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 83
CHAPTER 4: PRESENTATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS
This chapter begins with a discussion of the study’s participants. The chapter includes a
profile of each participant, which includes a synopsis of each of their educational goals and
involvements on campus, including experiences with faculty outside of the classroom and
accessing campus resources. This chapter also reviews the criteria used to identify students to
participate for the study. Lastly, six emergent themes from the data analysis are discussed. The
themes are: (1) genuine interest and approachability matter, (2) first-generation challenges, (3)
resourcefulness is born out of necessity, (4) community college enrollment as a stigma, (5)
professors as socializing agents and sources of encouragement, and (6) respectfulness and
politeness.
The Participants
Nine students (six females and three males) participated in the study: Joanne, Sarah,
Shirley, Suzie, Tiffany, Yuki, Brock, Connor, and Rex. To maintain confidentiality these names
are pseudonyms. The researcher invited each participant to select their own pseudonym as a
rapport-building technique but all nine participants communicated preference to use their given
name or requested the researcher to select one on their behalf.
Participants were selected on the following established criteria for the study:
- Participants must identify as Asian-American
- Participants must have had at least 2 interactions with a professor outside of the
classroom
- Participants must be planning to transfer to a university
- Participants must be a first-generation college student
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 84
- Participants must have been enrolled at Connole Community College for at least 2
consecutive semesters
- Participants must be willing to participate in two 30-minute interviews
As part of the study, participants were asked to complete an electronic questionnaire that
captured demographic data in order to ensure the subject’s eligibility for participation. Data
regarding participant’s age, major, enrollment status, and semester in college were collected
during the initial interview. Table seven reflects some of the demographic data.
Table 7
Demographics of Participants
Name Gender Age Degree Major Semester in
College
Enrollment
Status
Joanne Female 20 Biology 4
th
Full-time
Sarah Female 22 Nursing/Child
Development
8
th
Full-time
Shirley Female 26 Psychology 6
th
Full-time
Suzie Female 19 Biology 5
th
Full-time
Tiffany Female 19 Nursing 4
th
Full-time
Yuki Female 20 Political
Science
5
th
Full-time
Brock Male 22 Accounting 6
th
Full-time
Connor Male 21 Sociology 4
th
Full-time
(except
Spring
2014)
Rex Male 22 Psychology 8
th
Full-time
(except
Spring
2014)
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 85
In exploring student-faculty interactions, participants were asked about the types of current and
past involvements they have had with faculty. In addition, the researcher was interested in how
students identified resources. Each participant defined resources as programs or centers
specifically focused on assisting students on campus. The participants did not perceive
professors as resources. This could be argued as a semantic issue but is worthy of noting
because if students do not connect or identify professors as resources, they may be less likely to
utilize professors as a tool that may positively impact their college experience. The table below
reflects each participant’s student club involvement and use of campus resources. Student club
involvement is noted here because student clubs are required to have faculty advisors.
Involvement in student clubs increases out-of-classroom student-faculty interactions.
Table 8
Student Club Involvement and Use of Campus Resources
Name Student Club Involvement Campus Resources Used
Joanne Color Guard EOP&S
Sarah Child Development Club Math Center
Writing Center
Shirley None Writing Center
Suzie Color Guard EOP&S
Writing Center
Tiffany Philosophy club Learning Center
Writing Center
Yuki None Math Center
Writing Center
Brock Accounting Club
Student Government
Math Center
Writing Center
Connor Sociology Club EOP&S
Learning Center
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 86
Math Center
Writing Center
Rex Sociology Club Math Center
Writing Center
With the exception of Shirley, all participants were of traditional college age (18 to 25 years old)
and met all study criteria. Shirley disclosed her age (26 years old) in an email to the researcher
where she expressed concern that her age may be disruptive to the study’s data due to a
statement in the participant letter (Appendix E). An electronic version of the participant letter
was emailed to students who completed the preliminary survey and secured interviews. A hard
copy of the participant letter was also given to each participant at the beginning of the first of
two interviews. The participant letter stated preference for participants between the ages of 18 to
25. Preference to this age group was given on the assumption that students older than 25 may be
closer in age with faculty, which may intervene with the cultural value of deference to elders due
to perceived closeness in age with certain faculty members. Because Shirley was only one year
older than the preferred age group, she was included in the study.
One of the criteria for eligibility is a minimum of two interactions with faculty outside of
the classroom. For this study, the term “student-faculty interactions” is used interchangeably
with “interactions with a professor outside of the classroom” and is defined as, “a form of
academic involvement consisting of formal and informal aspects (Chang, 2005) that take place
outside of the classroom. Contact must be more than incidental (Cox & Orehovec, 2007) and
what Cox and Orehovec (2007) label as “functional,” “personal,” or “mentoring” interactions.
For most of the participants, student-faculty interactions took the form of visiting professors in
their offices during faculty office hours. For others, out-of-classroom interactions with
professors included interactions during student club activities in which the professor served as
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 87
faculty advisor for the student club. Consistent with the literature, all of the participant’s initial
interactions with faculty were for content-specific help. For most of the participants, interactions
with professors persisted with content-specific assistance, fitting Cox and Orehovec’s (2007)
“functional” interactions. In addition to functional interactions, five of the nine participants
engaged in “personal” interactions, which is defined as interaction that is “purposeful and
revolves around the personal interest(s) of a faculty member and/or student” (Cox & Orehovec,
2007, p. 354). According to Colwell and Lifka (1983), these interactions have “humanizing” and
“personalizing” effects.
Although there were some differences in participant’s backgrounds, there were also
commonalities shared among them. In the preliminary electronic questionnaire, participants
were asked to identify their socioeconomic status using a seven-point scale with one representing
lower class, four representing middle class and seven representing upper class. None of the
participants selected above five. With respect to ethnicity, all nine participants identified as
either partially or fully Chinese. Those who identified as partially Chinese also identified as
Vietnamese or Vietnamese and Cambodian. The overrepresentation of Chinese and Chinese-
Vietnamese students in this study reflects the Asian American student population at Connole
Community College. At the start of each initial interview, the researcher asked the participant,
“What is your ethnicity?” and participants who identified with more than one ethnic group
explained this further. For example, one of the participants stated, “I’m Chinese but my parents
aren’t from China. They’re Chinese but my dad is from Vietnam and my mom is from
Cambodia.” Another student pointed out that he is “half Chinese, quarter Cambodian, quarter
Vietnamese.” Similarly, another participant replied, “I’m half Chinese and half Vietnamese”
although when asked what language his parents mostly use to speak to him, he replied,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 88
“Vietnamese with a bit of English.” Table nine identifies participants’ ethnicity and self-
identified socioeconomic status.
Table 9
Participant’s Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status
Ethnicity Socioeconomic
Status
Corresponding
Class
Joanne Chinese/Vietnamese 3 Lower-middle
Sarah Chinese/Vietnamese - -
Shirley Chinese/Vietnamese/Cambodian 4 Middle
Suzie Chinese 3 Lower-middle
Tiffany Chinese/Vietnamese 4 Middle
Yuki Chinese 1 Lower
Brock Chinese/Vietnamese/Cambodian 1 Lower
Connor Chinese/Vietnamese 2 Lower-middle
Rex Chinese/Vietnamese 4 Middle
Additionally, all of the participants identified as full-time students with the exception of
Connor and Rex, who were full-time students until the semester in which interviews were
conducted. Full-time status indicates enrollment in a minimum of 12 units in a given semester.
At Connole Community College, 27% of students in the Fall 2012 semester held full-time status.
This percentage is consistent with previous years. Connor and Rex was enrolled part-time in the
Spring 2014 semester because both had completed all of the required general education courses
for university transfer and did not need additional units.
Participants were either informed of the study during class as announced by the professor,
personally informed by a professor through email or in person, or saw the recruitment flyer on
campus. Although some of the participants were somewhat shy at first, all but one of the
participants appeared to become much more comfortable midway through the first interview and
openly began sharing their experiences. In fact, six of the nine interviews exceeded the 60-
minute allotment for interviews.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 89
Although the researcher was not specifically looking for well-mannered behaviors, each
participant was very well mannered and exhibited notable politeness and consideration. For
example when the researcher asked where the participant would like to meet for the second
interview, three of the female participants replied by asking the researcher where she would be
driving from and expressed concern about how much drive time and gas the researcher would
spend to meet them for the second interview. Furthermore, Sarah, Shirley, Yuki and Joanne
wanted to ensure that the scheduling of their second interview was at a time that was convenient
to the researcher and did not want their second interview to be the sole reason for the researcher
to drive to campus or nearby to conduct the interview. Shirley stated, “I don’t want you to drive
out here just for me. I’ll just meet you wherever you’re doing your other interviews. I don’t work
until evening on Fridays so I can meet you anytime.” Yuki expressed similar consideration when
she said “I can meet you somewhere in the middle so you don’t have to drive so far.”
One of the participants, Sarah, was late for her interview and apologized profusely for
being late due to public transportation delays. In scheduling this interview, Sarah was reluctant
to meet on campus when she thought the researcher was coming to campus solely for her. The
researcher shared that she needed to come to campus for another meeting, which eased Sarah’s
concern. In each of these situations, the participant expressed notable consideration for the
researcher’s personal interests and offered to help in some way to lighten any burden or
inconvenience imposed. Rather than perceiving their role as helpful to the researcher, it
appeared they perceived the researcher as doing them a favor, putting them in the position to
reciprocate helpfulness. In Yuki’s first email expressing interest in participating in the study, she
wrote:
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 90
I am very interested in the Asian American and Pacific Islander research you are
currently conducting. I would like to participate as well as offer any help you might need.
May I have more information regarding the premise of the research such as times,
deadlines, number of participants you need, etc? I have received the flyer and I will ask
professors for participant recruitment. In addition, I will ask ASU for a stamped approval
to hang flyers up. Is that alright? If you need any sort of assistance for this research,
please let me know. I would love to assist you. I hope to hear from you soon.
Lastly, seven of the nine participants refused to be compensated at the completion of the first
interview, prompting the researcher to insist they take the compensation as part of protocol. At
the completion of Tiffany’s interview, when the researcher handed Tiffany the compensation and
thanked her for the interview, she said, “No it’s okay, it’s okay. I had fun doing it so I can’t take
that.”
Participant Profiles
Participant 1: Joanne—Overcoming the community college stigma. Joanne, a 20
year-old student, is majoring in Biology and plans to attend one of the local state universities in
the fall 2014 semester. A soft-spoken and somewhat shy student, Joanne spent her first semester
at Connole on the color guard team but has not since been involved in other student
organizations. As an EOP&S (Extended Opportunity Program & Services) student she primarily
seeks educational planning advice from the EOP&S counselor and her friends. Joanne shared,
My parents didn’t like that fact that I was going to a community college, they were
disappointed I guess. I guess they thought the professors weren’t as good as the four-year
universities. Within the first year I realized the professors are the same because they
come from UCLA or USC but my parents don’t understand.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 91
Joanne expressed that her interactions with faculty have been positive thus far. Although Joanne
did not mention any particularly meaningful relationships with faculty, she perceives the
professors she has had as supportive of her educational goals and wants to see her succeed.
Participant 2: Sarah—Valuing meaningful connections. Sarah is a mild-
mannered young woman with focused educational and career plans. Sarah has already earned an
associate’s degree in child development and is now pursuing nursing school and intends to earn a
master’s in nursing to become a pediatric nurse practitioner. In addition to her academic
pursuits, Sarah is part of the Child Development Club and has built a close relationship with one
of her child development professors.
Sarah’s love for learning became evident when she shared her experiences with faculty
mentors. In describing her interactions with faculty, she shared,
Most of them inspire me when I go to have an interaction with them. They inspire me to
have a meaningful future. They tell me to be active in both education and workplace. In
one interaction she encouraged me to keep on going with my education because I was
struggling on deciding which career I want to go into and she told me to never give up on
myself.
Sarah has established a meaningful relationship with one of her professors and refers to this
person as a mentor and someone she shares similar passions with. “We talk a lot about children. I
really like children so we often talk about her grandchildren and how they participate in sports
and stuff like that. I think there is something about this professor and it makes me feel close to
her more.” With the supportive relationships Sarah has with her mentor she continues to pursue
her educational and career goals.
Participant 3: Shirley—Understanding higher education as a process. Shirley is a
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 92
third-year community college student majoring in psychology. Shirley enrolled in community
college in 2006 and was a full-time student for four consecutive terms when she decided to take
a break from school altogether to pursue work. Last semester Shirley returned to college, and
realizing it was difficult to get classes she concurrently enrolled at Connole as well as another
nearby community college to complete as many courses as possible.
Shirley is an outgoing and self-motivated woman who values her independence. She is
grateful for the mentors she had during her high school years whom she credits for her current
success. She shared, “I wouldn't be where I am today if I didn’t have those mentors like
throughout high school.” Shirley has not had comparable relationships in college but has been
intentional in keeping a distance. She states, “I feel like if I wanted to establish a better
relationships with a professor I would make that initiation, I kind of like what I have right now.”
Currently enrolled in a psychology course focused on Asian American identity, Shirley
believes she is learning a lot about the role of race as it relates to her identity and development.
As a returning student she also feels pressure to complete her general education courses in order
to transfer and earn her bachelor’s degree as soon as possible.
Participant 4: Suzie—Honoring interpersonal connections. Suzie is a bright and
fresh-faced 19-year-old completing her second year in college. She is waiting to learn whether
she has been accepted to a university so she can transfer next semester as a biology major. Suzie
has very much enjoyed her time at Connole and knew that she wanted to attend a community
college after high school. She shared, “I wanted to take it slow. I felt like I wasn’t ready for the
university yet—going to a community college would’ve been a better option for me.”
Similar to the parental disappointment Joanne (participant 1) experienced for attending a
community college, Suzie also felt her mother’s embarrassment for having to tell friends and
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 93
relatives that her daughter attends community college. Interestingly, Suzie attributes her
mother’s lowly perception of community college as misinformation and lack of knowledge about
college. She shares,
She [mom] doesn’t really understand how the college system works. Remember I told
you she doesn’t like telling people that I go to community college cause she thinks it’s
not equal to the UC so like umm, I feel like she thinks it’s really easy to get straight A’s.
And it’s easy to compare the kids. I feel like other people whose parents went to college
they kind of understand that but my mom doesn’t.
Like her friend Joanne (participant 1) Suzie was involved in color guard for one semester and is
part of EOP&S. Suzie enjoys making new friends with other students in non-academic courses
such as Hula Dancing and chatting with her professors who teach, in her words, “fun classes.”
This may be one of the reasons she enthusiastically stated “I love it here! I kind of don’t want to
transfer.”
Participant 5: Tiffany—Discovering independence. Tiffany is a nursing major
finishing her fourth semester at Connole. She has applied for transfer to various four-year state
institutions and will begin university in the fall 2014 semester. Tiffany is an articulate young
woman who understands the importance of building solid relationships with her professors. In
addition to excelling in academics, Tiffany was active in the Philosophy Club for two semesters
until her class schedule conflicted with club meeting times. Tiffany also volunteered as an
assistant for her anatomy professor because she very much enjoyed the class and wanted to help
other students succeed.
Like some of the other participants, Tiffany had to overcome the stigma her family
attached to attending a community college. However, she is grateful for her experience at
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 94
Connole because she believes it has given her time to learn valuable life lessons and has prepared
her for university life. She shared, “I feel less scared about transferring now. I can see it now but
a bigger campus and a dorm and taking care of myself, which is okay now.” In other words,
Tiffany’s experience at Connole has helped her to feel more prepared for university life. Tiffany
is a diligent and persistent student who is focused on transferring. She has received support from
her peers and the professors she has established meaningful relationships with.
Participant 6: Yuki—Self authorship through interactions. Yuki is a 20-year-old
student completing her eighth semester at Connole Community College. When Yuki was 17-
years-old she believed she would not be admitted to any of California’s highly selective
universities directly after high school and decided that her best chance of attending a highly
selective university was through transfer from a community college. Not wanting to waste any
time, Yuki enrolled as a full-time student at Connole Community College at 17-years-old. Yuki
will be graduating this semester and transferring to a university next fall.
