University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Educational factors at urban public school that contribute to variation in academic achievement: comparison of high and average achieving Chinese Americans

(USC Thesis Other)

Educational factors at urban public school that contribute to variation in academic achievement: comparison of high and average achieving Chinese Americans

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 1
EDUCATIONAL FACTORS AT URBAN PUBLIC SCHOOL THAT CONTRIBUTE TO
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT: COMPARISON OF HIGH AND AVERAGE
ACHIEVING CHINESE AMERICANS

by

Kuro Nagasaka

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

December 2014

Copyright 2014 Kuro Nagasaka
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 2

Dedication

I
dedicate
my
dissertation
to
my
parents,
Yutaka
and
Eiko
Nagasaka,
a
special
gratitude
for

being
patient
and
for
their
unconditional
support
through
this
endeavor.
I
also
dedicate

this
paper
to
Mr.
and
Mrs.
Tanji
and
Mrs.
Kon
and
Bae-‐Kyung
Kim
who
supported
me

throughout
the
process.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 3

Acknowledgements
First
I
would
thank
Dr.
Reynaldo
Baca,
my
committee
chair
for
the
countless
hours
reading

and
revising
my
paper.
I
also
thank
him
for
his
enduring
patience
and
commitment
for
me

to
complete
this
paper.
I
wish
to
extend
my
thanks
to
Dr.
Linda
Fischer
who
also
provided

me
with
constant
advice
and
direction
for
my
paper.

Lastly,
I
appreciate
the
support
of
Dr.

Alan
Green
who
asked
pointed
questions
at
my
defense.

I
would
like
to
acknowledge
and
thank
my
advisors
for
allowing
me
to
complete
this

research
and
provided
me
with
all
assistance.
I
also
would
like
to
thank
Dr.
Guadalupe

Montano
Garcia
for
editing
my
paper.

Finally,
I
would
like
to
thank
Dr.
Susie
Ling
and
Dr.
Mary
Ho
for
their
help
in
contacting

students.

I
also
thank
for
all
students
who
participated
in
my
study.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 4

Table of Contents
Dedication 2

Acknowledgements 3

Abstract 7

Chapter One: Overview Of The Study 8

Statement of the Problem 8

Background of the Problem 9

Purpose of the Study 11

Limitations 11

Significance of the Study 11

Definitions and Terms 12

Organization of the Study 12

Chapter Two: Literature Review 13

Cultural-Ecological Theory 14

Fordham and Ogbu’ Perception of Oppositional Identity and Fictive Kinship upon
Education 15

Ogbu’s Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities and their Response to Ecological Force 23

Ogbu’s Influence of Community Force and Perception and Response to Schooling 28

Multiple-layered Attitude Toward (Abstract and Concrete) Education 35

Criticism of Ogbu’s Sociohistorical Analysis 38

Cultural-ecological Theory Pertaining to Asian American 43

Influence of Cultural Acculturation upon Perception of One’s Ethnic Identity and
Opportunity Structure 44

Voluntary Minorities’ Level of Acculturation and their Perception on Education and
Socioeconomic Mobility 51

Cultural-ecological Theory Summary 63

Model Minority Theory 64

Outline for the Section 64

Intragroup Variability Regarding Perception of One’s Identity, Schooling, and
Stereotype of Model Minority 67

Asian American’s Cultural Practice and Academic Performance 71

Influence of Cultural Orientation (Individualistic vs. Collectivistic) Upon Identity
Formation, Perception of One’s Ethnic Group, and Perception of Model Minority Label 75

Model Minority in the Historical Context and the Dominant Groups’ Perception
towards Asian Americans 80

Impact of Model Minority Stereotype on a Low-Achieving Student, Parents,
and Teachers 85

Five Most Commonly Held Misconceptions of the Stereotype 90

Immigrant’s Educational Experience and Perception of the Relevance of Education 93

Theory of Stereotype Threat 99

Outline for the Section 99

Influence of Societal Stereotype upon Academic Performance and Identity Development101

Positive and Negative Social Identities and Their Effect on Quantitative Performance 105

Positive Stereotype and Decreased Academic Performance 108

Theory for Social Capital in Education 112

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 5

Outline of the Section 112

Background and Limitations of Social Capital Theory 113

Network Analytic Model and Process of the Socialization and School Experiences of
Minority Students 117

Influence on Immigrant Students 124

Relevance of Social Capital upon Immigrant and Minority Population 126

Community as a Form of Social Capital 128

Summary of Literature Review 135

Cultural Ecological Theories and Factors that Affect Academic Achievement 135

Characteristics of First-Generation and Later Generation Immigrants 138

Views on Education 140

Myth of Model Minority Stereotype 142

Effect of Stereotype Threat upon Academic Performance 147

Social Capital and Its Relevance for Immigrant Students 148

Conclusion 150

Chapter Three: Methodology 152

Sample and Population 154

Miramar University 154

Montevista Community College 154

Instrumentation 156

Data Collection 157

Data Analysis 157

Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Findings 158

Background Information of Participants 159

High Achievers 159

Average Achievers 162

Results for Research Question One 167

Perception of Ethnicity 167

Cultural Values of First and Later Generations 172

Language Proficiency 178

Characteristics of School Attended: Private versus Public Secondary Institution 184

Motivation to Sustain Academic Success 192

Environmental Influence upon Education 198

Perception of Future Success and Level of Educational Attainment 203

Perception on Discrimination 207

Discussion Research Question One 212

Results for Research Question Two 213

Perception of Model Minority 213

Collectivistic vs. Individualistic Cultural Orientation 224

Career choices 231

Model Minority as Stereotype Treat 239

Discussion of Research Question Two 247

Results for Research Question Three 247

Role of Institutional Agents 248

Influence of Stereotype upon Teachers 257

Discussion of Research Question Three 261

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 6

Summary of Chapter Four 261

Chapter Five: Discussions 263

Discussion of Findings 267

Perception on the Value of Education and Social Economic Status 269

Academic Environment and Influence on Achievement 270

Perception of Future Success and Level of Educational Attainment 272

Establishing Tangible Links Between Achievement and Goal 273

Perception of Ethnicity 275

Cultural Orientation 278

Career Choices 279

Model Minority as a Threat 281

Role of Institutional Agents 285

Influence of Stereotype on Teachers 286

Implication for Practice 289

References Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix A Research Questions and Theoretical Framework 300

Appendix B Student Profile 302

Appendix C Structured Interview Questions 303

Appendix D Question and Theories 1 310

Appendix E Question and Theories 2 324

Appendix F Coding for Interview Questions 334

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 7

Abstract
The pervasiveness of the stereotype regarding Asian Americans as high achieving students is
apparent from the lack of research dedicated to issues regarding this population. Although, in
recent years, there has been more research regarding Asian Americans’ academics, most studies
of Asian Americans students focus on the model minority stereotype, acculturation, ethnic
identities, academic variability, and sociocultural factors in terms of academic achievement.
Furthermore, many studies focus on either high- or low-achieving Asian Americans. The overall
scope of this study was to address a gap in the knowledge concerning the educational experience
of average performing college-bound Chinese heritage Americans by comparing the educational
experiences of high- and average-achieving students. By utilizing prominent theories (cultural
ecological theory, model minority theory, theory of stereotype threat, and sociocultural theory) in
the realm of minority education, this study sought to examine adaptive strategies that facilitate or
hinder academic achievement.
The study found slight variationd between high and average achievers regarding their social
economic status, academic environment, perception of future success, establishing tangible links,
and perception of ethnicity. Furthermore, results indicated that stereotypes affect students’
perceptions regarding cultural orientation and career choices. In addition, the perceived role of
institutional agents and their perceptions of stereotype affect the academic careers of high and
average achieving students, which, in turn, affects their future success.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 8

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Statement of the Problem
During the 1960s and 1970s in the United States, academia and popular press began to
notice Asian Americans’ high educational mobility, financial success, and lower rate of juvenile
delinquency despite belonging to an ethnic minority group. Their unprecedented success as
compared to other minority groups led to the highly publicized image of model minority, which
subsequently contributed to a widely shared belief that Asian Americans overcame various racial
and structural barriers and became a successful minority unlike others, primarily African
Americans and Latinos, whose academic achievement and mobility staggered behind that of their
white counterparts.
Asian Americans’ academic achievement gained considerable attention from academia in
past few decades due to compounding evidence that suggest this minority gained high
educational mobility (Butterfeld, 1986; Browne, 1986; Chen & Stevenson, 1995; and Peng &
Wright, 1994). Previously, in attempt to discern a pattern to Asian Americans’ academic success,
researchers mainly focused their investigation to heredity (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987)
or cultural values (Dika & Singh, 2002), which were purported to have positive outcomes on
academic achievement (Dika & Singh, 2002). However, neither model alone provided strong
empirical evidence to support its premises or offer alternative explanations.
The overall scope of this study was to compare the educational experiences of two groups
of Chinese heritage Americans, both high- and average-achieving students in a similar school
and social context, in order to illustrate differences in adaptation strategies that facilitate or
hinder academic achievement. This study used four of the influential theories in the realm of
minority education (cultural ecological theory, model minority theory and theory of stereotype
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 9

threat in conjunction with former theory, and sociocultural theory) as a theoretical background to
offer an alternative explanation to Asian Americans’ academic success, which previously could
not be explained by both genetic and cultural model alone.
The aims of this study were twofold. The first was examine and compare the pervasive
stereotype of Asian Americans through the means of empirical data and, then, assess the social
and educational needs of these cohorts. Second, although, this case study may not be
generalizable, it did provide information relevant to educators and policy makers.
Background of the Problem
In California, Asian students have the highest college enrollment rate (Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2010) and lowest dropout rates when compared to Whites and other ethnic minority
groups. However, closer examination reveals that only 62% of Asian students meet UC or CSU
entrance requirements (Educational Data Partnership, 2009). Previously, ample research
focused mostly on high performing Asian heritage students who attended elite universities, yet
little was written about college-bound average performing Asian students and their post-
secondary lives.
As discussed in subsequent chapters, the lack of research on Asian American academic
underperformance may stem from the fact that they are often not considered a minority due to
their alleged success in academia and their socioeconomic mobility (McGowan & Linden, 2003;
Museus & Kiang, 2009). However, desegregated data revealed that, statewide, only 60 percent of
the Asian heritage high school graduate population reported completing “A-G courses”, 15
college-preparatory courses necessary to apply to the California State University or University
of California system directly out of high school (NCES, 2007). Therefore, aggregated data and
statistics used as evidence to demonstrate Asian student’s academic prowess is often misleading.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 10

The stereotype of Asians as high achievers with high college enrollment rates does not
appear to be accurate. Empirical studies concerning the theory of model minority suggested that
not all Asians excel academically (Lee, 1994; Li, 2005; Louie, 2004) and not fitting the
prototypical image of Asian places a psychological and cognitive burden on them (Lee, 1994; Li,
2005; Louie, 2004, 2006). Although aggregated data presents statistics that Asian Americans, in
general, fare well as compared to other minorities, only subgroup of them meet the criterion of
the model minority stereotype. Furthermore, research suggests large within-group differences in
terms of educational aspirations and educational attainment (Kao, 1995; Lee, 1994; Li, 2005;
Louie, 2004).
Research pertaining to minority populations gained popularity within the past two
decades. As a result, numerous studies focused on topics such as academic performance, cultural
identity, bilingual education, and psychological and social adjustment (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986,
Ogbu, 1987). For most part, however, on the topic of minority education, much research
addresses issues or difficulties pertaining to certain subsets of minorities, most commonly
African Americans or Hispanic students. Although research concerning Asian Americans also
gained more attention, it was minuscule as compared to the amount of available literature on
African Americans or Latinos. As noted earlier, due to the highly publicized image of Asians as
high achievers, there appeared to be few studies on the low academic achievement of Asian
Americans. Furthermore, most of those focused on a subset of the Asian population (i.e., Hmong,
Laotians, and Philippinos) and even less research focused on academic variability among
supposedly high performing Asians, such as Japanese, Chinese, or Korean Americans.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 11

Purpose of the Study
This study sought to reference three prominent theoretical frameworks to examine
plausible explanations for the variability in academic performance among Asian heritage
students, specifically Chinese heritage high school students.
Research Questions:
1. How have high-performing and average-performing Chinese heritage students responded to
their treatment by the dominant society, and what folk theory of making it have they
constructed?
2. How has the model minority ideology affected the educational careers of high-performing and
average-performing Chinese students?
3. How do educational caretakers treat high-performing and average-performing Chinese
heritage students?
Limitations
Due to a limited number of students, findings many not be generalizable to other Chinese
heritage students. In addition, due to the scope of the study, the population consisted solely of
members residing in or near a Chinese enclave. Lastly, due to participants’ time constrains,
interview times varied from forty to ninety minutes.
Significance of the Study
This study was a response to a lack of empirical research concerning significant
identifiers of the academic engagement and progress of Asian high school students. Concurrently,
it was motivated by the researcher’s own experience as an average student who sought to fulfill
the A-G subject requirements for freshman admission to a four-year university but was not
expected by school personnel to enroll in these institutions upon graduation.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 12

Definitions and Terms
For purposes of the study, average students were defined as those who are eligible state
universities (college bound students) and high achievers as students with a high GPA and who
characterize the typical Asian stereotype in terms of academic achievement. For this study,
students from Miracosta University who earned a cumulative high school GPA of 3.0 or higher
are categorized as High Achievers. Incidentally, most high achievers in this study enrolled in
Advanced Placement or Honors classes, known as weighted courses. Thus, they had a GPA
significantly higher than 3.0. On the other hand, students from Montevista Community College
who earned cumulative high school GPAs between 2.5 and 3.0 are categorized as Average
Achievers. This average GPA was derived from a report by the National Center for Education
Statistics, which reported the average GPA of Asian students from 1990 to 2009 (Nations Report
Card, 2009).
Organization of the Study
The chapter was organized into five sections: statement of the problem, research
questions, significance of the study, definition of terms, and limitation of the study. The second
chapter provides a review of the literature related to the possible causes of academic variance
between high- and average-achieving students. Chapter three presents the methodology and
procedure for gathering information. Chapter four presents the interview results and analysis.
Finally, the last chapter presents a summary and findings of the previous chapters along with
recommendations for practice and research.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 13

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Chapter two describes three theories: cultural-ecological, model minority (including
stereotype threat theory), and social capital theory. These are all utilized to guide and investigate
factors that contribute to the variation in academic achievement of Chinese heritage students.
The theory of stereotype threat was referenced in conjunction with the model minority stereotype
to discern whether the stereotype of Asians as high achievers hinders academic performance.
First, Ogbu’s cultural-ecological study serves to underlie the conceptual background and
theoretical frame of this research. Although Ogbu’s theory does not specifically address the
research questions, its implication concerning factors that contribute to variability in academic
performance, such as perception of structural opportunity (folk theory of making it) and
collective identity, it serves to answer the first research question.
The following sections explore the theory of model minority stereotype in conjunction
with previous theory to tease out possibilities that stereotypes associated with Asians (positive
stereotype) could account for variability in academic achievement. Unlike previous sections,
articles compiled in this section discussed subjects particular, but not exclusive, to Chinese
Americans. Furthermore, the theory of stereotype threat was explored to examine the relationship
between awareness of societal stereotypes concerning one’s group and decreased academic
performance.
The last section of the chapter explores the influence of institutional agents, mainly
teachers and counselors who provide students the social capital necessary to succeed in school,
and the degree of community involvement that affects academic performance. The section
references social capital theory to answer how these resources, which minority students usually
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 14

lack as compared to the dominant group, would facilitate Chinese heritage students’ academic
achievement and their future goals.
Cultural-Ecological Theory
On the topic of minority education, Ogbu’s work is recognized for discerning the
influence of race and ethnicity upon educational and economic achievement. The approach of
Ogbu’s Cultural-ecological theory differs significantly from the original theory or formulation in
that Ogbu, instead of attempting to ascertain the cause of minority students’ school failure,
sought to explicate factors that account for variability in academic performance them. Previous
studies were criticized for not adequately addressing this issue. By referencing the influence of
not only ecological factors, but also of perception and responses to schooling (Fordham & Ogbu,
1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998), Ogbu sought to elucidate intra- and intergroup
differences in terms of academic performance. Ogbu described the terms “culture” and “ecology”
in the context of education: culture is described as the way in which minorities perceive and
respond to the surrounding environment; and ecology is described as the environment or the
setting in which the minority population exists (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). As noted earlier, Ogbu
asserted two key elements in explaining academic variability: ecological factors, later described
as the system and as community forces (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). The
system which Ogbu described is the manner in which minorities are treated in terms of
educational policies and remuneration for their academic degrees. Community forces are
consequences of perception and responses for their treatment in broad society and in school
(Ogbu & Simmons, 1998).
Ogbu explored the topic of minority education in 1968, and his focus was primarily on
discerning variability in school performance between minority and White American students.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 15