Yuki plans to attend graduate school and aspires to return to Connole Community to
serve as a professor of Political Science or Women’s Studies. With such goals, Yuki interacts
with professors more frequently than the other participants and approaches her interactions with
professors in a unique way. Yuki shared,
If I was a professor, which I plan on being very soon in the future, I want to teach
especially at Connole because that’s where I went to school. I’m like staring at a spot in
the faculty lounge like “that’s gonna be my office”, yeah it’s definitely something I want
to do in the future. I’m hoping that the professors that are teaching me now are still here
by then so we can be peers instead of just like their student.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 95
Having begun her college career as a minor, Yuki has grown as a student as well as an
Asian American woman. The label of “woman” was especially meaningful for her.
When they (professors) gave me the respect of an adult, that's when I really felt like one,
and was able to talk like one and think like one. Before I was okay with just being
considered a kid. But now when people refer to me as a girl I get really offended by that
because all of my professors they refer to me as a woman. And that’s what I am because
I’m over 18 and haven’t been a girl in two years so it’s something I’ve become more and
more comfortable with.
Yuki understands the significance of developing strong networks and discovered a sense of
purpose during her time at Connole. Her goal to become an educator is motivated by a deep
sense of gratitude for the faculty that has influenced her development and her desire to give back.
Participant 7: Brock—Overcoming obstacles and embracing leadership. Brock is an
active member of Student Government where he serves as the vice president of finance. Brock
has also served as president of the Accounting Club, contributing to his diverse experiences.
During his high school years he worked at a fast-food restaurant as well as a tutor for elementary
school children. After graduating high school he pursued casino dealer school, which later
helped him secure a position at a reputable casino. Brock enrolled in community college after
having been laid off from the casino. When he first entered community college Brock assessed
into the lowest math and English levels. Since then, Brock has excelled in academics and has
become a highly involved model student.
Brock remembers an accounting professor, whom he attributes for his success and recalls,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 96
I worked very closely with Ms. Youngman (pseudonym). She was basically the catalyst
to all of my success. She taught me a lot about business leadership, business skills, and
accounting skills that I think are very fundamental.
Brock’s transition from a disengaged online student struggling academically to an active member
of the campus community excelling in scholastics began when his online instructor encouraged
him to attend Accounting Club meetings where they offered free tutoring. There, he learned
valuable lessons from students in the club and gained social and cultural capital. Brock has
committed to helping other students by becoming involved with student government. He has
used the cultural and social capital he has gained to establish scholarships for students and secure
funding to finance university trips for student clubs—impressive accomplishments he is
rightfully proud of.
Participant 8: Connor—Realizing confidence through helping others. Connor is
majoring in Sociology and will transfer to a state university next semester. Last year Connor
served as president of the Sociology Club after being encouraged by a faculty member. A rather
quiet and placid person, Connor had never considered running for office and was unsure about
his ability to lead a student club. In embracing this role, Connor discovered his capabilities and
gained self-confidence.
In his first year, Connor never interacted with faculty outside of class. He began visiting
professors during office hours after failing one of his courses. Connor shares that he started
going to faculty office hours “because my grades were dropping and I needed help—not
necessarily help like academically more like I want to be more involved on campus.” One of his
professors discussed the role of campus involvement and academic success. This lecture
motivated Connor to get involved on campus and ultimately led him to running for president of
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 97
the Sociology Club. Inspired by the encouragement he received from the professor who pushed
him to run for office, Connor wants to help others “who were like me and didn’t know what to
do or where to go.”
Participant 9: Rex—Taking time to figure it out. Rex, an outgoing and energetic
student has been enrolled at the college for 4 years. At 22, Rex is majoring in psychology and
will begin at a state university next semester. Rex perceives himself as an independent person
and attributes his independence to Chinese-Vietnamese culture.
I think because of my parents, of the culture—they taught me to make sure I can do
everything by myself, like handle my own business so kind of like a more independent
thing like ‘I got this and don’t worry about it’, but if I need help I would go get it. My
friends help me and they usually know what to do too. They’re like me—everyone is all
pretty independent, like they can manage and I never really got to the point where I
needed faculty help.
As a first-generation college student Rex expressed the challenge of lacking models to look to
for help in navigating the college culture. Although, he expresses that “doing it on your own”
provides him with a greater sense of accomplishment. Without such guidance, he turns to peers
who he says, “friends are more willing to help you and it’s easier too because sometimes you’re
just hanging out and it’s like ‘oh wait, did you register yet?’ and then they go ‘oh yeah make sure
you go do this’ and I don’t have to go out of my way to go to a teacher’s office hours.” While
Rex has not identified meaningful connections with faculty he recognizes the role they could
play in helping him achieve success.
As community college students, these nine participants are striving to be academically
and personally successful now and in the future. Although they share similar backgrounds in
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 98
terms of race and attending community college, each have unique narratives regarding their
experiences with faculty at the site and developing as young adults. Listening to their voices as
they share their experiences in college has resulted in six themes for this study.
Emergent Themes
Findings from the data analysis are reported in the following paragraphs. The data was
captured through two separate, in-depth interviews that lasted an average of 35 minutes each.
After the initial interview, participants were emailed questions to consider for the second
interview. This technique was used with the hope that exposure to the second interview
questions would prompt participants to think more deeply about their experiences with faculty as
a first-generation Asian American student.
The research question for this study is: What are the experiences of Asian American and
Pacific Islander (AAPI) first-generation college students with faculty at the community college?
The sub-questions are: (1) How might AAPI racial identity shape the perceptions of AAPI
students’ experiences, (2) How might first-generation college status influence interactions with
faculty and (3) How might the model-minority stereotype affect AAPI student’s educational
experiences?
The goal of this study is to uncover the out-of-classroom experiences of Asian American
first-generation community college students with their professors. The privilege to listen to their
"lived experiences" (Creswell, 1998, p.54) was both enlightening and informative. As stated
earlier, the emergent themes are: (1) genuine interest and approachability matter, (2) first-
generation challenges, (3) resourcefulness is born out of necessity, (4) community college
enrollment as a stigma, (5) professors as socializing agents and sources of encouragement, and
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 99
(6) respectfulness and politeness. These themes may serve as a framework for exploring the
experiences of Asian American student-faculty interactions at the community college.
Theme 1: Genuine interest and approachability matter. The establishment of
meaningful connections is valuable for first-generation college students who may lack guidance
at home. Students’ perception of faculty approachability and genuine interest in their success
may be the difference between a student initiating out-of-classroom interactions or not. In
describing their perceptions of faculty who had positively impacted their development as college
students, several participants shared their experiences:
I took psych with Clevens and she seems very approachable because she's kind of like a
spontaneous and fun teacher. I had a question related to the topic we were learning so I
asked her the question and she was helpful. I know she'll take time to answer the
question. I had another professor who I ended up dropping cause I could tell he wouldn't
have been much help cause he was kind of like, ‘here’s the problem, and here’s how to
solve it’, he didn't explain the steps. So I could tell if I went to his office hours he
probably wouldn't explain. He would be like, ‘oh you should know this’.
Because if the professor doesn't seem like he's very approachable I probably wouldn't go
talk to the professor. I probably seek help somewhere else. Like if you could tell they're
very good, very passionate about what they do I probably would go to them after and
maybe chat with them a little and ask them about the class if like I really need help cause
I don't like the feeling where I go to a professor and I genuinely don't understand the
topic and they kind of make me feel like I'm kind of stupid. Yeah so I don't like that
feeling so I rather just seek help from someone else. [Suzie]
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 100
Like having an interaction with a male professor is different than having an experience
with a female professor. Well to me, I feel more comfortable interacting with female
professors than male professors—because they make me feel more comfortable. The
tone of their voice and the way they talk. Like male professors are more formal. Yeah,
like more stern and strict. [Connor]
I think community college professors are so much more personal than other professors.
My sister went to Cal Poly and when she wants to talk to her professors after class,
‘speak to my TA’ and it’s not even a very big class. And then reinforced by the
community college professor they tell us, ‘take advantage of this relationship you can
have with your professors’ and I can appreciate that. [Shirley]
In addition to these accounts, Yuki, Sarah, Connor, Tiffany, and Suzie expressed various ways
professors could encourage students to initiate out-of-classroom interactions. These suggestions
included:
If they [professors] see me as a peer that just so happens to be a student. Not someone
that is below them but someone that is learning things alongside them. I don’t want to
have a strict professor-student role with their word being the absolute. I think giving
students the respect they deserve and not belittling them for whatever reason. [Yuki]
If they [professors] encourage me to visit during office hours or stay after class for a chat
or stay after class to help with anything. [Sarah]
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 101
Professors should reach out first because sometimes they [students] don’t think they need
the help or they know or think that they know everything that’s going on in the class and
don’t think they need to interact with the professor. [Connor]
If they [professors] told us more about them so I could feel more connected with them.
[Tiffany]
Relate more to the students. Seem like you want to be helpful. Some teachers only have
office hours because they are required to, but they don’t really care. Not cause they want
to help the student. [Suzie]
In the last account, Suzie’s sense of some professors holding office hours because they are
required to rather than because they have a genuine interest in helping students serves to deter
her from initiating one-on-one contact. Being relatable is also a characteristic that determined
whether to initiate out-of-classroom interactions with an instructor. Sharing personal interests
with students or discussing topics of interest to students have “humanizing” and “personalizing”
effects (Colwell & Lifka, 1983) which help students to feel connected, relate better to the
professor, and may encourage students to initiate out-of-classroom interactions.
Furthermore, other participants described the ‘vibe’ a professor gives during class
through their teaching style is an indicator of whether or not the professor is someone the
participant felt they should make the effort to interact one-on-one with outside of the classroom.
Most of the participants use a cost-benefit analysis in deciding whether the time to visit a
professor during office hours, a perceived cost in effort and time, is worth the potential gains
from the interaction. On the topic of office visits, two participants shared,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 102
“If you can handle everything there’s no need to go to the professor, cause you can do it
on your own at home—you don’t have to drive all the way to campus and take time out.”
[Rex]
“I should be going to office hours more but I don’t because it's actually an extra chore for
me to have to come back on campus. Because I don’t have the time after class so it's a
chore for me to come back to campus so I don’t.” [Shirley]
Theme 2: First-generation college challenges. For many of the participants, not having
parents who could relate to their college experience was a source of stress and frustration.
College poses both academic and personal challenges for new students transitioning from
adolescence to young adulthood. Without parents who can relate to these challenges or provide
guidance from the standpoint of experience, the participants expressed feeling alone in their
college journey. Describing actual and perceived challenges between first-generation and
continuing students, Brock, Rex, Tiffany, Yuki, Connor, and Suzie discussed this:
I can’t get my parents to help me with my homework. It’s impossible. They don’t know
any English. All my assignments are in English. Maybe they know a little bit of algebra
but the stuff like geometry, trig, anything with theorems they can’t help me with. If your
dad has a BA degree that means they know how to write so they can help your essays.
They would know what MLA format is. I don’t even know what MLA format is. Or
what it means. You’re really on your own as a student who is first gen, you know. Your
immediate family, the people you come home to every single day, that you share your
experiences with, they can’t really relate. [Brock]
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 103
My parents can’t help me. They stopped helping me a long time ago with school stuff.
Like the nitty gritty, like registering, not even. It’d probably be helpful if they actually
went to college and they knew what to do—like what classes to take and they could
actually help me on my homework too. They probably went through the same classes.
Because I remember back then my parents helped me a lot in math, actually my grandma
helped me a lot. They knew a lot of math but nothing else. But now I just have to learn
everything by myself. But it would've been easier, more convenient because at home you
can ask. Instead, it's (campus) too far and I’d rather just figure it out myself. [Rex]
My best friend, she’s like half White and half Asian so both her parents graduated from
UCLA. And whenever I talk with her dad, he knows so much about college and I’m just
like, ‘you don’t like this, that your dad knows so much?’ and she’s like, ‘No, he talks
about it 24/7’. And you know, my dad he’ll ask, ‘so what’s going on?’ and I have to
explain everything and I’m kind of like, ‘Can’t you just let me do this myself? Like, you
don’t know anything. And it’s making me more stressed out’. But other than that it’s fine,
like I know he cares. [Tiffany]
A lot more harder, a lot more identity-searching, a lot more trial and error in like
concluding what type of person I want to be. It’s definitely a lot harder. It’s harder to
adopt the [college] culture because it’s something that’s very foreign. But for people
whose parents went they probably taught them in a way that college is a very fun
atmosphere. It’s where you meet life long friends and find your identity. I think if my
parents went to college they would have a very positive view of college, seeing it as a
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 104
place where your life could change and figure out who you want to be and have a positive
experience from it. But for first-generation students, it’s a means to an end. It’s all it is.
You go there, you graduate, you get a job. You don’t enjoy it. If anything, you finish it
as soon as possible so that it’s not so expensive. But yeah, you don’t appreciate what it
is, just the stuff it can do for you. You’re not able to enjoy it and get the college life.
[Yuki]
I think my friends whose parents went to college, it's just sort of normal. Like we didn’t
know what office hours were, maybe they had heard it for a long time, maybe when they
were in junior high so those kind of words were normal for them. And they just kind of
know things. [Connor]
It wasn’t really that easy for me so I had to seek out information. And I kind of feel like
for people with parents who went to college, they have more help. Also like, when their
parents think of school they were students themselves so they kind of understand like
how sometimes there’s a lot of pressure, like finals, and you have to study and stuff. So I
feel like they kind of understand cause they went through it themselves . . . but I feel like
my mom she doesn’t understand that. She thinks that school is not as hard. Like she’ll
be like ‘I work all day and you just have to go to school’. Also she doesn’t really
understand how the college system works. Remember I told you she doesn’t like telling
people that I go to community college cause she thinks it’s not equal to the UC so like
um, I feel like she thinks it’s really easy to get straight A’s. And it’s easy to compare the
kids. I feel like other people whose parents went to college they kind of understand that
but my mom doesn’t. [Suzie]
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 105
Drawing on these accounts, participants felt alone in navigating the college culture when parents
cannot relate or understand the expectations, norms, and values of college life. Although some
of the participants have older siblings that attend university, each of the participants were the
only ones in their families to attend community college. Finding themselves in this situation,
participants believed they had no alternative but to learn about college procedures on their own
or from peers.
Theme 3: Resourcefulness is born out of necessity. Each of the participants described
experiences whereby they drew upon their resourcefulness and social networks in order to
achieve a goal but never used the term explicitly. In most of the stories, resourcefulness emerged
out of necessity due to a lack of parental guidance about college culture and college related
knowledge. Participants relied on themselves, peers with experiential knowledge, and
counselors for help navigating institutional resources and bureaucratic procedures. Rex, Tiffany,
and Suzie shared:
Oh for those kinds of things I could do those myself. And I have friends too. I never
ended up going to faculty for the most part. I didn’t have a choice; I had to learn
whatever I could. My parents don’t help. [Rex]
Definitely she [best friend] has that advantage. Cause like you know, for me, my parents
were like ‘you’re going to dorm, how do you know what to pack?’ And my best friend
was like ‘you pack this and this’ and I was like ‘how do you know?’ and she was like,
‘cause my dad told me’. I feel like ‘oh, okay’. For me, I’m like just scared. Because
before I came to Connole I didn’t know what to expect. Like I don’t know when to apply
and my dad was like, ‘what are you going to take?’ and I’m just like, ‘I don’t know’. And
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 106
he was putting on a lot of pressure for me and I was like, “I don’t know. I don’t know. I
don’t know anything!” [Tiffany]
In high school they told us the start date for Connole was in April so I did it the first day
and then they [Connole] emailed me and then I just took it step by step. But it was scary.
I had to read the directions really carefully and see the counselor a lot. [Tiffany]
Mainly I went to my counselor and he helped me go on assist.org so I kind of knew what
classes to take. My sister, she doesn’t know anything about the transfer thing cause she
didn’t go to community college so I kind of had to figure it out myself. I was kind of
confused my first year but then I guess I kind of just like did it. My friend didn’t know
anything either, I came here one semester before her and I had to help her cause neither
of her brothers helped her so both of us kind of had to do it on our own. But I kind of
figured it out cause it’s pretty helpful here. You just go to the transfer center and they
give you papers and it’s pretty easy too. Like for the IGETC, I went to my counselor for
stuff that relates to my major and he gave me a printout of the classes I need. [Suzie]
These reflections offer insight on the challenges first-generation students confront as they go
through their first years of college. Misconceptions about the community college is also a
challenge for many of the participants whose parents do not understand the multiple missions of
community colleges and the various educational goals and pathways of community college
students. In addition to lacking parental guidance or support with bureaucratic navigation or
academic tasks, many of the participants expressed being stigmatized for beginning higher
education at the community college.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 107
Theme 4: Community college enrollment as a stigma. All of the female participants
and one of the male participants expressed their attendance at a community college was
perceived negatively by family members. In turn, some participants worried about disappointing
their parents or other adult relatives because of the shame associated with community college
enrollment. Historically, within the Asian American communities in California, community
colleges have had reputations of being weak on academic rigor or spaces where students resorted
to only after being rejected from universities. More recently, community colleges are seen as
economical paths to four-year institutions and a ‘financially savvy’ alternative to complete
general education courses before transferring on to university. Referring to the stigma they faced
from family members for attending a community college, all of the female participants except
Sarah said:
My other best friend and I were talking about this before we entered here [Connole
Community College] because she got into Davis, Fullerton and LA and she was like,
‘Should I go?’ and I was like, ‘You got into Davis! I would go’. And then she was like,
‘But I don’t know what I wanna do’. So she came here instead but while we were
thinking about it I was like ‘I don’t wanna go to Connole. My family’s gonna look down
on me’ and she was like, ‘Me too! That’s how I feel’. Cause my cousins all went to a
four-year and I felt like my aunts were like gonna be like, ‘Oh, she didn’t get in’ and I
think they did think that for a while. [Tiffany]
Tiffany’s account reflects both the stigma associated with community college enrollment as well
as fears of anticipated challenges for attending a four-year university. Note that Tiffany’s friend
expressed that she did not know what she wanted to do and therefore opted to attend community
college even after acceptance to highly selective universities. One may infer a lack of guidance
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 108
and support for navigating the college culture and procedural knowledge that many first-time,
first-generation freshmen find intimidating. Tiffany goes on to share:
My cousin went to UCR and even that wasn't good enough because my aunt couldn't brag
about it so her son left to a community college and that made attending more acceptable.
[Tiffany]
In this statement, the stigma of community college enrollment for Tiffany’s cousin was
decreased only after s/he attended a four-year institution first. In addition, the notion that the
University of California Riverside is not ‘good enough’ for Tiffany’s aunt is related to what
another participant, Suzie, said:
They [mom and aunts] think that colleges are brand names, you have to like go to a well
known college but I don’t feel like that’s the case. Cause I had a cousin, he got into UC
Riverside and apparently in the adult’s community it wasn’t good enough and my auntie
tried to make him change schools and transfer out of UCR and you know how it’s really
hard to transfer from UC to UC. But because she didn’t feel like it was brand name
enough, it wasn’t something she could brag about. Kind of like me, she [mom] didn’t
want to say I went to community college; she [aunt] didn’t want to say he went to UCR.
[Parents who went to college] they understand that a degree is a degree and probably the
same thing. It doesn’t matter where you go to school as long as you get the degree it’s
still a degree right but not to my auntie and my mom because they just think ‘oh you have
to go to a brand name school’. So that’s kind of what I feel.
In Tiffany’s and Suzie’s stories, university enrollment is a source of pride or shame depending
on the level of prestige the university carries. Certain universities are perceived as ‘designer
labels’ that parents and adult relatives can display presumably to increase their own status since
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 109
parents had not attended college themselves. Joanne, Yuki, and Suzie described the stigma they
felt for attending community college and the pressure to transfer:
My parents didn’t like the fact that I as going to a community college. They were
disappointed I guess. I guess they thought the professors weren’t as good as the four-year
university. Within the first year I realized the professors are the same. They teach you the
same things and they want you to succeed. [Joanne]
I'm seen as the stupid one in the family because my sisters went to top universities right
out of high school. [Yuki]
In my family, I guess cause I’m the only one that goes to community college so I guess
there’s kind of like the pressure to hurry up and cause I don’t want to fall behind because
my sister goes to UCSD. So for my family, I’m the one that’s kind of like behind. Cause
you know, Asian parents they compare their children. Yeah, I kind of feel like my mom,
she doesn’t like mentioning I go to community college. And then also, I get that feeling
like I just need to hurry and get out as fast as I can. [Suzie]
The stigma attached to community college enrollment from family may serve as
motivation to complete general education within two years and transfer to university. Five of the
nine participants completed the required courses for transfer within five semesters. Because
participants did not feel they could turn to their families for emotional support or help with
navigating the college culture, many shared that faculty members served as socializing agents
and sources of encouragement.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 110
Theme 5: Professors as socializing agents and sources of encouragement. Professors
serve as socializing agents into the college culture and as sources of encouragement for Asian
American students. Interactions with professors provide Asian American students with academic
and professional motivation. Yuki voiced how her transition into adulthood came as a result of
being treated as an adult by professors. In other words, she came of age as a result of
socialization during college.
When they (professors) gave me the respect of an adult, that's when I really felt like one,
and was able to talk like one and think like one. Before I was okay with just being
considered a kid. But now when people refer to me as a girl I get really offended by that
because all of my professors they refer to me as a woman. And that’s what I am because
I’m over 18 and haven’t been a girl in two years so it’s something I’ve become more and
more comfortable with.
Tiffany, who was accepted to a university on the East Coast but decided not to attend shared:
It’s cause the expense and just because I didn’t, I didn’t know what I was going to do
there. I mean I have no one and I was really scared. I feel less scared about transferring
now. I can see it now but a bigger campus and a dorm and taking care of myself, which is
okay now.
For both Yuki and Tiffany, their time in community college allowed them to transition into
young adulthood and the responsibilities that come with it. Referring to the encouragement they
received from professors, Connor, Brock, Joanne, and Sarah, expressed:
They’re really supportive and motivate. And pushes me to, to something I never thought
I could do, like joining a club and becoming a president of a club. They’re really
encouraging and supportive. [Connor]
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 111
I worked really closely to Ms. Youngman . Ms. Youngman was basically like the catalyst
of all of my success. [Brock]
I learned an incredibly important lesson from Ms. Youngman. I was pretty much coming
to her and you know having a really hard time with Accounting I. Cause I was taking
Accounting I with her. I was getting C’s at the time I was a straight A student. I want to
maintain my A so I was thinking of dropping her class, and she told me basically that you
should never give up on yourself. That was an incredible meaningful experience and I
took that lesson to heart and applied it throughout most of the stuff that I’ve done since
then. [Brock]
I think they’re [professors] really hardworking and caring because they always tell us at
the beginning of class that they’re here to help us succeed and understand the material.
[Joanne]
She [professor] encouraged me to keep going on with my education because I was like
struggling between which career to go into and she told me to never give up on myself.
[Sarah]
Regarding socializing, Suzie shared a story about a field trip she took for class. The field
trip was focused on nature and Suzie shared that it was a meaningful experience for her because
it was something she had never done before.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 112
It was a class field trip. I felt like that was really interesting cause I've never been up the
mountains before. We met her [professor] there and she kind of showed us everything
and like showed us stuff that l didn't really know so l felt like that was really meaningful
cause that kind of opened our eyes to nature and helped us understand better cause we
live in like the city and we don't really have nature around us so I feel like that was a
really meaningful one. [Suzie]
Similarly, Brock took a field trip to San Francisco that focused on transferring to a four-year
campus. Sponsored by the student government, the cost of the trip would be relatively low, an
incentive for Brock who had always wanted to visit San Francisco but did not have the means to
do so. Brock shared that his interest stemmed not to learn about transferring to a four-year
campus but to visit San Francisco:
It was because of the transfer field trip that made me want to go. I was thinking of
having a vacation in SF and a good deal. I wasn’t thinking that I was going to learn
transfer information. I wanted to see SF. [Brock]
Brock expressed that the trip to San Francisco was a turning point in his life. The trip both
inspired and directed him to pursue transfer to a highly selective university. The decision to
pursue transfer to a selective institution changed nearly everything else in his life, from
becoming more involved in the campus community to the types of internships he would secure.
For first-generation Asian American college students, college offers a space to interact
with professional adults and to learn about oneself through taking on new roles. Community
college offers the security of familiar surroundings but the novelty of new academic content and
social interactions. Thus, the community college offers a smoother transition to adult life and the
type of adult one wants to become. In discovering oneself through various roles, several of the
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 113
participants discussed the notion of being respectful to their professors who they viewed as there
to ‘teach us’. Respectfulness often manifested in being polite or quiet.
Theme 6: Respectfulness and politeness. As mentioned earlier, several of the
participants demonstrated notable politeness and consideration for the researcher. Here,
politeness is defined as “having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other
people” (“Oxford Dictrionaries”, n. d.) Being quiet, refraining from asking questions and
perceiving questions or giving comments as interruptive were related to demonstrating respect
and perceived as a form of deference to professors. The researcher recognized notable politeness
when interacting with participants, especially in securing a time and location for the second
interview.
Upon completing the first interview, the researcher noticed that Connor was very
considerate. The researcher first met Connor at a coffee shop near campus on a Sunday
afternoon when almost immediately, Connor demonstrated concern about the noise level. The
coffee shop was quite loud with a constant stream of patrons entering and leaving. Learning that
the interview would be audio recorded, the participant asked whether the researcher thought it
would be better to move to a different location. The researcher thanked him for his consideration
and suggested a juice shop a few doors down. Upon arriving at the juice shop the researcher and
Connor noticed there was no indoor seating and Connor suggested the interview be held on
campus where it would be quiet because it was Sunday. Ultimately, the interview was conducted
in an outdoor seating area on campus. The location change added approximately an extra 15
minutes to the interview time but the participant made no mention of it. The researcher found
this to be noteworthy and included it in her field notes as an extra measure because Connor was
the first participant interviewed and would not know if it would later become significant.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 114
Several of the participants expressed holding back their opinions when interacting with
professors due to the perceived status differential and because of their upbringing. Connor,
Yuki, Shirley, Sarah, and Joanne share:
Like you would have to listen to what they [professors] say and can’t speak freely. You
can’t share about your knowledge because your knowledge is inferior to theirs. Age has
a factor in it too and over the years I accumulated more experience and I overcame those
fears of speaking to a professor. [Connor]
I was expected not to question the authority and consider their words as the law. That
made me think that even if I had an opinion, if it’s contradicting an adult it would be as if
I was embarrassing them and I shouldn’t do that. Considering that they have the years of
experience in their field, I have no right to comment. Because ultimately what I say
would be wrong. [Yuki]
Like when you’re growing up as kids you’re supposed to respect the adults and it kind of
carries on . . . that is what was taught. My parents always told me that even if they are
wrong you don't have to agree but you cannot disrespect them. I feel especially in
college professors are always telling you to speak your mind, be open about it, and I see
people challenge professors and things like that. But I feel because of the way I was
brought up I can't really do that. [Shirley]
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 115
In addition to being respectful towards elders, I was also taught that younger people
should not have a voice in public. We were raised to be quiet in front of the adults as
opposed to speaking out whenever you want. [Sarah]
Well they’re older and they’re your professors and you got to respect them and listen to
them. I was raised to always be respectful to others, it doesn’t matter about the age. Just
respect elders and don’t talk back. In general, no talking back. [Joanne]
While it is not completely clear how Joanne defines ‘talking back’, it may be inferred that any
comment that is not in complete agreement with the professor’s statements may be perceived as
a form of disrespect.
Summary
The section above reports the perceptions and experiences of nine Asian American
students at Connole Community College. The six themes, (1) genuine interest and
approachability matter, (2) first-generation challenges, (3) resourcefulness is born out of
necessity, (4) community college enrollment as a stigma, (5) professors as socializing agent and
sources of encouragement, and (6) respectfulness and politeness are important in helping to
understand how Asian American students experience their time in community college and more
specifically how they perceive their interactions with faculty members. Overall, the participants
were drawn to faculty members they perceived as genuinely interested in their success and those
they related to. The participants also recognized the role of faculty in their development and
academic success. Several of the participants noted the significance faculty has on their
perseverance when they faced challenges and wanted to give up.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 116
These six emerging themes serve as a framework to examine the experiences of nine
Asian American students as they draw closer to completing their time at the community college.
The participants shared the challenges of being a first-generation student compounded with
community college enrollment as a source of stigma in their families and Asian communities; but
they were grateful for the life lessons they learned during their time at Connole in aiding to
prepare them for university life and young adulthood. Finally, respectfulness and politeness as a
value in one’s upbringing carries over into interactions with faculty. It is unclear whether the
value of being quiet serves to help or hinder these remarkable students.
The findings that emerged suggest that first-generation Asian American students
experience community college in a unique way. The participant's perceptions and experiences
regarding their enrollment in the community college as a source of stigma adds to the challenges
they confront in navigating the college culture as a first-generation student. The pressure they
face at home may be alleviated by the positive interactions and encouragement they receive from
faculty members who they have established meaningful relationships with. In the next chapter,
the researcher discusses the six themes as it applies to the research literature.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 117
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
There is a paucity of scholarly research on Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI)
in higher education. Of the most widely read peer-reviewed academic journals in the field of
higher education over the past decade, only one percent of articles published gave specific
attention to AAPI college students (Museus, 2009). Of that tiny fraction, few studies focus on
AAPIs in two-year institutions. Moreover, nearly all data on AAPIs come in the form of
statistics, leaving a wide gap in qualitative data. As discussed earlier in this dissertation, Asian
Americans represent some of the most academically successful students in American higher
education and some of the most disadvantaged.
In chapter one, the importance of disaggregating AAPI data was highlighted and attributed
as one of the key reasons AAPIs in higher education are not well researched. Aggregated AAPI
data depicts an inaccurate portrayal of AAPIs, reinforcing and perpetuating the model minority
stereotype. It is only by disaggregating data that differences between ethnic groups become
visible. College enrollment, grade point average, and degree attainment rates are vastly different
between Asian subgroups (CARE, 2011; Chu, 1991). Each of the participants in this study
identified as Chinese, Chinese-Vietnamese, or Chinese-Vietnamese-Cambodian. Five of the
nine participants identified as Chinese-Vietnamese. It is important to note that for these Asian
Americans, there is a special socio-historic immigration background that may have an additional
bearing on expectations and help-seeking behaviors ((R. Chung, personal communication, 2014).
It is possible that the responses may have been different if the researcher interviewed Laotian,
Cambodian, Hmong, or other Asian Americans. The researcher acknowledges the importance of
understanding differences between Asian ethnic groups and aimed to explore the experiences of
different ethnic group experiences with faculty. Unfortunately, due to the mono-ethnic
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 118
composition of the sample the researcher did not achieve this examination of cross-cultural
groups.
This study set out to explore the experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander
(AAPI) first-generation college students' (FGCS) interactions with faculty at a community
college. What emerged were the stories of nine young, Asian American adults and their
experiences as community college students—stories filled with challenges, resourcefulness, and
persistence. The researcher aimed to answer the following research question:
1. What are the experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander first-generation
college students with faculty at the community college?
And three sub-questions:
a. How might first-generation college status influence interactions with faculty?
b. How might AAPI racial identity shape the perceptions of AAPI students’ experiences?
c. How might the model-minority stereotype affect AAPI student’s educational
experiences?