Between 1980 and 1997, the focus of his research shifted from the dominant-minority
comparison of academic performance to the performance of culturally different minority groups
(Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). First, three articles by Ogbu elucidate the premise and
different aspects of the theory, which explains why minority students underperform in relation to
Whites as well as the variability in academic performance between minority groups. Later
articles (Mickelson, 1990; Spencer & Harpalani, 2006) explored aspects not covered in detail by
preceding articles as well as cultural-ecological topics specific to the Asian American population
(Goto, 1986; Louie, 2006; Matute-Bianchi, 1986).
Fordham and Ogbu’ Perception of Oppositional Identity and Fictive Kinship upon
Education
Fordham and Ogbu (1986), referenced by numerous researchers on the topic of minority
education, sought to examine some of the external as well as within-group factors that impede
African Americans’ academic success. While acknowledging the influence of external factors,
Fordham et al. (1986) underlined the significance of within-group factors, such as influence of
communities and peers, upon students’ academic success. Specifically, the authors sought to
investigate the influence of the “acting-white” phenomenon, the manner in which African
American peers at school perceive and respond to members who attempt to excel in academic
domains traditionally considered the prerogative of white Americans, on students’ academic
effort and achievement. The article first reviewed the conceptual framework of the theory by
underlining the influence of ecological structure, such as historical discrimination and limitations
in opportunity structure, upon African Americans’ academic success. Second, the article
reviewed the influence of community forces, which, in turn, led to the development of particular
adaptive strategies and their general perception concerning the value of education. In the last
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 16

section, by referencing the data gathered from fieldwork, Fordham et al. analyzed their
hypothesis concerning the influence of the “acting white” phenomenon upon students’ academic
success.
Fordham et al. (1986) noticed that, although minority students other than African
Americans experience similar obstacles or barriers initially, high school failure is
disproportionately observed among African American students. In an attempt to account for the
variability in academic achievement among minorities, Ogbu first categorized minority groups
into three distinct types: autonomous minorities, voluntary minorities, and involuntary minorities.
Autonomous minorities constitute a numerical minority. Voluntary minorities, as Fordham et al.
described, consist of immigrant populations or expatriates who sought to improve their overall
standard of living. Involuntary minorities were described as subordinate minorities who were
involuntary and permanently incorporated into the American society through subjugation,
namely slavery. Fordham et al. mainly focused on the last two groups and postulated that
variability in academic success and achievement is mainly due to the difference in ecological
structure between groups.
Particularly within the ecological structure of African Americans, Fordham et al.
identified two factors, substandard schooling and job ceilings, that are significant determinants of
academic success or failure. Prior to discussing how these aspects of ecological structure came to
influence the academic success of African Americans, it is important to acknowledge the
difference of manner in which these groups become minority. As noted before, significant
differences between involuntary minorities and voluntary minorities are that the former were
incorporated into society through means of slavery by white Americans and were initially
relegated to subordinate status whereas the other groups did not experience such treatment.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 17

Further, while maintaining ecological structure, white Americans assumed control over various
aspects of African Americans’ lives. White Americans also assumed control over various aspects
of education, such as policy and pedagogy, and provided African Americans with substandard
schooling based on their belief and perception concerning the value of educating African
Americans. According to Fordham et al., traditionally white Americans held the belief that
African Americans were incapable of attaining “intellectual achievement” and devalued their
education, which subsequently affected African Americans’ perception concerning their own
intellectual ability. Secondly, job ceilings, according to Fordham et al., significantly hindered the
academic effort and achievement of African Americans. With limited opportunity structure,
white Americans denied benefits that correspond with educational attainment, such as monetary
rewards and upward social mobility, which white Americans already enjoyed. Therefore, job
ceilings significantly affected African American’s perception of the link between educational
attainment and future success, which subsequently lead to their ambivalence toward education.
The discriminatory practices of substandard schooling and job ceilings predisposed African
American to distrust public schools and norm and values associated with schooling,
consequently hindering their efforts toward academic success.
In addition to ecological factors, Fordham et al. determined alternative factors to explain
academic variability between white Americans and African Americans. Although Fordham et al.
acknowledged the influence of substandard schooling and job ceilings upon academic
achievement, adaptive strategies specific, but not exclusive to, African Americans are one of the
key factors in explaining African American’s higher rate of school failure. As a community,
African Americans adapted specific behaviors and strategies in dealing with discriminatory
practices, and Fordham et al. suggest that these strategies further impede their academic
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 18

achievement. As stated previously, African Americans persistently faced discrimination in
economic and social domains. In addition, they were denied full assimilation into society.
Consequently, they came to perceive exploitations by white American as a collective effort that
is relatively permanent. Left without much option to improve their lives or to escape from
subordinate status, African Americans developed mainly two strategies to adapt and cope with
exploitation from white Americans. Fordham et al described these two adaptive strategies as
oppositional identity and oppositional cultural frame of reference. Oppositional identity is a
sense of collective identity formed in direct opposition to dominant white identity, which
developed as a response to white Americans’ historical exploitation and their own perception of
such treatment. Oppositional cultural frame of reference is also an adaptive strategy to protect
African Americans’ cultural identity and maintain boundaries between them and white
Americans. Therefore, African Americans employ oppositional cultural frame of reference to
discern appropriateness of behaviors, symbols, or meaning associated with events. Fordham et al.
noted that African Americans apply oppositional cultural frame of reference only to domains that
traditionally favor whites or that are perceived from both groups that only whites could succeed,
with the exception of a few minorities. As with oppositional identity, Fordham et al. asserted that
oppositional cultural frame of reference is emotionally tied to African American’s collective
identity. Therefore, if a member attempts to emulate behavior that is considered the domain of
whites, he/she would most likely be disparaged by peers within the group. Furthermore,
individuals who attempt to emulate behavior considered the domain of white by members within
the group would be likely to experience internal turmoil. Fordham et al. state that not all
members of the group embrace the oppositional cultural frame of reference and that there is a
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 19

varying degree of acceptance or identification with the notion of oppositional frame of reference.
Thus, oppositional stance does not affect members of the group in a uniform manner.
Fordham et al. attempted to explicate the influence of both oppositional identity and
oppositional cultural frame of reference upon African Americans’ perception of school, which
they asserted as a one of the contributing factors in influencing students’ academic effort and
performance. As noted before, African Americans adapted oppositional cultural frame of
reference as a response to exploitation. Consequently, they developed the perception that
schooling is the domain of white Americans. In addition, they came to perceive school as
threatening or as having an adverse effect on their culture and collective identity. As a group,
African Americans came to perceive standard academic practice, working hard or attempts to
excel in the domain of academia, as “acting white” and sanction those who attempt to cross the
cultural boundary. Mainly, African Americans came to perceive learning the standard academic
practice as threatening to their collective identity. This perception is due to a belief that
schooling is a subtractive process in that members of a subordinate group who attempt to
assimilate with dominant culture must relegate their own collective identity. Therefore, in the
context of schooling, group members must not appear as though they place effort in education or
strive to excel in academic domains, since the peer group disapproves of this behavior and
disparagingly labels those who engage in it.
Aside from oppositional identity and oppositional frame of reference, Fordham et al.
(1986) identified fictive kinship as another factor that also hinders academic effort and
performance. Fordham et al. noted that, especially among African Americans, the notion of
fictive kinship appears to be more salient when compared to other minority groups. Fictive
kinship, as referred to in the article, does not merely suggest traditional sense of family
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 20