Three theoretical frameworks served to guide the analysis: (1) critical race theory, (2)
Bourdieu’s (1977, 1986) concept of habitus, and (3) Astin’s (1984) theory of student
involvement. In response to the research question and sub-questions, six major themes emerged
from the findings of this study. This chapter begins with an overview of the issues identified in
Chapter 1 and the purpose of the study. Following is a discussion of the findings guided by the
three theoretical frameworks, which includes an examination of each of the themes and how they
help to answer the research questions, where appropriate. The chapter closes with conclusions,
implications for practice, and recommendations for future research.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 119
Overview and Purpose of Study
Asian Americans have been widely portrayed as model minorities. This stereotype is
especially persistent for Asian American college students who are often perceived as diligent,
academically gifted, and highly intelligent (Hartlep, 2013, Chou & Feagin, 2008). This
seemingly positive stereotype often leads to the dangerous conclusion that AAPI students do not
need institutional, faculty, or mentor support. However, this inaccurate portrayal of a highly
diverse group is erroneous. For many Southeast Asians—Cambodians, Hmong, Laotians, and
Vietnamese—academic success is not routine, and for first-generation college students (FGCS),
support is tremendously important.
The persistence of the model minority myth is due partly to a combination of aggregated
data and lack of educational research on Asian Americans in higher education. Aggregated data
reinforces the pervasive model-minority stereotype, which leads to AAPIs being under-
researched, which in turn strengthens the model-minority myth. Additionally, qualitative
research is largely absent. In studying a topic as nuanced as student-faculty interactions, it is
indeed necessary to include qualitative data in order to have a better and more complete
understanding of AAPI student experiences.
Criticized for being “race-less” (Patton, McEwen, Rendon, and Howard-Hamilton, p. 41),
student development theories fail to acknowledge the role of race in student’s identity,
development, and experiences. Hence, this study draws on critical race theory (CRT) to serve as
an analytical framework to recognize the impact of race in student’s experiences. The use of
CRT as a lens allows counterstories that challenge universality and conventional viewpoints
(Patton, McEwen, Rendon, & Howard-Hamilton, 2007) to be heard and recognized as legitimate,
relevant, and central in contextualizing racial realities (Solorzano, 1998). Critical race theory
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 120
serves as an invaluable tool for developing a deeper understanding of AAPI student experiences
by providing an alternative lens to dominant ways of seeing (Ladson-Billings, 2000).
The research on student-faculty interactions overwhelmingly supports its role in student
achievement, persistence, and overall educational satisfaction (Astin, 1993; Lamport, 1993;
Terenzini, Pascarella, & Bliming, 1999). Yet, AAPIs have the lowest rates of interactions with
faculty (Chang, 2005; Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004) and the lowest satisfaction rates of their
college experience compared to other students of color (Chang, 2005; Lew, Chang & Wang,
2005; Park, 2010; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). The purpose of this study is to
explore the lived experiences of AAPI FGCSs interactions with faculty in the community
college.
Discussion of Findings
This section discusses six themes as they relate to the three theories, and how the themes
help to answer the research questions. Critical race theory, Bourdieu’s (1977, 1986) concept of
habitus, and Astin’s (1984) theory of student development serve as frameworks for exploring the
experiences of Asian American students at the community college. The table below organizes
themes by theoretical framework.
Table 10
Themes Organized by Theoretical Frameworks
Critical Race Theory Pierre Bourdieu’s habitus Alexander Astin’s Theory of
Student Involvement________
Model Minority Myth
Theme 2: First generation
challenges
Theme 1: Genuine interest and
approachability matter
Theme 4: Community college
as a stigma
Theme 3: Resourcefulness is
born out of necessity
Theme 6: Respectfulness and
politeness
Theme 5: Professors as
socializing agents and sources
of encouragement
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 121
Guilt and obligation
Critical Race Theory
Critical race theory (CRT) makes race explicit (Lopez, 2003), and makes race a lens
through which all ideas, behaviors, and interactions are filtered. Asian American racial identity
impacted the ways in which participants viewed themselves and others and consequently
influenced social interactions. The use of CRT as an analytical framework helps to “unlearn”
(Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009) racial stereotypes such as the model minority.
Given the persistent model minority stereotype in academic settings, CRT is important for this
study. The stigma participants experienced for attending community college may also be race-
based and linked to the model minority myth. The last theme discussed in this section explores
respectfulness and politeness through a CRT lens.
Model Minority Myth. From a CRT perspective, the model minority stereotype is racist
(Takagi, 1992; Cho, 1994; Jo, 2004; Hartlep, 2013). The model minority stereotype acts as a
divisive tool that positions African Americans and Latinos against Asians and AAPIs while
maintaining White supremacy (Sue, 1995; Lee, 1996; Hartlep, 2013). The portrait of
unparalleled success, albeit an inaccurate portrait, serves as a ruse in order to leave the notion of
meritocracy unexamined (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Some believe the model minority stereotype is detrimental to AAPI students’ social and
psychological well-being (Lee, 1996; Tsunokai, 2005). Several of the participants indicated
feeling pressure from family to transfer to a university in order to meet expectations set by
family and society in general. These experiences support the research literature. Sue and
Okazaki (1990) found that Asian Americans experienced “demands and expectations for
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 122
achievement and upward mobility, induction of guilt about parental sacrifices and the need to
fulfill obligations, respect for education, social comparisons with other Asian-American families
in terms of educational success, and obedience to elders such as teachers” (p. 915-916). Several
of the participants echoed these findings. For example, one participant said, “Asian parents
compare their children. All of my cousins went to a Cal State at least so I needed to hurry up and
transfer.”
While none of the participants used the term “model minority” explicitly, nearly all of
them described experiences that illustrate the model minority. Additionally, some of the
participants shared stories of differential treatment by faculty and other students that indicated
high academic expectations due to Asian racial status that elicited stress. For example, during an
interaction between one of the participants and her professor, the professor said, “you want an A
because you’re Asian” to which the participant responded, “no, I want an A because it’s an A.”
Four of the nine participants expressed considerable stress related to ongoing expectations to
maintain high grade point averages and transfer to a highly selective university in order to be
socially comparable to relatives and peers.
Findings from this study support Hartlep’s (2013) assertion that the model minority
stereotype is harmful for AAPI students. The effects of the stereotype on participants’
educational experiences were negative. Students were highly aware of their Asian identity in
predominately Latino classrooms. Three of the participants shared that in class, professors
would look to them to represent and speak for all AAPI students. Being asked to speak on behalf
of one’s entire racial group is common for ethnic minorities (McIntosh, 1988). Three of the
participants shared that they were highly aware of being the only Asian American in the
classroom. One of the participants stated, “at Connole I’m kind of misplaced cause there’s not a
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 123
lot of Asians like me . . . it’s either they’re from China or they’re not Asians at all. The Asian
Americans, there’s not a lot cause I just don’t see a lot in the community college. In most of my
classes me and my friend were the only Asians. We don’t really fit anywhere in the classroom
cause they either speak Chinese or they’re not Asian at all.”
Drawn from aggregated statistics, AAPIs have been labeled “deminoritized minorities”
(Lee, 2006) and “honorary Whites” (Chou & Feagin, 2008). However, AAPIs are indeed a
racialized minority group and participants experienced higher education as a racial minority.
Furthermore, “honorary White” status should not be mistaken for acceptance. Ahn Toupin and
Son (1991) claim the model minority myth and the "whiz-kid" image creates pressure for Asian
Americans to succeed, which is indicated by identity crises and emotional problems. This was
evident when one of the participants shared,
I guess for Asians there’s a huge pressure. Cause for me, like, I’m not even joking, I had
a PE teacher and he was kind of like stereotypical. He was like, ‘you’re Asian you are
good at math!’ and I’m like, ‘I am not good at math’. So there’s a standard I have to live
up to just cause I’m Asian. Like, Asian from my family and also like just people in
general. Like my fellow students think I must be smart too but I don’t think that’s the
case. There’s a lot of other races that are smarter than me like in my math class or
something. But I feel like there’s still that stereotype. [Suzie]
When asked whether she believed the model minority stereotype helped her in school, one
participant said,
I think it has the opposite effect. Cause I feel like ‘oh, I’m not smart enough’ you know.
Like I don’t think I’m stupid but then at the same time it kind of makes me feel down
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 124
cause I see all these other people with like 4.3 [GPA], and I’m like wow, I kind of like
fail for an Asian you know. [Joanne]
In this case the participant felt that standards were higher for Asian Americans. This sentiment
was shared by another participant who attended a predominately Asian American high school
and said, “A ‘C’ is average right? But most of the people from my high school they all got A’s
and almost no C’s. A ‘B’ is not as good. If you told people you got C’s, it’s like ‘whoa you’re
not smart.”
The same participant explained the way race influenced how professors treated her.
Speaking about her professors, she explained, “they think I should know this cause they think
I’m smart.” This indicates that the model minority stereotype is alive and influences the ways in
which this student perceived how faculty differentially interacts with her compared to non-Asian
students. On her thoughts about how non-Asian faculty perceived her and whether she believed
race had an effect on her academic performance she said, “they don’t say it but I kind of get that
feeling that they think I’m lazy because they think I should know this. But they think I’m lazy
because I don’t understand it. Like sometimes I see students that don’t understand the stuff
either but the teacher generally just doesn’t think they’re smart. It’s the same problem but they
think I’m lazy and they’re [other students] just not smart.” In other words, Suzie believes that
her professors attribute her lack of understanding in a particular subject to her laziness or lack of
effort whereas lack of understanding in other students is attributed to some intrinsic deficiency.
Essentially, the participant recognized that because of her Asian-ness, her professors did not
think she lacked aptitude, rather a lack of effort was the reason for her lack of understanding
course concepts. If Asian American students fail to fulfill the model minority image they are apt
to have low self-esteem and feel more isolated (Mooko, n.d.).
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 125
Community college as a stigma (Theme 4). All of the participants in this study were
stigmatized for attending community college. Participants felt that they were perceived by others
as “dumb”, “stupid”, or “don’t have what it takes” to attend a university. The majority of the
participants expressed that family members were ashamed or disappointed about their
community college attendance. Historically, within the Asian American communities in
California, community colleges have had a reputation of being weak on academic rigor or spaces
where students resorted to only after being rejected from universities.
A few of the participants in this study were admitted to four-year universities upon
completing high school. However, they decided to attend community college for financial
reasons as well as not feeling adequately prepared for university life, a finding supported by the
research literature on FGCSs (Inman & Mayes, 1999; Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak & Terenzini,
2004). Only recently, with the national dialogue regarding the student-debt crisis are community
colleges being recognized as a legitimate and economical pathway to four-year institutions and a
‘financially savvy’ alternative to complete general education courses before transferring on to
university. Still, these participants continued to experience stigma from their AAPI community
and their family for attending a community college. Compounding the difficulty of overcoming
the stigma, participants confronted the opposite reaction from faculty and peers who imposed the
model minority stereotype at school. The decision to attend and continue at a community college
because of cost but being aware of the having to manage stigma associated with community
college attendance left participants in a “double bind”.
Referring to the stigma they faced from family members for attending a community
college, participants shared: “My family’s gonna look down on me”, “She [mom] didn’t want to
say I went to community college”, “My parents didn’t like the fact that I as going to a
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 126
community college. They were disappointed I guess”, “I'm seen as the stupid one in the family
because my sisters went to top universities right out of high school”, “I kind of feel like my
mom, she doesn’t like mentioning I go to community college.” Although the participants
recognized other’s negative perceptions of community colleges, each held positive views of their
community college and appreciated the experiences they have gained there. It is evident that
balancing these two viewpoints is a complex undertaking for Asian American students. It is
possible that the internalization of model minority expectations contribute to the negative
feelings participants had about community college.
The shame and disappointment parents felt about their children attending community
college may be understood in terms of the Asian family system. Asian cultural values foster
interdependence among family members and Asian American parents often consider their
children as extensions and reflections of themselves (Kim & Choi, 1994). Achievement and
success is experienced through subjective comparisons of one’s social network. In other words,
parents felt the community college was inferior to the universities that their friends’ and
relatives’ children were attending. The disappointment parents felt because of their children’s
enrollment in community college is common because Asian American parents “fulfill their own
dreams and goals vicariously through their children” (Kim & Choi, 1994, p. 35).
Respectfulness and politeness (Theme 6). Characteristics associated with being a
model minority are hard work, discipline, respect for authority (Nagasawa & Espinosa, 1992)
and the ability to overcome obstacles on one’s own. Both female and male participants in the
study exhibited notable levels of politeness and respectfulness towards the researcher from the
initial interaction—even when communication was online. As detailed in chapter four, many of
the participants considered the researcher’s personal schedule when arranging interviews. One
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 127
participant even took the initiative to make copies of recruitment flyers and post them around
campus and offered the researcher additional assistance.
Respectfulness and politeness also extended in the ways participants interacted with
faculty. Being quiet and refraining from asking questions was perceived as a form of respect.
Some of the participants also stated that they perceived asking questions or giving comments as
interruptive and a sign of disrespect to professors during class. These behaviors may negatively
impact student’s achievement since Asian American students feel reluctant to ask for
clarification. The cultural value of shame may be helpful in understanding why Asian
Americans may refrain from being overly expressive. According to Wang and Marsh (1992),
speaking too much in a social context is viewed as shameful because it disrupts group harmony
by drawing too much attention to oneself. This was supported in the findings. Participants
shared the following:
In addition to being respectful towards elders, I was also taught that younger people
should not have a voice in public. We were raised to be quiet in front of the adults as
opposed to speaking out whenever you want. [Sarah]
Like you would have to listen to what they [professors] say and can’t speak freely. You
can’t share about your knowledge because your knowledge is inferior to theirs. [Yuki]
I tend to not interrupt. I always listen all the way through. I just don't interrupt. [Shirley]
I was expected not to question the authority and consider their words as the law. That
made me think that even if I had an opinion, if it’s contradicting an adult it would be as if
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 128
I was embarrassing them and I shouldn’t do that. Considering that they have the years of
experience in their field, I have no right to comment. Because ultimately what I say
would be wrong. [Yuki]
You’re supposed to respect the adults and it kind of carries on . . . that is what was taught.
My parents always told me that even if they [adults] are wrong . . . you cannot disrespect
them. . . college professors are always telling you to speak your mind . . but I feel
because of the way I was brought up I can't really do that. [Shirley]
They’re older and they’re your professors and you got to respect them and listen to
them. I was raised to always be respectful to others, it doesn’t matter about the age. Just
respect elders and don’t talk back. In general, no talking back. [Tiffany]
It is possible that some faculty, even well-meaning faculty, use a deficit-framework in
interpreting Asian American student’s quietness and other expressions of respect. In American
higher education institutions, expressing one’s opinion and challenging course material is
normative, expected, and encouraged. This college norm opposes what Asian Americans have
been socialized to do in the home. For Asian Americans, adolescents who express their
opinions, especially if their opinions are not agreeable, is perceived by parents as talking back, a
sign of disobedience (Lung & Sue, 1997). In this way, Asian Americans are conflicted because
they are raised to be obedient to authority figures (teachers, parents, adults) but at school are
expected to be assertive and independent. In order to succeed in both cultures Asian American
students have to maintain a delicate balancing act.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 129
Guilt and obligation. There was not enough evidence in the data on the topic of guilt
and obligation to achieve academically, but the researcher believed it was important to include
here. A CRT lens enabled the researcher to identify race related sentiments exhibited by two of
the female participants. Sue and Okazaki (1990) note that some Asian American parents induce
guilt in their children about parental sacrifices and the need to fulfill obligations. Two of the
participants expressed that they had siblings who lived in China. They said that their parents
immigrated to America in order to give them better opportunities. Both participants expressed
feeling obligated to achieve educationally in order to avoid disappointing their parents. All
participants explicitly or implicitly shared the famous “Asian commitment” to education and had
high expectations for academic achievement. They recognized the “sacrifices” their families
made for their education. This sentiment of obligation to succeed may also be compounded by
the model minority stereotype if these participants internalized the stereotype.
Although socioeconomic status was not explicitly discussed (except with one of the
participants), it served as the foundation of several of the participant’s stories. Participants were
sensitive to the sacrifices their families had made in order for them to have better opportunities.