relationship or affinity, but applied to encompass broader concept, denotes “peoplehood” or
African Americans’ collective social identity. Further, the concept of fictive kinship is used to
define the cultural norm and acceptable behaviors set by the members of the group. As with the
two previously discussed adaptive strategies, fictive kinship was developed as a response to
substandard schooling and job ceilings. Traditionally, white Americans perceived African
Americans as all sharing common traits and characteristics. Fordham et al. discerned that fictive
kinship is African Americans’ effort to alter negative perceptions by whites into a positive
representation of the group and to adapt their collective identity. As with oppositional cultural
frame of reference, African Americans utilize fictive kinship to protect cultural identity and
maintain boundaries with white Americans. Therefore, African Americans tend to disparage
those whose behavior and attitudes do not correspond with their notion of collective identity. As
with oppositional cultural frame of reference, criteria of membership in fictive kinship are in
direct opposition to criteria for academic success or career advancement in. In addition, African
Americans are exposed to the concept of fictive kinship early on by their parents and relatives.
Therefore, it is discerned that African Americans are predisposed, more than other minority
groups, to place importance on fictive kinship and acknowledge fictive kinship as integral to
collective identity.
Studies revealed that oppositional cultural frame of reference and fictive kinship are
prevalent among high school students who are constantly reminded of their loyalty to collective
identity by their peers. Therefore, peers discourage members of the group from engaging in
behaviors that facilitate academic success as well as acculturate cultural symbols and attitudes
that considered as domain of white Americans. Through interviews, Fordham et al. discovered
that students, regardless of their degree of academic success, were burdened with extra efforts to
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 21

not be at variance with values defined by members of the group. Therefore, those who desire to
excel in the academic domain would need to balance the aspect of fictive kinship, which is in
direct opposition with standard academic practice, while attempting to meet the academic rigor
and expectation of teachers. In the study, Fordham et al. noticed that respondents identified as
underachieving had the ability to succeed academically. However, these students appeared to
limit their academic effort and ability and adopted attitudes in direct opposition to standard
academic practice. They appeared to place higher value on peer relationships. In the case of
underachieving students, fictive kinship negatively affected their academic effort and
performance. In the case of high-achieving students, Fordham et al. noted that they adopted
successful coping strategies to maintain both peer relationship and academic performance. High-
achieving students often try not to draw attention to their ability by appearing as though they do
not put forth much effort. In other words, they attribute their academic success to their innate
ability. In addition, these high-achieving students attempt to appear as a clown or as someone
who does not need to place much effort into academic success. Others in this category utilized
their athletic ability or associations with “hoodlums” to help avert stigma or ostracism. Fordham
et al. asserted a correlation between degree of academic performance and development of
collective identity and that, in general, African American students’ academic performance begins
to decline as they start to develop collective identity. When comparing underperforming and
high-achieving students in terms of coping strategy, the latter were more effective in
camouflaging their academic ability. Therefore, underperforming students are those who
succumbed to peer pressure, while high-achievers successfully camouflage their ability and
maintain peer relationships.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 22

Data revealed that respondents, regardless of their academic success, were burdened by
the fear of being labeled as “acting-white.” Since the African American community endorses the
value of oppositional identity and oppositional cultural frame of reference through means of
fictive kinship, it is difficult for African Americans to place much effort into achieving academic
success, which is perceived by the community as subtractive schooling and detrimental to
cultural identity. Fordham et al. asserted that, although the phenomenon of “acting-white” is
detrimental to all African American students in achieving academic success, it is more
cumbersome for high-achieving students because these students would perform much better
academically if they did not have camouflage their academic pursuits.
Fordham et al. concluded that both ecological factor and adaptive strategy, which
developed as a response to their ecological structure, have contributed under achievement of
African Americans at school. For example, substandard schooling and job ceiling may have
contributed to African Americans’ ambivalent attitude towards education and subsequently lead
to low academic success. Furthermore, Fordham et al. elucidated that African Americans’
maladaptive strategies and fictive kinship, which developed as a response to African Americans’
limited opportunity structure, also contributed to their low academic achievement. Fordham et al.
concluded that, especially for African Americans, fear of being labeled as “acting-white” added
hindrance to their academic pursuit and it contributed to their overall low academic performance.
Fordham et al. did not propose specific strategy implementation in order to alleviate the
underachievement of African Americans but, rather, to present an alternative explanation for
subordinate minority underachievement. However, they asserted that, in order to ensure the
academic success of African American students, their community as a whole needs to reexamine
the perception that learning and accommodating standard academic discourse is synonymous
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 23

with the act of rejecting one’s own cultural identity. As noted earlier, children’s attitudes and
perceptions concerning the value of education is influenced significantly by the community’s
perception due to fictive kinship. Therefore, in order to change the peril of African Americans’
low academic performance, it is imperative for the community to redefine the meaning of
education within their ecological structure.
Ogbu’s Voluntary and Involuntary Minorities and their Response to Ecological Force
Study by Ogbu (1987) sought to explicate the difference in academic performance among
minority groups by examining aspects of immigration status, such as cultural value, social
identity, perception of folk theory, and degree of trust in school. The scope of this study (Ogbu,
1987), unlike the previous one (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986), was chiefly to explain causes for
variability in performance among culturally different minority groups, voluntary and involuntary
minorities. Specifically, Ogbu examined the influence of community forces on academic
achievement. As previously discussed, Ogbu, briefly described features or aspects of voluntary
and involuntary minorities to illustrate the general differences between the groups. Ogbu
cautioned that categorization of minorities is not intended to stereotype their attributes as
minority groups or to negate individual difference within each group, but is meant to be a guide
to investigate the impact of community forces upon academic achievement.
Immigrant minorities, or voluntary minorities as Ogbu described, are those who migrated
to the Unites States in a voluntary manner with the belief that doing so would improve their
likelihood of obtaining greater wealth and overall quality of life. Although voluntary minorities
face difficulty due to differences in culture and language at first, there is no apparent permanent
effect on their academic achievement. On the contrary, castlike or involuntary minorities were
originally brought into the United States through slavery, conquest, or colonization. Most often,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 24

white Americans subjugated involuntary minorities to perform menial work. Further, they denied
full integration into the dominant society. In general, Ogbu asserted that, when compared to
voluntary minorities, involuntary minorities appear to have more issues associated with social
adjustment and academic achievement. As with the previous article, Ogbu suggests the
difference between involuntary and voluntary minorities lies in their response to ecological
factors as well as the influence of their community, which subsequently affects degree of
academic achievement. Further, he suggested that quality of relationship with the dominant
group also contributes to these differences. Ogbu identified four key aspects that differentiate
given groups: culture, collective identity, perception concerning folk theory, and degree of trust
in public school.
First, Ogbu examined aspects of culture that differentiate voluntary from involuntary
minority groups. Ogbu asserted that there are primarily two types of cultural differences in
relation to the dominant groups: primary cultural differences and secondary cultural differences.
Ogbu described the primary cultural differences as those that existed before two populations
came in contact. Secondary cultural differences, on the other hand, are those that arise after two
populations have been in contact for an extended period; it is primarily used to describe
involuntary minorities’ cultural difference which developed due to responses and treatment by
the dominant group. Ogbu suggested that an aspect of secondary cultural difference appears to be
especially problematic for involuntary minorities in achieving academic success. As discussed in
a previous article (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986), traditionally, white Americans held belief that
African Americans were incapable of attaining intellectual achievement. Thus they denied
educational opportunity for African Americans. Consequently, African Americans developed a
cultural identity and a frame of reference that is in direct opposition to that of the dominant
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 25

group. Further, adaptive strategies developed by African Americans define group appropriate
behavior and function to maintain boundaries to which group members must adhere. Therefore,
it is discerned that the cultural differences that emerged after initial contact with dominant group
differ significantly between two given groups.
Another feature that differentiates given groups is the aspect of collective identity and
perception of cultural difference in relation to white Americans. In general, voluntary minorities
perceive their social identity as fundamentally different from that of the dominant group. Further,
they tend to retain their social identity or sense of “peoplehood” even after emigration. On the
other hand, as a response to white Americans’ historical subjugation, involuntary minorities
developed a new social identity that is in direct opposition to that of white Americans. As
previously discussed, African Americans have come to perceive that exploitation by white
Americans, such as substandard schooling and job ceilings, is a collective effort and that African
Americans must endure such treatments.
Factors of culture and social identity assert significant influence on a group’s perception
concerning folk theory and strategies for obtaining success. However, prior to discussing the
perception of folk theory and strategies for achieving success, Ogbu discussed the importance of
schooling. He placed great emphasis on schooling since general society believes that, through
academic success, one can obtain greater economic gain and other benefits. Therefore, school
functions as a system for transmitting conventional wisdom for achieving success and
simultaneously prepares students to support the infrastructure of the current economic system.
Americans equate academic success with financial stability.
The difference in perception and strategies between given groups becomes apparent when
they face barriers, such as discrimination, associated with the folk theory of achieving success.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 26