One of the participants said that the adults in his family would often remind him how lucky he
was to be in America. These family members would tell stories of how hard life was in Vietnam
in order to encourage gratitude when the participant would express the struggles he experienced
in college—“You know how easy you got it? You have a TV, a car, all you have to do is go to
school.”
For poor, working, and lower-middle class students, awareness of their parent’s financial
struggles influenced the types of educational choices they made. “Hofstra University (in New
York) was so expensive, like forty thousand dollars . . . they gave me a free application but I’m
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 130
like, “no, no.” The participant decided not to apply because, “the expense and just because I
didn’t, I didn’t know what I was going to do there. I mean I have no one and I was really scared.”
Both financial limitations and recognition of her lack of cultural capital prohibited the participant
from applying to the university. Concurrently, financial constraints may motivate students to
succeed academically. If the Asian American student is from a lower socioeconomic status, the
cultural value of providing for one's family may function as motivation to succeed in higher
education in order to better fulfill the expectation to financially provide for parents in the future.
Pierre Bourdieu’s Habitus
Bourdieu (1977) asserts that institutions of higher education contribute to the
maintenance and reproduction of social inequalities (Naidoo, 2004). In the field of education,
students occupy subordinate positions and faculty occupy dominant positions largely due to
institutional roles and the amount of cultural capital one possesses. Cultural capital comes in the
form of knowledge, skill, education, or any advantages that increases one’s status in society,
including high expectations; and social capital are resources based on group membership, social
networks, or other relationships (D. Boyns, personal communication, 2005). In institutions of
higher education, students entering with specific types of cultural capital learned in the home and
through social networks are more likely to succeed (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The following
section examines how first generation college student status, one’s social networks, and types of
cultural capital both help or hinder participants during their time at Connole community college.
The section closes with a discussion of professors as socializing agents and sources of
encouragement for participants in the study.
First-generation challenges (Theme 2). First-generation college student status brought
numerous challenges in navigating bureaucratic procedures as well as adapting to college culture
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 131
for participants. Many felt alone in confronting challenges related to the rigors of college life
because their parents could not understand the expectations, norms, or values of college life.
Although some of the participants have older siblings that attended university, each of the
participants was the only ones in their families to attend community college. For many of the
participants, not having parents who could relate to their college experience was a source of
stress and frustration. It is important to note that participants’ stress and frustration was not
caused by parent’s inability to help with procedural knowledge but with their inability to
empathize with the demands and challenges of college life. Finding themselves in this situation,
participants believed they had no alternative but to learn about community college procedures on
their own or from peers with experiential knowledge.
Educational research literature finds that Asian Americans have the lowest satisfaction
rates of their college experience compared to other students of color (Chang, 2005; Lew, Chang
& Wang, 2005; Park, 2010; Teranishi, Behringer, Grey, & Parker, 2009). However, first-
generation college students also tend to report the quality of their academic and out of classroom
experiences in college as lower (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak & Terenzini, 2004; Pike & Kuh,
2005; NCES, 2001). Therefore it is unclear whether low satisfaction rates are a result of Asian
American racial status, first-generation college student status, or a combination of both. The
research literature on first-generation college students is extensive and will not be explored in
depth here. However, it is important to recognize that FGCSs are more likely to come from low
socioeconomic backgrounds (Inman & Mayes, 1999; NCES, 1998). Consistent with the
literature, seven of the nine participants in this study self-identified as belonging to the lower
middle or lower socioeconomic classes.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 132
Previous research found that FGCSs reported receiving less encouragement from family
members to pursue higher education (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella & Nora, 1996).
Findings from this study are in contrast with previous research. High parental expectations to
attend college and to succeed academically served to encourage students to persist through
challenges. Participants in this study were very aware that pursuing higher education was
expected of them. However, several of the participants shared frustrations regarding lack of
parental empathy about the demands of college. Participants shared, "She [mom] thinks that
school is not as hard. She’ll be like ‘I work all day and you just have to go to school’,” "she
[mom] thinks it’s really easy to get straight A’s." Another participant's father would regularly
ask her about bureaucratic procedures as a method to remind her that she still needed to complete
various procedural tasks. Because the participant was just starting college she was unfamiliar
bureaucratic procedures and said to her father, "you don’t know anything and it’s making me
more stressed out." Several participants demonstrated resentment towards parents who held high
expectations but had not themselves attended college. Although this form of encouragement
may not be typical, or even classified as encouragement, it served to keep students persisting.
There were never any indications from any of the participants of dropping out of college.
It is important to note here that it is unknown how students perceived parental support of
their academic endeavors. The researcher did not ask students to describe the ways in which
parents supported their academic pursuits. None of the participants expressed feeling pressured
to put anything but academic pursuits first. For example, it is unknown whether parents
expected family obligations or responsibilities to come before academic obligations, but these
issues were not explored in this study.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 133
The intersection of race, class, and FGCS status emerges in struggles confronted by
several of the participants. For participants in this study, especially for those who identified as
lower socioeconomic class, the college culture was a foreign culture. Unfamiliar with the
language, values, norms, and procedures, participants in this study described experiencing
culture shock (London, 1989, Terenzini et al., 1994) and had to learn quickly how to adapt to the
new culture. Participants in this study were highly reflective of their experiences as FGCSs.
One student perceived her experiences in college to be much more difficult because of the lack
of familial support and socialization into college culture. The participant recognized that her
awareness of these differences came only from experience and not from having a mentor who
could share such insights. In other words, the participant had to learn by experience and
expressed regret that it took nearly all but her last semester in community college to come to
these conclusions about her identity.
Resourcefulness is born out of necessity (Theme 3). Without parents or siblings who
could offer college insights, participants believed they had no alternative but to learn about
community college procedures on their own or from peers with experiential knowledge.
However, participants also shared that they lacked the social networks that would have helped
them navigate procedural and bureaucratic tasks. The participants were resourceful in learning
the information necessary to persist. They drew on peers with experiential knowledge and often
used a system of trial and error. In the latter method, two of the participants expressed that
learning the procedures on their own provided them with a greater sense of accomplishment. One
of the participants said, “I feel more accomplished cause I kind of do stuff on my own.”
Each of the participants described experiences whereby they drew upon their
resourcefulness and social networks in order to achieve a goal but never used the word
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 134
“resourceful” explicitly. Although participants felt confident in the information they received
from peers, participant’s contacts consisted mostly of other FGCSs who had limited experiential
knowledge and sometimes misinformation. Participants did not consider turning to faculty for
procedural help. Participants felt they could only talk to faculty for course related content and
help. For procedural help, such as devising an educational plan or registering for classes, they
turned to peers first and then academic counselors. In this way, students compartmentalized
institutional agents by specific tasks.
Bourdieu (1996) critiques the educational system as a place that inherently practices
symbolic violence on people. Symbolic violence is “violence which is exercised upon a social
agent with his or her complicity” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 167). It is practiced indirectly
through the control of cultural mechanisms such as language, values, norms and symbolic
meaning. This form of violence allows the subjugated (namely students) to accept their lower
status as legitimate, particularly because they participate in their own subjugation (Alexander,
2008; Swartz, 1997) by accepting and participating in the college culture. Participants did not
know what “office hours” were in their first semester—an example of the foreign (college)
language. Even when the participants learned what office hours were, they did not know to
utilize them in order to improve their understanding of course material. In this way, the
participant’s lack of cultural capital, stemming from FGCS status may explain why they were not
aware of the college cultural expectation to initiate individual help from professors privately in
their offices. Participants learned only after speaking to other students. The participants that
were considered to be successful (university transfer within 3 years) accepted the college culture
and adapted to it.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 135
The concept of habitus is significant to this study because only specific habiti fit the
educational culture, and institutions of higher education function to transform student’s habitus
(Bourdieu, 1977). The concept of habitus also has implications for social dominance. Students
with a well fitting habitus for higher education will respond well to the institutional culture and
receive advantageous treatment from faculty and staff, adding to the student’s cultural and social
capital (Naidoo, 2004). Only two of the participants, Brock and Yuki, demonstrated
considerable comfort with the college culture.
Having internalized the college culture, Brock and Yuki reproduced the culture through
the ways they spoke, the insights they shared, and the norms and values they had adopted. These
participants had gained cultural capital through interactions with institutional agents and it had
become part of their identity. For Yuki, this was especially clear because her goal was to
become a professor—her adoption of the culture was practical and directly connected to her
professional goals. For four of the participants, their habitus did not neatly fit with the
institution—these participants had an ill-suited habitus (Mook, 2002). In other words, Brock and
Yuki learned how to play the role of “good” college students while others had not and
consequently were not as invested in campus activities. For Brock and Yuki, the status of
“college student” was a salient a part of their identity.
Professors as socializing agents and sources of encouragement (Theme 5). Professors
serve to socialize students into the college culture, including the norms, values, and expectations
related to their status as college students. Additionally, some faculty members serve as sources
of encouragement and provide students with academic and professional motivation to persist
through the college process. Consequently, the role of faculty as institutional change agents
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997) is vitally important for Asian American FGCSs as these professors shape
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 136
the habitus of students. However, it is important to acknowledge that some faculty members
negatively impact AAPI students’ experiences. As discussed earlier in this chapter, some
participants experienced overt race-based stereotyping from professors. The negative comments
made by faculty reveal the pervasiveness of the model minority stereotype and demonstrates how
the ostensibly positive stereotype negatively affects AAPI students.
Habitus is a mental structure characterized by a set of acquired schemata, sensibilities,
dispositions and taste (Bourdieu, 1977). Students occupying multiple minority statuses—giving
rise to a specific habitus—may not fit into the culture of higher education, an idea Bourdieu
(1986) describes as ‘cohesion without concept.’ Essentially, minority students (first generation
college student, ethnic minority, working class) can be likened to fish out of water and must
learn how to operate within this new field with different rules. Asian American FGCSs may
experience ‘cohesion without concept’ and must rely on institutional change agents to socialize
them in ways that increase the likelihood of academic success. Whether the overall positive
experiences of these nine participants is representative of other underrepresented AAPI students
in higher education is unknown. However, it may be possible that the overall positive
interactions with faculty is linked to the model minority stereotype. If faculty believe in the
model minority stereotype, they are likely to perceive AAPI students as having a well-fitting
habitus and nurture AAPI students in ways that would increase their likelihood of success.
Institutions of higher education serve to transform student’s habitus (Bourdieu, 1977).
This transformation is evident in all participants. Nearly all of the participants shared reflections
of their transformation during their time in community college. One participant shared, “When I
first started I totally didn’t know anything. I never visited any professor at all and I never
interacted with them in class or outside of class . . . it just never occurred to me. Looking back at
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 137
that I think I didn’t feel comfortable with them.” Throughout the interviews, the participant
acknowledged the role of specific professors in helping him succeed through sharing information
he believed was vital in his success. Another participant discussed how her professors served as
role models for her in multiple ways. She explained, “When they [professors] gave me the
respect of an adult, that's when I really felt like one, and was able to talk like one and think like
one.” By interacting with professors over the course of roughly three years, the participant
transformed from teenager to young adult. These insights demonstrated personal growth and an
awareness of their transformation. The participants can be considered successful community
college students because they persisted and have been accepted by universities as transfer
students.
All of the participants expressed that professors encouraged them to persist with their
education when they felt like giving up and provided them with motivation to persevere. As
demonstrated above, three of the participants voiced how their transition into adulthood came as
a result of being treated as an adult by faculty and staff. In other words, they were socialized
into being adults. This may indicate that these participants were not treated as qualified adults at
home or in other dealings with adults. The hierarchical nature of Asian families wherein adults
hold higher status than younger ones may also compound the effect of the mother’s duty to
improve their children (Hu, 1985; Chua, 2011). If the role of Asian mothers is to improve their
children, affirmations such as ‘good job’, ‘well done’, or ‘I’m proud of you’ may be rarely or
never communicated. If this is the case, participants may be drawn to the encouragement faculty
members provide them. Asian American students who are discovering their new role as adult and
as college student need positive affirmations when they perform the role of college student
appropriately and faculty provides that affirmation/encouragement.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 138
Alexander Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement
Astin’s (1984) theory of student involvement identifies academic and social activities as
involvement measures, which have the potential for influencing student growth and
development. Astin’s (1984) theory offers a framework to explain student integration in the
college environment as it relates to persistence. Astin (1975) suggests that factors contributing to
student persistence stem from their level of involvement. Involvement is described as the
amount of physical and psychological energy that a student devotes to the academic experience
(Astin, 1984). Thus, a highly involved student is one who, for example, devotes considerable
energy to studying, spends much time on campus, participates actively in student organizations,
and interacts frequently with faculty members and other students.
While some theories of student involvement fail to address the consequences of
socioeconomic and cultural standing, Astin’s (1975, 1984) work considers how social class
position and/or amount of cultural capital may affect level of student involvement. However,
because Astin’s theory ignores race, this study draws on CRT to make Asian American identity
and experiences explicit. Participants in this study self-identified as coming from poor, working,
lower-middle, or middle class families. Although seven of the nine participants were involved in
student clubs and organizations, many were only active for one semester. The reasons for their
short involvement are unknown but it is possible that work and family responsibilities took
priority. According to Teranishi and Nguyen (2011), many AAPI students in community
colleges fit the characteristics of “nontraditional” students in relation to having to hold
employment or care for family members. The two participants who never joined student clubs
explained that the combined demands of their work and class schedules did not allow them the
luxury of participating in student clubs. Common of community college students, these
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 139
participants held employment off campus, which often makes it challenging to be actively
involved on campus (Teranishi & Nguyen, 2011).
In its mission, community colleges are dedicated to creating strong learning environments
and faculty members are provided institutional support to strengthen teaching practices. Unlike
some highly selective four-year institutions, the focus of community college faculty is on
teaching rather than on research. This institutional norm is more likely to support the types of
student-faculty interactions that positively impact students’ college experiences and academic
achievements. Community college culture allows FGCSs to ease into their new roles as college
students and the rigorous expectations in institutions of higher education. In these ways,
community colleges may provide a more supportive environment for FGCSs (Inman & Mayes,
1999).
Theme 1: Genuine interest and approachability matter. Interactions with faculty is
an indicator of involvement. For Asian American first-generation college students in this study,
interacting with faculty outside of the classroom was anxiety-inducing due to status differentials.
Therefore it was important for faculty to appear both genuinely interested in the student’s
academic and overall well being as well as be approachable. Asian American student-faculty
interactions are more likely to develop into meaningful relationships when students perceived
faculty as genuinely interested and approachable. With regard to the primary research question,
Asian American FGCS interactions with faculty would not take place if students did not perceive
professors as sincerely interested in their success. One of the participants shared, “I ended up
dropping the class cause I could tell he wouldn't have been much help.”
The combination of status differentials and the Asian cultural value of respect and
deference to adults may be the reason students felt anxious and uncomfortable interacting with
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 140
professors one-on-one during office visits. One participant shared, “It’s very awkward for me
when I go see professors. It makes me uncomfortable. Like I said, when I went to see the other
professor I didn’t really know what to do . . . I didn’t want to say anything wrong. I felt very
awkward and uncomfortable.” Applying the critical race lens here allows for a nuanced
understanding of how multiple factors, including race, shapes student’s perceptions. Likewise,
first-generation college status, combined with Asian cultural values creates a specific habitus—
perhaps an ill-suited habitus (Mook, 2002)—that may explain the discomfort and angst
participants experienced. Therefore, a professor's approachability was especially important to set
aside student's anxieties. In some cases, students still initiated an out-of-classroom interaction
but only when they had exhausted other avenues and there were no other options. One
participant shared, “I try to go through my friends first and if I really get stuck then I’ll go to the
professor.”
For several of the participants, perception of a professor’s approachability determined
whether they would initiate out-of-classroom interactions or not. Approachability is largely
determined by the ways in which the faculty members presented themselves during lecture but
also the moments following lecture when class is over and students briefly interact one-on-one
with the professor. Students may observe how the professor interacts with other students one-
on-one and assess whether the faculty member is someone who expresses genuine interest in
helping students.