Upon encountering discrimination, voluntary minorities generally attribute the discriminatory
practices of white Americans to their lack of mastery in English and their knowledge of
pedagogy specific to the culture. Barriers to achieving success place a lesser cognitive burden
upon them as compared to involuntary minorities, since hold the mindset that they are foreigners
and have the option of returning to their country of origin or emigrate to a country that offers
more opportunities and prospects for economic success. On the other hand, involuntary
minorities were permanently incorporated into the society; thus, they do not have option of
returning to a country of origin. Furthermore, due to historical exclusionary practices by white
Americans, involuntary minorities realize that barriers to achieving success are not temporary in
nature. Both voluntary and involuntary minorities value education in terms of facilitating future
success; yet, only voluntary minorities truly believe education is a vehicle for attaining future
success. Involuntary minorities, on the other hand, perceive academia as a domain that
traditionally only whites could succeed in; thus, they appear to place minimal effort into
academic endeavors.
As with previous aspects, degree of trusting the relationship with school is substantially
influenced by ecological structure. Again, Ogbu suggests that perceptions of discrimination
differ significantly between groups. Voluntary minorities, for instance may attribute
discriminatory treatment by white American to their own lack of knowledge concerning the
culture, or cultural competence. Ogbu discerned they are more tolerant towards such behaviors
since they perceive that, compared to their country of origin, the opportunity structure of the
United States is far better and outweighs such treatment. Further, most often, voluntary
minorities speak favorably of authority figures at school, stating that they are more personable as
compares to those in their homeland. In contrast, due to historical oppression and subjugation,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 27

involuntary minorities are less likely to trust the public school system controlled by whites.
Further, involuntary minorities believe that public school will not equip their children with the
proper education or set of academic skills necessary to succeed.
Beyond cultural and language differences, voluntary and involuntary minorities differ
significantly from each other due to the above-mentioned ecological factors as well as
perceptions and responses to each of these. Furthermore, Ogbu suggests that significant
differences between the groups are due in large part to the content of the relationship with the
dominant group and to the existence of oppositional quality. Initially, minorities experience
difficulty adjusting to the new culture and the pedagogy particular to the United States. They
appear to overcome these and can succeed academically because the cultural difference did not
arise as a response to white Americans’ exploitation of the group. Therefore, it was unnecessary
for them to develop oppositional social identities or cultural frame of reference to protect their
own social identities and maintain boundaries between them and the dominant culture.
Consequently, they can accommodate various aspects of the dominant culture. In terms of
schooling, voluntary minorities perceive learning as an additive process, which further facilitated
their objective of improving their overall quality of life.
As with voluntary minorities, involuntary minorities also face difficulty with culture and
languages, yet they are less successful in overcoming these difficulties, which subsequently
thwarts the degree of their social adjustment and academic success. As noted earlier, left without
much option to either improve their lives or escape from membership in a subordinate group,
African Americans developed oppositional identity and oppositional cultural frame of reference
to adapt and cope with exploitation by white Americans. Oppositional cultural frame of reference
is an adaptive strategy to protect cultural identity and maintain boundaries employed to discern
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 28

the appropriateness of behaviors, symbols, or meaning associated with events. When comparing
themselves with average or middle-class white Americans, they perceive their living condition
far less favorable, which makes them resentful towards their ecological structure. In terms of
schooling, African Americans perceive learning the standard academic practice as threatening to
their collective identity since they believe that schooling is a subtractive process. Further,
African Americans distrust school since society in general does not appear to bestow the benefits
that correspond to their academic achievement or credentials. Public school appears to approach
the education of involuntary minorities “defensively”, which Ogbu asserts diverts attention from
efforts to educate them. To exacerbate the situation, involuntary minorities perceive academia as
the prerogative of whites; thus, succeeding in school or adapting standard practices of schooling
would be deemed as “acting-white” and is disparaged by peers.
Ogbu illustrated distinctive features of voluntary and involuntary minorities and the
disparity in their responses to ecological forces. As discussed, much of the difference arises as
quality of relationship with the dominant groups and as response to their treatment. As Ogbu
concluded in his analysis, the significant difference between given groups is that involuntary
minorities develop oppositional quality, which appear to frustrate academic progress and success,
whereas voluntary minorities have a more accommodating attitude towards the dominant culture,
and schooling in general, due to lack of oppositional quality. In a subsequent article, Ogbu
further explicates the influence of community forces on the academic achievement of voluntary
and involuntary minorities.
Ogbu’s Influence of Community Force and Perception and Response to Schooling
As with previous article, Ogbu and Simons (Ogbu & Simons, 1998) explicated variability
in academic performance between voluntary and involuntary minorities by utilizing a cultural-
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 29

ecological theoretical framework. This article, however, placed additional emphasis on the
classification of minority groups, the influence of community forces upon schooling, and
suggests strategies for assisting both voluntary and involuntary minorities’ attain academic
success. Ogbu et al. noted that this article was written in response to misinterpretations of other
researchers who believed that variability in minority performance was due mainly to
sociocultural adaptation. First, Ogbu et al. reiterated the framework of the cultural-ecological
theory within the context of education. As stated in the introduction of the theory, Ogbu
explained the significance of two key elements, the system and community forces, in affecting
the academic performance of minority students. Again, Ogbu et al. acknowledge the influence of
ecological structure, yet asserted that clues for finding academic variability among minority
groups lies within their community forces.
Ogbu et al. postulated that the study of community forces is, in essence, the study of a
minority population’s perceptions of and responses to schooling. As with previous article (Ogbu,
1987), Ogbu et al. examined four community factors that were assumed to contribute to
perceptions of and responses to schooling. They are frame of reference (e.g., comparison
between school in homeland or middle-class white Americans); value of schooling (wage
commensurate with level of education); degree of trust in the public school; and belief about
schooling (e.g., perceive schooling as additive or subtractive learning process).
In an attempt to elucidate the significance of the community forces, Ogbu et al. classify
minorities into four distinct categories: voluntary (immigrant) minorities; refugees,
migrant/guest workers, undocumented workers, and binationals; involuntary minorities
(nonimmigrant) minorities; and descendants or later generations.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 30