Five of the nine participants identified being able to relate to the professor as an
important quality for initiating one-on-one out-of-classroom interactions. Participants were more
likely to relate to professors who shared personal experiences or insights during class time. In
Wilson’s (1997) study, students of color perceived the most effective professors as those who
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 141
were caring and genuine and expressed interest in students, as well as revealed aspects of his or
her personal life to students. Moreover, students of color learn more in institutions where faculty
and administrators were helpful and approachable (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004).
Participants also stated that the professor’s “vibe” indicated to them whether initiating an
out-of-classroom interaction would be worthwhile. Many college students have busy schedules
and visiting a professor during office hours is an added task to an already tight schedule.
Students expressed that office visits were somewhat inconvenient, especially for those who
worked, lived fairly far from campus, and/or relied on public transportation, and only used them
as a last resort when they could not learn the course content from other sources.
The establishment of meaningful connections through regular interactions is invaluable
for Asian American FGCSs who often lack guidance at home. Interactions with faculty that
students perceive as helpful may be predictive of student learning because of the expectations
conveyed to students about their ability to succeed—a self-fulfilling prophecy that influences
students to behave in ways that confirm those expectations (Lundberg & Schreiner, 2004;
Tauber, 1997). Nearly all of the participants in this study reported having satisfying and
meaningful interactions with faculty at this community college that has contributed to their
academic success. Satisfaction was directly connected to the extent faculty was perceived as
approachable, helpful, understanding, and encouraging.
In the above discussion, I have focused on the model minority myth and the five major
themes that emerged from the findings. The themes were organized within the three theoretical
frameworks (Critical race theory, Bourdieu’s habitus and Astin’s theory of student involvement)
that served to guide the analysis. I now turn to the implications of these themes on policy and
practice in higher education. Given that the setting of this study was an urban community
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 142
college, the recommendations offered here might be most applicable to AAPI FGCSs, primarily
Chinese, Chinese-Vietnamese, and Chinese-Vietnamese-Cambodians at this type of institution.
However, some of the ideas related to the model minority myth may be applicable to other
institutions of higher education as well.
Implications for Policy and Practice
Findings from this study may be used to inform administrators, student affairs
practitioners and instructors to better serve this often-misunderstood population, particularly at
Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs). Findings
from this research may also be useful for policymakers focused on meeting the Completion
Agenda’s goal to increase the number of college graduates to 55% (The College Board, 2013) by
2020. As Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, and Pacific Islanders face low college
attainment rates (CARE, 2011), an understanding of the factors that contribute to this problem
will increase persistence and college degree attainment.
Participants in this study reported that it was important for faculty to be genuinely
interested in helping them succeed academically and socially as well as be approachable. The
participants also reported that faculty serve as socializing agents and sources of encouragement
which made a difference in their perceptions and experience at the community college. For
many of the participants, attending a community college was perceived as a source of stigma by
their families but the positive experiences they had at the institution served to mitigate the lack of
affirmation at home. The perceived stigma related to community college attendance may be
connected to identification with the model minority stereotype. For some of the participants who
were regularly compared to relatives attending highly selective universities immediately after
high school, they felt pressured to transfer to a university as soon as possible. Findings from this
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 143
study may be used to educate practitioners about the specific needs of Chinese, Chinese-
Vietnamese, and Chinese-Vietnamese-Cambodian students as well as first-generation college
students.
Implication 1: Colleges must recognize that the model minority myth negatively
impacts Asian American and Pacific Islander first-generation college student’s college
experience. Findings from this study indicate that the model minority myth is alive and
negatively impacts AAPI FGCS college experiences. One of the sub-questions in this study is:
How might the model-minority stereotype affect AAPI student’s educational experiences? The
findings demonstrate that the model minority myth has negative consequences on AAPI FGCSs
college experiences. If practitioners do not identify the model minority myth as dangerous and
harmful—or even worse, view it as beneficial to AAPI students—they are more likely to
perpetuate the stereotype. In doing so, AAPI student's individual needs may be overlooked and
consequently these students may not receive the support services and individual attention from
faculty they may need.
Faculty and staff must be sensitive to various stereotypes attached to different student
populations. Cultural diversity training and campus-wide dialogue about the dangers of the
model minority stereotype would serve to benefit AAPIs, especially Chinese, Chinese-
Vietnamese, and Chinese-Vietnamese-Cambodian students, as well as faculty. The model
minority myth, a stereotype attached to AAPI students, is in part perpetuated when faculty hold
different expectations for other students of color. For example, the lower expectations held for
Latino and African American students imply the higher expectations for White and AAPI
students (Hartlep, 2013). Stereotypes based on race, even those that are seemingly positive, have
negative consequences for all students.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 144
College classrooms reflect patterns in society—classrooms are racially mixed and the
model minority stereotype exists in relation and in the context of racial diversity. Students of
color—Latinos, African Americans, and AAPIs—are treated differently in comparison to one
another. The reinforcement of the model minority stereotype necessitates the reinforcement of
African American and Latino stereotypes. The opaque quality of this phenomenon buttresses its
danger and serves to fortify White privilege and the myth of meritocracy.
Implication 2: Institutions must cultivate a campus culture that is sensitive to and
respects the intersectionality of race, class, gender and first-generation college student
status. On every college campus there are faculty members who recognize the need for greater
awareness and sensitivity to race-, gender-, and class-based stereotypes. However, these faculty
members cannot affect change alone. Support from the institution in the form of ongoing
professional development workshops and diversity programming can potentially shift the culture
of a campus towards greater awareness of race, gender, and class-based stereotypes.
Additionally, programs must focus on the specific and unique needs of AAPIs. The
establishment of such focused programs can only occur when faculty, staff, and administrators
learn about the diverse needs of different Asian subgroups as a result of diverse immigration
history, acculturation levels, and cultural values.
Institutions of higher education should also increase the representation of ethnic
minorities in the faculty body. As stated above, colleges reflect patterns in larger society,
including the underrepresentation of ethnic minorities in higher social status positions. Higher
learning institutions must make conscious efforts to avoid reproducing such inequities and serve
as models that embrace racial equity by diversifying the faculty body. Doing so would
demonstrate the institution’s commitment in promoting culturally diverse campuses and a
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 145
positive campus climate (Chang, 2005). Colleges that foster culturally sensitive climates on
campus would likely see benefits in the form of higher levels of student engagement which
would lead to greater levels of student success.
Implication 3: Institutions must support programs that promote student-faculty
interactions. Findings from this study reveal that faculty members serve as socializing agents
and sources of encouragement. These relationships can lead to mentor-mentee relationships that
AAPI FGCSs need due to their lack of social and cultural capital upon entering college. The
participants spoke about confiding with professors during difficult times to seek support and
encouragement. In some cases, faculty members would direct students to campus resources or
events, which enhanced students' cultural capital and social capital. These findings suggest that
because faculty members play an integral role in students' educational experiences, community
colleges should be proactive and intentional in creating opportunities to increase student-faculty
interactions. Colleges should implement formal mentorship programs or learning communities
that foster student-faculty interactions and collaboration. According to Lundberg and Schreiner
(2004):
Institutions must create environments and opportunities for students and faculty to
engage with one another in an effort to make faculty members more approachable. These
opportunities can occur in orientation, residence life, recreation programs, and in other
student affairs domains where students may feel more comfortable. The responsibility
for enhancing student relationships with faculty members falls not only on students and
faculty, but also on student affairs professionals as they work to create seamless learning
environments that uphold the academic mission of the institution (p. 563)
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 146
Grounded in this study’s data, AAPI FGCSs lack social networks with individuals who possess
knowledge about higher education. Professors, administrators, and staff can serve as cultural
capital transmitters, a resource participants from this study would greatly benefit from.
Implication 4: Instructors must consider different approaches to incorporate
student engagement in and out of the classroom. AAPIs show the lowest levels of contact
with instructors (Chang, 2005). Findings from this study support the research literature to some
extent. While the participants in this study had regular interactions with professors at the time of
data collection, many of the participants shared that their out-of-classroom interactions with
faculty only increased in their second year as college students. Early interventions would
capture this group at the beginning of their college careers, which could increase the frequency
of interactions with faculty earlier on. Moreover, increased interactions may decrease the
perceived social distance AAPI FGCSs experience. Non-traditional students, including AAPI
FGCSs and other underrepresented students, need to be validated by their professors. Taking the
initiative to engage with faculty is intimidating and culturally foreign to many of these students,
therefore, community college instructors must be proactive in approaching and assisting them
(Rendon, 1994).
Recommendations for Future Research
This study aimed to explore AAPI students' "lived experiences" (Creswell, 1998, p. 54) in
the community college setting. Capturing the stories of this under-researched population at this
type of institution offered a nuanced understanding of how Chinese, Chinese-Vietnamese, and
Chinese-Vietnamese-Cambodian students experienced their education at a two-year institution.
In light of the scarcity of Asian American and Pacific Islander students in higher education
research, this study is significant because it makes the following contributions to the research
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 147
literature regarding the experiences of AAPIs, specifically Chinese, Chinese-Vietnamese, and
Chinese-Vietnamese-Cambodian students at community colleges. This study:
(1) Explores the experiences of AAPI students, and their interactions with faculty in a
community college context.
(2) Considers the role of the model minority myth in influencing the perceptions and
experiences of AAPI students with faculty.
(3) Explores the impact of first-generation college student status in AAPI student's
perceptions of their college experiences.
(4) Approaches an analysis of AAPI student's experiences at the community college by
triangulating critical race theory, Bourdieu's (1977, 1986) concept of habitus, and
Astin's (1984) theory of student involvement.
(5) Uses a qualitative approach to listen to the stories of AAPIs, mainly Chinese,
Chinese-Vietnamese, and Chinese-Vietnamese-Cambodian students enrolled at an
Asian American, Native American, Pacific Islander Serving Institution (AANAPISI)
which serves to humanize the experiences of AAPIs in higher education.
In light of this study's contributions, future research should continue to explore the variables that
influence AAPIs community college experience generally and their interactions with faculty
outside of the classroom specifically. Future research should especially focus on Southeast
Asian students—Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, and Vietnamese—as they have lower rates of
college degree attainment and AAPIs report lower levels of satisfaction with their college
experience (Chang, 2005).
Future research should also explore the extent to which parental expectations differ for
male and female students. If traditional gender roles are enforced, males may receive more
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 148
parental support for academic pursuits. Concurrently, if women are expected to take a
subordinate role and meet traditional gender roles such as primary caretaker, parental support
may be weaker because academic pursuits take a lesser priority when compared to familial
obligations. Although this study used a qualitative approach to listen to the voices of AAPI
students, which is critical to understanding the realities they encounter during their time in
community college, future research should continue to employ qualitative research methods to
gain a deeper understanding of the ways AAPI college students perceive and experience their
time in institutions of higher education.
Conclusions
The need for a deep and more meaningful understanding of Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders (AAPIs) in higher education is increasingly important. Given the rapid growth of the
AAPI population and their presence in institutions of higher education, it is imperative to
develop a fuller understanding of this ethnically diverse group. Asian American and Pacific
Islanders will undoubtedly contribute to meeting the goals of the nation’s Completion Agenda
and for this reason this study offers a more refined understanding of AAPI FGCSs.
As discussed in the beginning of this dissertation, AAPI FGCSs are some of the most
educationally disadvantaged and underserved in institutions of higher education. This study
supports research literature on the positive impacts of student-faculty interactions (Astin, 1993;
Lamport, 1993; Terenzini, Pascarella, & Bliming, 1999) in an urban community college setting.
By recognizing the need for genuinely interested and approachable instructors who understand
the unique needs of AAPI FGCSs and are sensitive to the model minority stereotype, colleges
can promote greater student-faculty relationships and foster positive student development and
student success on their campuses. Echoing the thoughts of Cole (2010, p. 13), “in this era of
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 149
growing minority student participation in higher education, the role of faculty in the lives of
these students must be considered as a major vehicle for enhanced academic student
performance, unfettered educational aspirations, and unbounded educational success.”
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 150
References
Aguirre, A. & Turner, J. H. (2010). American ethnicity: The dynamics and consequences of
discrimination (5
th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Ahn Toupin, E. S. W. & Son, L. (1991). Preliminary findings on Asian Americans: The “model
minority” in a small private east coast college. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
22(3), 403-417. doi: 10.1177/0022022191223006
American Council on Education (1973). Bayer, A., Royer, J., & Webb, R. (1973). Four years
after college. Washington, DC: Bayer, A., Royer, J., & Webb, R.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2000). National profile of community colleges:
Trends & statistics. 3D Edition. Washington, DC: Kent Phillippe and Madeline Patton.
American Association of Community Colleges. (2009). Community college fact sheet [Data file].
Washington, DC.
American Council on Education. (2011). Minorities in higher education: Twenty-fourth status
report. Washington, DC: Young Kim
Arredondo, M. (1995). Faculty-Student Interaction: Uncovering the Types of Interactions that
Raise Undergraduate Degree Aspirations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Orlando, FL, November 2-5, 1995.
Ashmore, R., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for
collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological
Bulletin, 130, 80-114. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80.
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1982). Minorities in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 151
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining “equity” of American higher education.
Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321–341. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2004.0001.
Attinasi, L. C. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university attendance and
the implications for freshman year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 60(3), 247-
277.
Babbie, E. (2005). The basics of social research (5
th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Ballard, H. E. & Cintron, R. (2010). Critical race theory as an analytical tool: African American
male success in doctoral education. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 7(10), 11-
23.
Bailey, T. (2009). Rethinking remedial education in community college. New York, NY:
Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college
student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 35-64. doi:
10.2307/1162986.
Blossfeld, H. & Shavit, Y. (1993). Persistent inequality: Changing educational attainment in
thirteen countries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Bogue, J.P. (1950). The Community College. New York: McGraw Hill.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 152
Bonilla-Silva, E. & Embrick, D. G. (2007). Every place has a ghetto: The significance of Whites’
social and residential segregation. Journal of Symbolic Interaction, 30(3), 323-346. doi:
10.1525/si.2007.30.3.323.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A.H. Halsey
(Eds.), Power and ideology in education (487-511). New York: Oxford Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Bowen, W. G., Kurzweil, M. A., & Tobin, E. M. (2005). Equity and excellence in American
higher education. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Breneman, D. W., & Nelson, S. C. (1981). Financing community colleges: An economic
perspective. Washington: The Brookings Institution.
Brint, S. & Karabel, J. (1991). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of
educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Buenavista, T. L., Jayakumar, U. M., & Misa-Escalante, K. (2009). Contextualizing Asian
American education through critical race theory: An example of U.S. Pilipino college
student experiences. New Directions For Institutional Research, 142, 69-81. doi:
10.1002/ir.297.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 153
Bunzel, J. H. & Au, J. K. (1987). Diversity or discrimination: Asian Americans in college. The
Public Interest, 87, 49-66.
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.cccco.edu/
California Master Plan, 1970. Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mp.htm
Chae, M. H. (2002). Acculturation conflicts among Asian Americans: Implications for practice.
The New Jersey Journal of Professional Counseling, 56, 24-30.
Chang, J. C. (2005). Faculty student interaction at the community college: A focus on students of
color. Research in Higher Education, 46(7), 769–802. doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-6225-7.
Chang, M., Witt, D., Jones, J., & Hakuta, K. (2003) Compelling interest: Examining the evidence
on racial dynamics in colleges and universities. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Cho, M. (1994). Overcoming our legacy as cheap labor, scabs, and model minorities: Asian
activists fight for community empowerment. In K. Aguilar-San Juan (Ed.), The state of
Asian America: Activism and resistance in the 1990’s (pp. 253-274). Boston, MA: South
End Press.
Chou, R. S. & Feagin, J. R. (2008). The myth of the model minority: Asian Americans facing
racism. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Chou, R. S., Lee, K., & Ho, S. (2012). The White habitus and hegemonic masculinity at the elite
southern university: Asian Americans and the need for intersectional analysis. Sociation
Today, 10(2).
Chu, L. T. (1991). Who are the model minorities among the junior college Asian-American
subgroups? Unpublished manuscript. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED363362)
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 154
Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York, NY: The Penguin Press.
Clark, B. R. (1960). The “cooling out” function in higher education. American Journal of
Sociology, 65(6), 569-576.
Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact
and intellectual self-concept. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249-281.
10.1353/jhe.2007.0015.
Cole, D. (2010). The effects of student-faculty interactions on minority students’ college grades:
Differences between aggregated and disaggregated data. Journal of the Professoriate,
3(2), 136-160.
Colwell, B. W., & Lifka, T. E. (1983). Faculty involvement in residential life. The Journal of
College and University Student Housing, 13(1), 9-14.
Community college. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster online. Retrieved from www.merriam-
webseter.com/dictionary/community college
Conley, D. (2008). You may ask yourself: An introduction to thinking like a sociologist. New
York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Cox, B. E. & Orehovec, E. (2007). Faculty-student interaction outside the classroom: A typology
from a residential college. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 343-362. doi:
10.1353/4he.200.0033.
Cress, C. M. & Ikeda, E. K. (2003). Distress under duress: The relationships between campus
climate and depression in Asian American college students. NASPA Journal (National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.), 40(2), 74-97.
http://archives.pdx.edu/ds/psu/9192.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 155
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Delgado, R. (1995). Legal storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. In R.
Delgado (Ed.) Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). The landscape of qualitative research (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Doppelt, G. (2007). The value ladenness of scientific knowledge. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupre, & A.
Wylie (Eds.), Value-free science: Ideals and illusions (pp. 188-217). Cary, North
Carolina: Oxford University Press.
Dowd, A. C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond the
access “saga” toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407-418.
Eimers, M. T. (2000, May 21-24). The impact of student experience on progress in college: An
examination of minority and non-minority differences. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 38(3), 372-395. doi: 10/2202/1949/6605.1148.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 156
Eimers, M. T. & Pike, G. R. (1997). Minority and nonminority adjustment to college:
Differences or similarities? Research in Higher Education, 38(1), 77-97. doi:
10.1023/A:1024900812863.
Gekoski, N. & Schwartz, S. (1961). Student mortality and related factors. Journal of Educational
Research, 54, 192-194. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27530416.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment
with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. doi:
10.1177/1525822S05279903.
Hagedorn, L. S. (2009). Only a light jacket needed: The climate for community college faculty.
On Campus with Women, 41. Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume38_2/feature.cfm?section=2.
Hagedorn, L.S., Maxwell, W., Rodriguez, P., Hocevar, D., & Fillpot, J. (2000). Peer and student-
faculty relations in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 24(7), 587-598. doi: 10.1080/10668920050139730.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2012). The role of minority-serving institutions in
national college completion goals. Washington, DC: Noel Harmon.
Harper, S. R. & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 7-24. doi:
10.1002/ss.254
Hartlep, N. D. (2013). The model minority stereotype: Demystifying Asian American success.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
Henslin, J. M. (2008). Sociology: A down-to-earth approach (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 157
Hesse-Biber, S. N. & Leavy, P. (2006). The practice of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hu, A. (1985). Introduction to basic Asian values. AsianWeek: The Voice of Asian America.
Retrieved from http://www.asianweek.com/2012/04/28/introduction-to-basic-asian-values/
Hune, S. (1995). Rethinking race: Paradigms and policy formation. Amerasia Journal, 21(1), 29-
40.
Hune, S. (2002). Demographics and diversity of Asian American college students. In M. K.
McEwen, C. M. Kodama, A. N. Alvarez, S. Lee, & C. T. H. Liang (Eds.). Working with
Asian American college students (pp. 11-20). New Directions for Student Services, no. 97.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hune, S., & Chan, K. S. (1997). Special focus: Asian Pacific American demographic and
educational trends. In D. J. Carter & R. Wilson (Eds.), Fifteenth annual status report of
minorities in higher education, 1996-1997 (pp. 39-63). Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
Hurtado, S. (2002). Creating a climate of inclusion: Understanding Latina/o college students. In
Smith, W. A., Altbach, P. G., and Lomotey, K. (Eds.), The racial crisis in American
higher education (121-136). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Inman, W. E. & Mayes, L. (1999). The importance of being first, Unique characteristics of first
generation community college students. Community College Review, 26(4), 3-22.
Ishitani, T. T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first generation
college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861-885.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature review. Review
of Educational Research, 61(4), 505-532.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 158
Jo, J. O. (2004). Neglected voices in the multicultural America: Asian American racial politics
and its implications for multicultural education. Multicultural Perspectives, 6(1), 19-25.
Johnsrud, L. K. & Sadao, K. C. (1998). The common experience of “otherness”: Ethnic and
racial minority faculty. Review of Higher Education, 21(4), 315-342.
Jurgens, J. C. (2010). The evolution of community colleges. Journal of College Student Affairs,
28(2), 251-261
Kim, U., & Choi, S. (1994). Individualism, collectivism, and child development: A Korean
perspective. In P. M. Greenfield and R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of
minority child development (pp. 1-37). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kim, C. (1999). The racial triangulation of Asian Americans. Politics and Society, 27 (1), 105-
138.
Kim, Y. K. (2010). Racially different patterns of student-faculty interaction in college: A focus
on levels, effects, and causal directions. Journal of the Professoriate, 3(2), 161.189.
Kincaid, H. (2007). Contexualist morals and science. In H. Kincaid, J. Dupre, & A. Wylie (Eds.),
Value-free science: Ideals and illusions (pp. 218-238). Cary, North Carolina: Oxford
University Press.
Kraemer, B. A. (1996). The academic and social integration of Hispanic students into college.
Review of Higher Education, 20(2), 163-179. DOI: 10.1353/rhe.1996.0011.
Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214-222.
Kuh, G. D. & Hu, S. (2001). The effects of student-faculty interaction in the 1990s. Review of
Higher Education, 24(3), 309-332.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 159
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., & Associates. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful
approaches to fostering student learning and development outside the classroom. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kuzel, A. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. Crabtree and W. Miller (Eds.) Doing
qualitative research (pp. 31-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives: Preparing teachers to teach African American
students. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 206-214.
Ladson-Billings, G., & IV, Tate, W. F., (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-68.
Lareau, A., & Weininger, E. B. (2003) Cultural capital in educational research: A critical
assessment. Theory and Society, 567-606.
Lamport, M.A. (1993). Student-faculty informal interaction and the effect on college student
outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28(112), 971-991.
Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: Listening to Asian American
youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lee, S. S. (2006). Over-represented and de-minoritized: The racialization of Asian Americans in
higher education. Inter-Actions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies,
2(2), 1-17.
Lew, J, Chang, J, & Wang, W. (2005). UCLA community college review: The overlooked
minority. Asian Pacific American students at community colleges. Community College
Review, 33(2), 64-84.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 160
Lewis, A. E., Chesler, M., Forman, T. A. (2000). The impact of “colorblind” ideologies on
students of color: Intergroup relations at a predominately white university. Journal of
Negro Education, 69(1/2), 74-91.
Liang, C. T. H., Ting, M. P., & Teraguchi, D. H. (2001). Access denied: The complexity of
Asian Pacific Americans. Diversity Digest, 5(3), 3.
Liang, B., Allison, T., Kauh, T., Taylor, C., & Williams, L. M. (2006). Mentoring Asian and
Euro-American college women. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
34(3), 143-154.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E. A. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Loo, C., & Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a predominantly White
university. Journal of Higher Education, 57(1), 58-77.
Lopez, G. R., (2003). The racially neutral politics in education: A critical race theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68-94.
Lundberg, C. A. & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction
as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College
Student Development , 45(5), 549-565.
Majer, J. M. (2009). Self-efficacy and academic success among ethnically diverse first-
generation community college students. Journal of Higher Education, 2(4), 243-250.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 161
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McClenney, K.M. (2004, November). Redefining quality in community colleges. Change, 36(6),
16-21. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40177956?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102883696363
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Race, class, and gender
in the United States: An integrated study, 4, 165-169.
Mead, G. H. (1959). The philosophy of the present. LaSalle, Il: Open Court Publishing.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mook, L. (2002). Exclusion and inclusion in student-faculty informal interaction: A critical
perspective. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 2(2), 154-167.
Mooko, D. R. (n. d.). The Asian American college student as model minority: The myth, the
paradox and the deception. Retrieved from
http://www.uvm.edu/~vtconn/v16/mooko.html
Morse J. (1994). Designing funded qualitative research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.)
Handbook for qualitative research, (pp. 220-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Museus, S. D. (2007). Using qualitative methods to assess diverse institutional cultures. In S.
Harper and S. Museus (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in institutional assessment. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 136. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Museus, S. D. (2008). The model minority and inferior minority myths: Stereotypes and their
implications for student learning. About Campus, 13(3), 2-8.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 162
Museus, S. D. (2009). A critical analysis of the exclusion of Asian American from higher
education research and discourse. In L. Zhan (Ed.), Asian American Voices: Engaging,
Empowering, Enabling (pp. 59-76). New York: NLN Press.
Museus, S. D. & Kiang, P. N. (2009). Deconstructing the model minority myth and how it
contributes to the invisible minority reality in higher education research. New Directions
for Institutional Research, 142, 5-15. DOI: 10.1002/ir.292
Museus, S. D., Nichols, A. H., & Lambert, A. D. (2008). Racial differences in the effects of
campus racial climate on degree completion: A structural equation model. Review of
Higher Education, 32(1), 107-134. DOI: 10.1353/re.0.0030.
Museus, S. D. & Truong, K. A. (2009). Disaggregating qualitative data from Asian American
college students in campus racial climate research and assessment. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 142, 17-26. DOI: 10.1002/ir.293
Nagasawa, R. & Espinosa, D. J. (1992). Educational achievement and the adaptive strategy of
Asian American college students: Fact, theory, and hypothesis. Journal of College
Student Development, 33, 137-142.
Naidoo, R. (2004). Fields and institutional strategy: Bourdieu on the relationship between higher
education, inequality, and society. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25(4), 457-
471.
Nakanishi, D. (1989). A quota on excellence? The Asian American admissions debate. Change,
21, 38-47.
National Center of Education Statistics. (1997). Minorities in higher education: Findings from
the condition of education 1996. Washington, DC: Thomas M. Smith.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 163
National Center of Education Statistics. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates
whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: Anne-Marie
Nunez and Stephanie Cuccaro-Alamin.
National Center of Education Statistics. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation and
postsecondary success of first-generation students. Washington, DC: Edward Warburton,
Rosio Bugarin, and Anne-Marie Nunez.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S.
postsecondary education institutions: 2003–04, with a special analysis of community
college students. Washington, DC: Laura Horn and Stephanie Nevill.
National Center of Education Statistics. (2010). Status and trends in the education of racial and
ethnic groups. Washington, DC: Susan Aud, Mary Ann Fox, and Angelina
KewalRamani.
National Center of Education Statistics. (2012). Postsecondary education and beyond: Fast facts.
Washington, DC.
National Center of Education Statistics. (2013). The condition of education. Washington, DC.
National Commission on Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education (CARE).
(2008). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders: Facts, not fiction: Setting the record
straight. New York, NY: Robert Teranishi.
National Commission of Asian American and Pacific Islander Research in Education (CARE).
(2011). The relevance of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the college completion
agenda. New York, NY: Robert Teranishi.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 164
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2013). Hot topics in higher education: Reforming
remedial education. Washington, DC: Brenda Bautsch.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2012). Completing college: A national view of
student attainment rates. Herndon, VA: Doug Shapiro and Afet Dundar.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, (2012). Education at a glance 2012:
OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en
Panelo, N. D. (2010). The model minority student: Asian American students and the
relationships between acculturation to Western values, family pressures, and mental health
concerns. The Vermont Connection, 31, 147-155.
Parillo, V. (2010). Understanding race and ethnic relations (4
th
ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Park, J. J. (2010). Over 40 percent: Asian Americans and the road(s) to community colleges.
Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice, University of Southern California.
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C. & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First generation
college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of
Higher Education, 75(3), 249-284. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3838816.
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1976). Informal interaction with faculty and freshmen ratings of
the academic and non-academic experience of college. Journal of Educational Research,
70, 35-41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27536952.
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1977). Patterns of student-faculty informal interaction beyond the
classroom and voluntary freshman attrition. Journal of Higher Education, 48(5), 540-552.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981596.
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from
twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 165
Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Patton, L. D., McEwen, M., Rendon, L., Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (2007). Critical race
perspectives on theory in student affairs. New Directions for Student Services, 120, 39-53.
doi: 10.1002/ss.256.
Pew Research Center. (2010). College enrollment hits all time high, fueled by community college
surge. Washington, DC: Richard Fry.
Pew Research Center. (2012). The rise of Asian Americans. Washington, DC.
Pham, N., & Dykstra, P. (1996). A positive learning environment is everybody's business: Asian
Pacific American students speak. Santa Ana, CA: Rancho Santiago Community College
District.
Phinney, J. S. & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity:
Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 271-281.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.271.
Pike, G. R. & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students. A comparison of
their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(3),
276-300. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2005.0021.
Policy Information Center. (2000). The American community college turns 100: A look at its
students, programs, and prospects. Princeton, NJ: Richard J. Conley
Pope, M. L. (2002). Community college mentoring: Minority student perception. Community
College Review, 30(3), 31-45. doi: 10.1177/00915210203000303.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 166
Portes, A. & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Rendon, L. I. (1994). Beyond involvement: Creating validating academic and social
communities in the community college, Keynote address to the American River Community
College, Sacramento, CA (ERIC Reproduction Service ED 374 728).
Rendon, L. I., Jalomo, R. E. & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of
minority retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp.
127-156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Rendon, L. I. & Valadez, J. R. (1993). Qualitative indicators of Hispanic student transfer.
Community College Review, 20(4), 27-37.
Riehl, R. J. (1994). The academic preparation, aspirations, and first-year performance of first-
generation students. College and University, 70(1), 14-19.
Ritzer, G. (2000). Modern sociological theory (5
th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Romero, A., & Roberts, R. (2003). The impact of multiple dimensions of ethnic identity on
discrimination and adolescents’ self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33,
2288-2305. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01885.x.
Roush, S. (2007). Constructive empiricism and the role of social values in science. In H.
Kincaid, J. Dupre, & A. Wylie (Eds.), Value-free science: Ideals and illusions (pp. 165-
187). Cary, North Carolina: Oxford University Press.
Santos, S. J., and Reigadas, E. T. (2000). Evaluation of a university faculty mentoring program:
Its effect on Latino college adjustment. National Association of African American Studies
and National Association of Hispanic and Latino Studies 2000 Literature Monograph
Series, National Association of African American Studies, National Association of
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 167
Hispanic and Latino Studies, Houston, TX.
Schram, T. H. (2003). Conceptualizing qualitative inquiry. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Scott-Blair, M. (1986, December 11). Ethnic imbalance shifts at UC. San Diego Union, pp. A1,
A37.
Shaw, K. M., Valadez, J. R., & Rhoades, R. A. (1999). Community colleges as cultural texts:
Qualitative explorations of organizational and student culture. SUNY Series, Frontiers in
Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Shaw, K. M. & London, H. B. (2001). Culture and ideology in keeping transfer commitment:
Three community colleges. The Review of Higher Education, 25(1), 91-114.
http://vc.bridgew.edu/sociology_fac/12.
Solorzano, D. G. (1998). Critical race theory, race and gender microaggressions, and the
experience of Chicana and Chicano studies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 11, 121-136. doi: 10.1080/095183998236926.
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and
campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of
Negro Education, 69(1), 60-73. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-
2984%28200024%2F21%2969%3A1%2F2%3C60%3ACRTRMA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A.
Spady, W. (1971). Dropouts from higher education: Toward and empirical model. Interchange,
2, 38-62. doi: 10.1007/BF02282469.
Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1) 1-40.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 168
Strauss, V. (2009, August 15) Community colleges get student influx in bad times. Washington
Post. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-05-31/news/36876319_1_private-four-year-
schools-independent-colleges-shannon-gundy.