Refugees, unlike voluntary minorities who sought to emigrate, did not choose to come to
the United States. However, refugees do share common attitudes and behaviors towards
schooling. Further, they share tourist-like attitudes, which explains accommodating attitudes
towards the dominant culture. In general, migrant/ guest workers were described as those who do
not plan to settle in the United States permanently. Unlike migrants or voluntary minorities, their
goal is temporary. Thus, they are inclined to exert less effort in learning the culture and language
of the host country as compared to previous groups. Binationals, in most cases, maintain
economic or other ties with their homeland and are uncertain of where they will stay in the future.
Therefore, their sociocultural adjustment process is different from that of immigrant populations
who committed to settling in the United States. Ogbu asserted that descendants, or later
generation immigrants, are also considered voluntary minorities since the community forces of
first-generation immigrants exert influence on later generations’ perception concerning
opportunity structure and the value of education. White Americans usually treat descendants of
involuntary minorities or immigrants who share affiliation with voluntary minorities, such
immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, as involuntary minorities. Consequently, their
descendants often assimilate the collective identity of involuntary minorities. Similar phenomena
was also seen in the Mexican American communities, yet, unlike the former, some have adopted
strategies, like intermarriage with Caucasians, to “pass” their descendants off as white
Americans.
Concerning the classification of minorities, Ogbu et al. placed strong emphasis on the
fact that criteria are not based on race or ethnicity, but on a group’s history. Specifically, they
are based on the manner in which they become minority and their relation to the dominant
culture. Further, Ogbu et al noted that the classification is a heuristic device to discern
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 31

perceptions and behavioral patterns that could lead to academic success or failure. In addition the
cultural-ecological framework is applicable not only to populations in the United States, but can
be utilized to illustrate group dynamics in countries with different sociocultural and historical
contexts. To illustrate, the authors provided few comparative examples of immigrant groups in
different contexts. For example Korean immigrants are considered voluntary minorities in the
United States and China, yet they are considered involuntary minorities in Japan; and African
Americans are considered voluntary minorities in Japan, Ghana, and France, yet they are
considered involuntary minorities in the United States.
Ogbu et al. state the intent of the classification is to analyze the dominant beliefs and
behavioral patterns of minority groups, which suggest that there is variability concerning these.
In other words, not all members of a group believe or behave in a manner similar to the dominant
pattern of their group. The authors neither deny nor ignore individual differences within a group
but explicitly stated the intent of the cultural-ecological theory is to elucidate the dominant
beliefs and behaviors of group members who “follow the dominant pattern” of their groups. The
focus of the theory, therefore, is not to account for the behavioral or attitudinal variance of
individual within the group but to elucidate behaviors prominent within a minority group.
Additional points concerning classification that Ogbu et al. stressed are that voluntary
and involuntary groups’ beliefs and behaviors should not be interpreted as an “end of continuum.”
In other words, behaviors and attitudes ascribed to given categorized groups are not exclusive to
those particular groups; for example, although “lesser in degree,” some of the attitudes and
behaviors found in involuntary groups can also be found in voluntary groups and vice versa.
Further, the authors noted a within-group difference concerning degree of exhibiting the
dominant pattern of attitudes and behaviors particular to a group. Ogbu et al. attribute this
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 32

difference to historical background, nature of relationship with white Americans, and degree to
which members can avoid the stigma associated with minority group. Concerning the strategy of
“passing,” some racial minorities are successfully able to leave their groups and assimilate into
the dominant group. However, members of other groups may not as easily leave minority
membership due to historical subjugation and community forces.
As mentioned earlier, the community forces of voluntary and involuntary minorities
concerning perception of school vary significantly due to manner in which they became
minorities and their interpretation of their treatment by white Americans. Parents of voluntary
minorities strongly endorse the ethic of hard work and academic success, which they believe is
crucial to their children’s success. Therefore, these parents have high expectation for their
children to succeed academically and tend to hold their children, rather than school, accountable
for their academic. Children of voluntary minorities are more inclined to share the parents’
sentiment and commitments towards schooling. Thus they work hard, do their homework, and
abide by standard academic practices of school. In addition, Ogbu et al. posited that, unlike
involuntary minorities, their peers generally share the sentiment and do not dissuade or
discourage others achieving academic success.
Involuntary minority communities and parents, on the contrary, do not necessarily
believe in the folk theory of getting ahead. As discussed by Fordham et al. (YEAR) parents and
community do not necessary devalue education. However, they are less inclined to trust the
school that is traditionally controlled by white Americans due to historical oppression and
subjugation. Furthermore, they are inclined to believe that the public school will not equip their
children with the proper education or set of academic skills necessary to succeed. In addition,
involuntary minorities perceive schooling as a subtractive process and the domain of academia as
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 33

the prerogative of white Americans. These beliefs are subsequently reflected in the students’
ambivalent attitudes towards schooling. As reviewed earlier, aspects of oppositional cultural
frame of reference and fictive kinship affect their academic success in that they must choose
either to conform to the dominant belief of their group or to accept the demands of the school.
Ogbu et al. posit that group membership alone does not determine the academic success
or failure of students. Categories, however, do allow teachers and authority figures at school to
discern the various factors that exist between groups. As noted earlier, the role of classification is
to analyze dominant beliefs and behavioral patterns of minority groups. Thus, Ogbu et al.
suggested that school authorities should not apply particular group’s dominant patterns and
behavior to individual students. It is crucial for teachers to build trusting relationship with
involuntary minority students, since they developed oppositional stance towards public education.
Furthermore, Ogbu et al. suggested teachers utilize culturally responsive instruction in order to
prevent miscommunication between students and teachers. For example, African Americans may
perceive using standard English as an attribute of whiteness. Therefore, teachers need to validate
usage or their language and allow them to use it in the appropriate context. In terms of opposition
and ambivalence towards school, Ogbu et al. suggested that involuntary students may not be
fully conscious of or comprehend the rationale for their own behaviors. Therefore, it is important
for teachers to address and discuss issue of their ambivalence and resistance toward schooling in
order for students’ to reflect on their own actions and behaviors. By engaging in discussion
regarding their resistance and ambivalence towards schooling, students may begin to
comprehend the role of school, the ramifications of not placing effort on academics, and ways in
which opposition and ambivalent attitude hinder their academic success. Ogbu et al. emphasized
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 34

that it is crucial to solicit parents’ and community’s support for children’s education since
parents and community forces strongly influence children’s attitudes and behaviors.
Ogbu et al. postulated that voluntary minorities generally have more accommodating
attitude towards dominant culture and schooling due to a lack of oppositional quality. Therefore,
the issue of trust is less of concern. As discussed, parents of voluntary minorities have high
expectation for their children to succeed academically. The children of voluntary minorities
simultaneously reciprocate the sentiment and commitment towards schooling. However, stress
associated with excessive pressures from their parent’s high expectations appear to be their main
concern. This high expectation to achieve academic success can hinder academic performance.
Even when students do not appear to suffer from either low academic performance or pressure
from parents, they are still under pressure to succeed academically due to the commonly held
stereotype of the model minority, which is discussed in a later section.
Ogbu et al. stressed that, while cultural-ecological theory does not provide specific
strategies to alleviate issues concerning the low performance of minority students, the theory
does address the influence of sociocultural force, specifically community force, on students’
attitudes and academic performance, which subsequently causes variability in academic
performance between voluntary and involuntary minorities. Further, the theory underlines the
central issues that hinder the academic performance of involuntary minorities, namely
oppositional identity, oppositional cultural frame of reference and ambivalent attitude of
community concerning schooling. In addition, the theory addresses the importance of building
trust, which may facilitate learning and lead to minority students’, particularly involuntary
minority students’, academic success. Ogbu et al. summarized the main points of the previous
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 35

two articles (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987) and simultaneously addressed some of the
misconception concerning cultural-ecological theory.
Multiple-layered Attitude Toward (Abstract and Concrete) Education
Michelson sought to provide depth on the subject of involuntary minorities’ ambivalent
attitude toward schooling, specifically involuntary minorities’ positive attitude toward education
and poor academic performance. Mickelson (1990) sought to elucidate previous findings
concerning African American students’ inconsistent attitude and behavior concerning education:
highly favorable attitude toward education coupled with persistent poor academic achievement
and high dropout rates (Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McFarland, Mood, Seinfeld, & York,
1966; Ogbu, 1978). Mickelson hypothesized that students, both whites and minority students, do
not simply adhere to a “unidimensional belief” concerning the value of education, but, rather,
possesses multiple layers of beliefs regarding schooling and the actual value of education.
Therefore, Mickelson asserted that African American students’ attitude-achievement paradox is
due in part to the gap in students’ perception of the potential return on education and the
dominant ideology concerning role of education. Michelson conceptualized the
underperformance of African Americans by utilizing the theoretical framework of Ogbu. As with
Ogbu, Mickelson acknowledged the significance of ecological force as well as community force
in influencing students’ academic success. As mentioned, African Americans, in general, distrust
the public schools and oppose norm and values associated with schooling due to their ecological
structure and the impact of community forces (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987). However,
Mickelson placed particular emphasis on the students’ perception of folk theory and academic
performance.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 36