Strong American Schools. (2008). Diploma to nowhere. Washington, DC.
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J. L., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2009). Racial
microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Asian American Journal of
Psychology, S(1), 88-101. DOI: 10.1037/1948-1985.S.1.8.
Sue, S. (1995). Asian American achievement: Implications for the bell curve. Paper presented at
the annual convention of the American Psychological Association in New York.
Sue, S. & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achievements: A phenomenon in
search of an explanation. American Psychologist, 45(8), 913-920. doi: 10.1037/0003-
066X.45.8.913.
Sullivan, L. E. (2009). The SAGE glossary of the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Sullivan, A. L., & Artiles, A. J. (2011). Theorizing racial inequity in special education: Applying
structural inequity theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46(6), 1526-1552. doi:
10.1177/004208591141601
Swartz, David (1997). Culture and Power: The Sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Takagi, D. (1992). The retreat from race: Asian-American admissions and racial politics. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 169
Teranishi, R. T. (2002). Asian Pacific Americans and critical race theory: An examination of
school racial climate. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2), 144-154. doi:
10.1080/7132845281
Teranishi, R. T. (2010). Demography, community, and the education of Asian American and
Pacific Islander students. In W. R. Allen (Ed.), Sociology, demography, and social change.
Oxford: Elsevier Publishers.
Teranishi, R. T. (2012). Asians in the ivory tower: Dilemmas of racial inequality in American
higher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Teranishi, R. T. (2012). Asian American and Pacific Islander students and the institutions that
serve them. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(2), 16-22. doi:
10.1080/00091383.2012.655233.
Teranishi, R. T., Behringer, L. B., Grey, E. A., & Parker, T. L. (2009). Critical race theory and
research on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in higher education. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 142, 57-68. doi: 10.1002/ir.296.
Teranishi, R. T. & Nguyen, T. K. (2011). Asian American and Pacific Islanders: The changing
demography of the United States and implications for educational policy. Harvard Journal
of Asian American Policy Review, 22, 17-27.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Bliming, G. S. (1999). Students' out-of-class learning
experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development. Journal of College
Student Development, 40, 599-623 (the 40th Anniversary Edition). [Reprinted from
Journal of College Student Development, 1996, 37, 149- 162.]
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 170
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, P. T. & Nora, A. (1996). First
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1-22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40196208.
Tierney, W. G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: Cultural integrity versus
cultural suicide. Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 80-91.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2668211.
Tsunokai, G. T. (2005). Beyond the lenses of the model minority myth: A descriptive portrait of
Asian gang members. Journal of Gang Research, 12, 37-58.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=211040.
The College Board. (2013). The college completion agenda: 2012 progress report. Washington,
DC: Katherine Hughes.
Tauber, R. (1997). Self-fulfilling prophecy: A practical guide to its use in education. Westport,
CN: Praeger.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170024.
Tinto, V (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Turner, S. E. (2004). Going to college and finishing college: Explaining different educational
outcomes. In C. M. Hoxby (Ed.), College choices: The economics of where to go, when
to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 13–56). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Uba, L. (1994). Asian Americans: Personality patterns, identity, and mental health. New York,
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 171
NY: The Guildford Press.
United States Census Bureau, 2004b. We the people: Asians in the United States. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
United States Census Bureau. (2010). American Community Survey Briefs: Poverty: 2010 and
2011. Retrieved from www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/acsbr11-01.pdf
United States Census Bureau. (2012). The Asian population: 2010. (Publication No. C2010BR2-
11). Washington, DC.
United States Census Bureau. (2012). American Community Survey Briefs: The population with
a bachelor’s degree or higher by race and Hispanic origin: 2006-2010.
www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr10-19.pdf
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (1992). Civil rights issues facing Asian Americans in the
1990s. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education. (2011). College Completion Tool Kit. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Vocational education-Basic grants to states. Washington,
DC.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander
Serving Institutions Program. Washington, DC.
Van Manen, J. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive
pedagogy. New York: State University of New York.
Wang, W. W., Chang, J. C., & Lew, J. W. (2009). Reasons for attending, expected obstacles, and
degree aspirations for Asian Pacific American community college students. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(7), 571-593. doi:
10.1080/10668920902885574.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 172
Wassmer, R., Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2003). California community college transfer rates:
Policy implications and a future research agenda (Senate Publication No. 1218-S).
Sacramento, CA: California Senate Office of Research.
Wassmer, R., Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2009). Effect of racial/ethnic composition on transfer
rates in community colleges: Implications for policy and practice. Research in Higher
Education, 45(6), 651-672. doi: 10.1023/B:RIHE.0000040267.68949.dl.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
White, J. W. & Lowenthal, P. R. (2011). Minority college students and tacit “codes of power”:
Development academic discourses and identities. Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 283-
318. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2010.0028.
Wilding, C. & Whiteford, G. (2005). Phenomenological research: An exploration of conceptual,
theoretical, and practical issues. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 25(3), 98-
105. http://hdl.handle.net/1959.14/82266.
White House Summit on Community Colleges. (2011). Summit report. Washington, DC. Jill
Biden.
Wise, T., & Jhally, S. (Producer). (2008). Tim Wise on white privilege: Racism, white denial, and
the costs of inequality. [Lecture]. (Available from Media Education Foundation, 60
Masonic St. Northampton, MA 01060.
Witt, J. (2009). Soc. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Wilson, P. (1997). Key factors in the performance and achievement of minority students at the
University of Alaska, Fairbanks. The American Indian Quarterly, 21(3), 535-544.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1185522.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 173
Yosso, T. J. (2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicano/Chicano educational
pipeline. New York, NY: Routledge.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 174
Appendix A
University of Southern California
(Rossier School of Education, 3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089)
INFORMED
CONSENT
FOR
NON-‐MEDICAL
RESEARCH
(Asian American and Pacific Islander Student-Faculty Interactions)
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Tracy Tambascia, Ed.D and
Eileen Ie, M.A. at the University of Southern California, because you are a first-generation Asian
American or Pacific Islander community college student and have had at least two interactions
with faculty outside of the classroom. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding
whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may
also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you
will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore students’ perception of their past interactions with faculty
members on campus.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in two separate 30-
minute interviews with the principal investigator, Eileen Ie M.A. Interviews will take place in a
quiet space on campus or coffee shop near campus. An audio recording device will be used
during the interview. If the participant does not wish to be audio recorded s/he may still
participate in the study. The interview will consist primarily of questions asking the participant
to recall and describe previous interactions with faculty during their study at the community
college.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no potential risks associated with participation in this study.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
In seeking to explore student perceptions of past interactions with faculty, a better understanding
of such experiences may serve to benefit future students. Specifically, because there is little
information about Asian American and Pacific Islander students at the community college,
results from this study will serve to add to the understanding of Asian American and Pacific
Islander student experiences in the community college setting.
CONFIDENTIALITY
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 175
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
The data from audio recordings will be stored as mp3 files in Eileen Ie’s personal computer. Any
notes taken from interviews will also be stored in Eileen Ie’s personal computer. As a
participant, you have the right to review the audio recordings and transcripts of audio recordings
before the data is destroyed. Only Eileen Ie and the online transcription service will have access
to the audio recordings. All data collected will be used only for educational purposes. Personal
identities will be shielded through the use of pseudonyms and audio-recordings will be destroyed
June 2018. Any personal information, research data, and related records will be stored in Eileen
Ie’s personal computer that is password protected.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Eileen Ie at
(323) 780-6883, ieef@elac.edu, 1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez, Monterey Park, 91754 or Dr.
Tracy Tambascia at (213) 740-9747, tpoon@usc.edu, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles,
CA 90089,
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 176
Appendix B
Online Pre-Survey
Student-Faculty Interaction Survey
This survey is intended to learn about student’s interactions with faculty on campus. Please
answer all questions to the best of your ability. Thank you.
Directions: Please check only one box.
1. Gender
Female
Male
2. Race
African American/Black
Caucasian
Latino/Hispanic
Other. Please specify
Asian American or Pacific Islander
3. Age
18 – 20
21 – 25
26 or older
4. Educational Goal (select all that apply)
Transfer to university
AA degree
Certificate
Other
5. Have you been enrolled at ELAC for at least 2 consecutive semesters?
Yes
No
6. Have you had at least 2 interactions with a professor outside of the classroom (for example:
office hours, mentoring, student club activities, etc.)?
Yes
No
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 177
7. Has your mother or father attended college?
Yes
No
8. Does your mother or father have a college degree?
Yes
No
Please continue on back
9. Are you an international student?
Yes
No
10. Please circle the number you believe best describes your socioeconomic status:
Working Middle Class Upper Class
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. Would you be willing to participate in two 30-minute interviews?
No
Yes
If yes, please select your preferred method of contact (If you are selected to do an
interview, you will receive a $20 Visa gift card).
Cell ( )
Email @
Thank you for completing this survey.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 178
Appendix C
Interview Guide
1. When did you start college? (Rapport building)
2. Have you always attended Connole Community College or have you taken classes at
other colleges? (Rapport building)
3. What is your ethnicity? (Rapport building)
4. Where did you grow up? (Rapport building)
5. Do you have any questions for me before we get started? (Rapport building)
6. How often do you interact with professors outside of class? Why?
7. (RQ1b) Are you involved in activities that involve professors? Which ones?
a. Do you feel like you are well informed of all the resources available to you?
b. How did you learn about these resources?
c. If you knew there were more resources available to you, would you take
advantage of them? Why/Why not?
8. If you were a professor, what would you do to encourage your students to interact with
you?” (RQ1b)
9. Tell me about a meaningful interaction you’ve had with a professor outside of class on
this campus? (RQ1)
10. Tell me what a typical interaction with a professor outside of class is like.
a. Follow up: What do you usually talk about? (RQ1)
11. What do you think is the connection between interacting with professors outside of class
and your academic success? (RQ1b)
12. Please describe your idea of an ideal relationship with a professor. (RQ1)
a. Please explain how similar your interactions with faculty is with what you just
described? (RQ1a, RQ1b, RQ1c).
13. How would you describe your overall interactions with faculty outside of class
(Positive/Negative)? And why? (RQ1)
14. Tell me about how your upbringing taught you to interact with adults and/or authority
figures?
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 179
a. Tell me about the role you think this plays in your interactions with faculty when
you’re with them one on one? (RQ1a, RQ1c)
15. How do you perceive your faculty (you can think of 1 or 2 of your favorite faculty in the
last year).
16. Tell me how you think your experiences as a first-generation college student compares to
a student who has one or both parents who went to college? (RQ1b)
17. Is there anything else about your college experience that you want to share?
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 180
Appendix D
Recruitment Flyer
ASIAN AMERICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDER RESEARCH STUDY
Are you Asian American or Pacific Islander?
Have you had at least 2 interactions with a professor outside of class?
Are you planning to transfer to a university?
Are you or your siblings the first in your family to go to college?
Have you been enrolled at ELAC for at least 2 consecutive semesters?
Would you like to be part of a research study about Asian American
students in community colleges?
If you answered “Yes” to all of the questions above you are qualified
to volunteer for an interview.
Please email Eileen at eie@usc.edu for more information.
Asian American Research Project
Contact Eileen at eie@usc.edu or
(323) 780-6833.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Asian American Research Project
Contact Eileen at eie@usc.edu or
(323) 780-6833.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Asian American Research Project
Contact Eileen at eie@usc.edu or
(323) 780-6833.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Asian American Research Project
Contact Eileen at eie@usc.edu or
(323) 780-6833.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Asian American Research Project
Contact Eileen at eie@usc.edu or
(323) 780-6833.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Asian American Research Project
Contact Eileen at eie@usc.edu or
(323) 780-6833.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Asian American Research Project
Contact Eileen at eie@usc.edu or
(323) 780-6833.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Asian American Research Project
Contact Eileen at eie@usc.edu or
(323) 780-6833.
ASIAN AMERICAN STUDENT-FACULTY INTERACTIONS 181
Appendix E
Participant Letter
March 2014
Dear Student:
I am currently a doctoral student in Education at the University of Southern California. As
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor in Education, I am conducting a
research study. This research is being supervised by my faculty advisor, Dr. Tracy Tambascia.
As a community college faculty member at East Los Angeles College, I hope to learn about the
experiences of Asian American and Pacific Islander students with their professors in community
colleges. More specifically, it is my goal to listen to “student voices” regarding their experiences
with faculty outside of the classroom. These interactions with faculty outside of the classroom
may include but are not limited to office hour visits, conversations with faculty after class, or
student club involvement with faculty club advisors. The study’s findings may have significant
implications for community colleges in understanding how to better support Asian American and
Pacific Islander students academically and professionally.
I am seeking students who meet the following criteria to participate in the study:
- Asian American or Pacific Islander students who are enrolled and have attended the
research site (East Los Angeles College) for at least two consecutive semesters
- Are preferably 18 to 25 years old
- Have had at least 2 out-of-classroom interactions with a faculty member
- Are first-generation college students (this means neither parent has attended college or
attained a college degree)
- Plan to transfer to a university
This study will take about 1 hour of your time; this estimate includes two separate 30-minute
interviews with me at a location of your choice. If you agree to participate in this study, you will
be asked to an interview. The interview will ask questions about your experiences with faculty
outside of the classroom and your experiences as an Asian American or Pacific Islander student
in the community college setting. Each participant will be guaranteed that all information will
remain confidential. No real names will be used.
Participation in this study is considered voluntary; therefore, participants can voluntarily
withdraw at any point in the study. No negative consequences will be incurred if you decide to
not participate or change your mind later.
As an incentive for your participation in this study, you will receive a $10 gift card upon
completion of each interview.
If you are interested in participating in this study, please contact me at (818) 428-7397 or via
email at eie@usc.edu. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study focuses on Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) student experiences with faculty in community colleges, specifically focusing on out‐of‐classroom interactions. The research on student‐faculty interactions overwhelmingly supports its role in student achievement, persistence, and overall educational satisfaction (Astin, 1993
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of student-faculty interaction on undergraduate international students' academic outcome
PDF
Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students
PDF
Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions
PDF
When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college
PDF
Enhancing the international student experience through graduate employment preparedness
PDF
How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?
PDF
Addressing the education debt: how community college educators utilize culturally relevant pedagogy to support Black and Latinx student success
PDF
Experiences of multiracial Asian American and Pacific Islander students at an Asian American Native American Pacific Islander-serving institution
PDF
Attaining success: how African American college students persist, engage and graduate from a moderately selective institution: a case study
PDF
(In)visiblity in numbers: Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander college students and their perspectives on Asian American Pacific Islander culture centers
PDF
Latino male community college students' persistence to transfer
PDF
Assessing the impact of diversity courses on student-faculty interactions, critical thinking and social engagement
PDF
The contribution of family members to first-generation college student success: a narrative approach
PDF
Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes
PDF
The moderating effects of racial identity and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for Black community college students
PDF
First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university
PDF
Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty
PDF
African-American/Black students’ experience and achievement in asynchronous online learning environments at a community college
PDF
Faculty retention at private colleges in China
PDF
An evaluation of general education faculty practices to support student decision-making at one community college
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ie, Eileen Flora
(author)
Core Title
Asian American and Pacific Islander student-faculty interactions: experiences of first-generation community college students
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Asian‐American,community college,critical race theory,cultural capital,faculty interactions,first‐generation college student,model minority myth,model‐minority,OAI-PMH Harvest,out‐of‐classroom interactions,student‐faculty interactions
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tambascia, Tracy Poon (
committee chair
), Chung, Ruth (
committee member
), Kozeracki, Carol (
committee member
)
Creator Email
eileenfie@gmail.com,ieef@elac.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-464277
Unique identifier
UC11288284
Identifier
etd-IeEileenFl-2845.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-464277 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-IeEileenFl-2845.pdf
Dmrecord
464277
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ie, Eileen Flora
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
Asian‐American
community college
critical race theory
cultural capital
faculty interactions
first‐generation college student
model minority myth
model‐minority
out‐of‐classroom interactions
student‐faculty interactions