Historically, the dominant group devalued African Americans’ effort to obtain an
education and diminished the degree or credentials associated with their educational attainment.
Therefore, in terms of equal opportunity through education, dominant groups successfully
curtailed African Americans’ opportunities to compete freely for desirable jobs. Furthermore,
due to job ceilings, African Americans were neither able to utilize their education in meaningful
way nor compensated proportionally for their educational attainment or credentials. Mickelson
and Ogbu both asserted that, by hearing stories of the treatment faced by their parents and
relatives, children formed pessimistic attitudes regarding the potential return on an education
(Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). In other words, students’ poor
performance at school can be attributed to both their experience at school and the grim future
conveyed by their parents and relatives. Therefore, Mickelson hypothesized that academic
performance is linked to students’ perception regarding the potential return on an education.
Further, she asserted that the paradox of African Americans’ positive valuing of education and
their poor performance is primarily due to multiple layers of beliefs regarding schooling and the
actual value of education.
Mickelson hypothesized that students generally hold two sets of attitudes toward
education: abstract and concrete attitudes. Abstract attitudes reflect an “espoused ideology”
commonly held by Americans which asserts that education is a means of achieving success and
job opportunities. However, it by no means predicts students’ future academic performance.
Conversely concrete attitudes are described as “reality” or the return on an education that
students cognitively construct from their own perception and understanding of the opportunity
structure through experiences of their parents and relatives. Mickelson asserted that concrete
attitudes toward education measure the students’ academic performance or GPA at school more
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 37

accurately. Therefore, Mickelson postulated that, pertaining to African American students, their
positive attitude toward education and low academic performance, the “attitude-achievement
paradox”, is due to significant gaps in their beliefs concerning the dominant ideology regarding
education and the reality that students experience with respect to the return on an education in
the opportunity structure.
Mickelson conducted survey on 1,193 high school seniors in the Los Angeles area to test
the hypothesis concerning students’ multiple-layered attitudes towards education. The study
found that, regardless of race or class, all students possessed abstract attitudes toward education
or believed that education was a vehicle for their future success. Therefore, the study revealed
that African Americans also embraced dominant ideology or assumed a positive correlation
between degree of educational attainment and future success. The study further revealed that
African Americans held abstract attitudes towards education more strongly than their white
counterparts did. African Americans, in general, tend to hold pessimistic attitudes towards a
return on an education when compared to their white counterparts. The study revealed that the
gap between concrete and abstract attitudes regarding the value of education is much wider for
African Americans than for their white counter parts, which explains the discrepancy in African
American students’ positive attitude toward education and poor academic performance.
Although, African American students hold high regard for education or the “rhetoric of
equal opportunity through education”, their daily experience and of adults’ concerning the return
on an education contradicts dominant ideology. Eventually, African American students exert
lesser effort. On the other hand, middle-class white participants in the study showed less
discrepancy between their attitude concerning the value of education and academic achievement
when compared to African Americans since their reality and “community history” closely
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 38

resemble the dominant ideology, which explains their high level of academic achievement and
effort. Mickelson, therefore, assumed positive correlation between concrete attitudes towards
education and academic success. In other words, students who hold positive concrete attitudes
towards value of education will have higher academic achievement, whereas students who
perceive education does not have direct link to their future success or social mobility are less
likely to put forth efforts toward education. Michelson concluded that abstract attitudes toward
education have no apparent influence on students’ academic performance while concrete
attitudes significantly influence students’ academic.
Upon isolating extraneous variables such as Social Economic Status (SES) and gender,
Mickelson concluded that race and peer groups are the most significant predictors of students’
academic performance. Although Mickelson did not discuss the implications of such findings in
detail, it can be assumed that, for minority populations, community history or parents’ and
relatives’ real-world experiences differ significantly from dominant ideology, which, in turn,
challenges the notion of education as a vehicle for future success. Similar to Ogbu, Michelson’s
study provides an additional dimension in describing minority students’, particularly African
American students’, persisting low academic performance. Mickelson argued that, although
environment in which learning takes place has an impact on students’ academic performance,
students’ perception of the relationship between their academic effort and the potential yield of
education towards social mobility and financial success also contributes significantly to their
academic performance.
Criticism of Ogbu’s Sociohistorical Analysis
As noted from previous articles, Ogbu’s “acting-white” theory provided insight into the
relationship between a group’s perceptions of education and students’ educational outcomes.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 39

Although various researchers frequently cite Fordham and Ogbu (1986), to explain the
persistence of African Americas’ low academic achievement, Spencer and Harpalani (2006)
sought to revisit underlying assumptions of the theory in order to address its conceptual flaws.
Spencer et al. speculated that Ogbu himself misinterpreted the meaning of “acting-white” as
achievement-linked behavior rather than as context-linked behaviors. Further, Spencer and
Harpalani questioned the sociohistorical analysis of Ogbu that attributes the development of
oppositional qualities to the ramifications of historical oppression specific to African American
and not as a part of a normative identity developmental process. Although, according to Spencer
and Harpalani, Ogbu data shows a process of racial identity development, Ogbu persistently
appeared to overlook its influence on academic achievement.
To address the conceptual flaw of the “acting white” theory, Spencer and Harpalani first
addressed the issue of replication, the failure of other researchers to achieve similar outcomes as
Ogbu. Second, the study addressed reluctance of Ogbu to recognize racial identity development
and normative development as a one of vital components of the “acting white” phenomenon.
Finally, Spencer and Harpalani described way in which Ogbu misinterpreted the definition of
“acting white” as an achievement-linked behavior.
To address the inconsistency in the data of “acting white” theory and refute its claim,
Spencer and Harpalani (2006) utilized a few key empirical studies (Ainsworth-Darnell &
Downey, 1998; Cooks and Ludwig, 1998) that referenced a dataset from the 1990 National
Educational Longitudinal Survey (NELS) of a “nationally representative sample of 17,544 tenth
graders, [which] consisted of 2,197 African Americans, 653 Asian Americans, and 13,492 non-
Hispanic Whites.” Contrary to Ogbu’s conclusion concerning community perception of
education (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986), both studies suggest that the African American community,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 40

instead of devaluing education, perceive education as a vehicle for future success, and students
endorse its value at school. For example, contrary to the Ogbu’s conclusion, empirical studies
suggested that parents of African Americans show a higher degree of involvement in their
children’s academic affairs. Furthermore, African American students tend to stay in school
longer than their white counterparts and place as much effort on homework. In addition, rather
than stigmatized, academic success appears to have a positive impact on social status
(Ainsworth-Darnell & Downey, 1998; Cooks and Ludwig, 1998). Concerning perception of
academic benefits and attitude towards schooling, African American students, more than their
white counterparts, report education as important for achieving future success and note positive
attitude towards schooling.
The argument of Spencer and Harpalani (2006) concerning inconsistency in the findings
appeared to be based on Ogbu’s earlier assumption (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986) that barriers to
African Americans’ achieving academic success is due in part to perceptions of their community
that devalue education. However, in the later article, Ogbu modified his earlier assumption and
concluded that the African American community, as a whole, does not necessarily regard
education as unimportant, but, instead, perceives education as a vehicle for future success
(Mickelson, 1990; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). It is evident from previous study (Mickelson, 1990;
Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) that African Americans appeared to embrace dominant ideology or
assumed a positive correlation between degree of educational attainment and future success.
However, they tend to hold pessimistic attitudes towards the return on an education when
compared to their white counterparts. In other words, Ogbu concluded that, generally, African
Americans perceive education as important, but they do not necessarily believe in the rhetoric of
equal opportunity through education. Therefore, they place lesser efforts in academic success,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 41

which subsequently leads to lower academic performance. Although empirical studies cited by
Spencer and Harpalani did not provide substantial evidence to refute Ogbu’s claim, they did
point out one of the critical flaws of the theory: Ogbu failed to provide sufficient empirical data
to account for his claim concerning the variability in perception of opportunity structure and
toward schooling across voluntary minorities, involuntary minorities, and dominant whites.
Other crucial flaws of the theory, according to Spencer and Harpalani (2006), are a
misapplication of sociohistorical force and the use of a deficit model in explaining variability in
academic performance. Although Ogbu’s theory draws upon sociohistorical reference to infer
correlation between race and low academic performance, the theory does not fully explicate
adolescents’ process of internalizing oppositional quality from their ecological structure. In other
words, Ogbu does not provide concrete empirical evidence to explain the process of structural
discrimination and oppression causing African Americans to adapt and internalize oppositional
quality, which purportedly hamper academic achievement. Spencer and Harpalani postulated
Ogbu’s analyses largely misapplied the influence of societal and historical forces to African
Americans’ academic underperformance, which erroneously lead Ogbu to conclude race is a one
of the crucial factors influencing academic performance. In addition, Spencer and Harpalani
criticized that Ogbu’s theory employed deficit oriented model to explain persistent academic
failure. However, Spencer’s analysis of Ogbu’s theory as a deficit oriented model is not entirely
accurate, since Ogbu did not determine African Americans inherent cultural traits were cause for
academic failure. Instead, Ogbu asserted that academic failure is largely due to ecological
structure, which, in turn, elicited undesirable adaptive responses that subsequently lead to
academic underachievement. In fact, Ogbu (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu &
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 42

Simmons, 1998) asserted that the key factor contributing to African Americans’ academic failure
is the adaptation of behaviors and perceptions not conducive to academic success.
More than inconsistency in empirical data or misapplication of sociohistorical context,
Spencer and Harpalani (2006) claimed the crucial flaw of the theory is that Ogbu disregarded
factors of racial identity development and normative development, which Spencer and Harpalani
asserted are the key concept of “acting white” theory. Therefore, Spencer and Harpalani
referenced the seminal work of Cross’ (1971, 1991) Nigresence framework and Spencer’s (1995)
Phenomenological Variant of Ecological Systems Theory (PVEST) to investigate how racial
identity formation and normative development influence behavior and perception, which, in turn,
influence the educational achievement of African American students.
Nigresence framework delineates the development of racial identity stages marked by
drastic change in perceptions and attitudes concerning one’s culture and ethnic identity. PVEST,
on the other hand, addressed normative human development, continuing interactive process,
through referencing identity, culture, and experience of individuals. Both Nigrescence
framework and PVEST allude to the possibility that oppositional identity and oppositional
cultural frame of reference are possible coping strategies rather than the outcome of ecological
structure. For example, African American students in the Immersion-emersion stage (Cross,
1971) may adapt coping strategies considered “anti-white,” such as oppositional identities, in a
setting or environment where they are devalued. However, African American students in the
Internalization stage may not utilize such adaptive strategies or display anti-white attitudes when
encountering such situations since they have adopted a more pluralistic perspective. Spencer and
Harpalani asserted that, through a normative identity development process, all adolescents,
regardless of ethnicity, engage in identity searching and seek to gain approval and acceptance
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 43

from others. Therefore, although maladaptive, Spencer and Harpalani asserted behaviors that
constitute “acting white” are within the range of the normative development process and should
not be considered the outcome of ecological structure.
Concerning Ogbu’s definition of “acting white,” Spencer and Harpalani (2006) suggested
that it is context-linked in that the definition of “acting white” could change depending on
situations or circumstances. In other words, they asserted “acting white” does not merely suggest
achievement-linked behaviors or standard academic practice that is conducive to achieving
academic success. They postulated “acting white” is not fundamental component of African
American culture but is a reactive and defensive response to devaluation of their culture. Spencer
and Harpalani raised a couple of occasions where “acting white” did not suggest academic
success: attempting to gain favor from a white coach who often reject participation of African
American players and an African American female who did not treat or process her hair. In both
cases, “acting white” does not denote academic success or indicate achievement-linked behavior.
Therefore, the authors concluded that Ogbu might have misinterpreted the meaning of “acting-
white” as achievement-linked behavior rather than as context linked behaviors. They suggested
that African Americans do not necessarily perceive academic success as “acting white” but
perceive society in general devalues their culture. Spencer and Harpalani asserted that
development of oppositional qualities is an attempt to attain success without compromising
cultural identity and values.
Cultural-ecological Theory Pertaining to Asian American
As noted earlier, articles on Ogbu’s cultural ecological theory referenced in previous
section did not specifically touch upon issues concerning Asian or Chinese Americans. However,
they addressed the influence of ecological structure and community force on the perception of
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 44

opportunity structure and educational outcomes. Ogbu’s theory’s implication concerning factors
that contribute to variability in academic performance, such as influence of perception of
structural opportunity and collective identity, are referenced to answer the research questions.
The following discussion of three articles references cultural ecological theory: Matute-Bianchi
(1986), Goto (1997), and Louie (2006) address issues concerning Asian Americans, and their
research assists in answering the research questions.
Influence of Cultural Acculturation upon Perception of One’s Ethnic Identity and
Opportunity Structure
By referencing the cultural ecological framework, articles by Matute-Bianchi (1986)
highlight the influence of cultural acculturation on the perception of one’s ethnic identity,
opportunity structure, and educational effort. Intragroup comparison of Mexican-descent and
Japanese-Americans suggested that, due to subordinate status in school, Mexican-descent
students utilized ethnic identity, whereas Japanese-Americans, who do not occupy subordinate
status in school, did not need to utilize their ethnicity as a strategy to interact with others. Further,
she attributed school failure among Mexican-descent students to a strong emphasis on their
collective identity and maladaptive strategies similar to that of African Americans, which was
developed as a response to exclusionary practice and subordination by the dominant white
population.
The study took place at a high school near San Francisco in an area known for agriculture.
Initially, Matute-Bianchi purported to draw samples from both successful and unsuccessful
Mexican-descendent and Japanese American students to analyze factors that affect educational
outcome, yet she was unsuccessful in finding low-academic performing Japanese American
students. The demography of Mexican-descendent students was that of a heterogeneous
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 45

population, yet Japanese-American students drawn for the study were a relatively homogeneous
population with virtually identical immigration status, level of acculturation, and perception of
ethnic identity. For example, Mexican-decent students consisted of recently immigrated students,
students who were proficient in both Spanish and English, and native-born students who
exhibited oppositional qualities similar to those of African Americans. On the contrary,
Japanese-American students were third-generation (san-sei) whose parents were self-employed
farmers, agriculturalists, or professionals.
Similar to Ogbu’s study (1987), Matute-Bianchi compared voluntary minorities
(Japanese-Americans) with involuntary minorities or minorities who occupied subordinate status
(Mexican-decent students) to examine factors that impede or facilitate academic success.
However, dissimilar to Ogbu’s intergroup comparison of minority groups, Matute-Bianchi
emphasized intragroup variability, particularly within a subordinated group (Mexican-decent
students) to highlight the influence of cultural acculturation on students’ perception on ethnicity,
opportunity structure, and level of academic performance. The population of Mexican-decent
students varied considerably, requiring Matute-Bianchi to classify them into five distinct
categories: recent-Mexican-immigrant, Mexican-oriented, Mexican-American, Chicano, and
Cholo.
Recent-Mexican-immigrant students displayed a lack of English proficiency and varying
degrees of Spanish proficiency and educational background. Participants in this category
identified themselves as Mexicano and perceived Mexico as their permanent home. They were
often described as polite, naive, and well behaved. Mexican-oriented students were most often
bilingual, enrolled in college prep courses and occupied the top 10 percent of the graduating
class. Students in this category appeared to have strong ties with both Mexico and the United
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 46

States, yet identified themselves as Mexicano. Most Students in this category were born in
Mexico and lived in the United States for at least five years. These students were most likely to
participate in school activities or clubs usually associated with their ethnic background and
aimed at promoting their culture and heritage. They perceived themselves as more Mexican than
Mexican-Americans and perceived Mexican-Americans as arrogant. Further, they perceived
Chicanos and Cholos as those who “lost their heritage” and disparaged these groups. Mexican-
American students were born in the United States and assimilated into mainstream culture.
Compared to previous groups, they were much more American oriented. Similar to previous
groups, they were generally successful and active in mainstream club activities. However, they
did not participate in ethnically-oriented club activities. In this study, the Chicano constituted the
largest segment of Mexican-descent population. Similar to African Americans described in
Ogbu’s study (1986, 1987) students in this category displayed oppositional identity, thus
disparaged those who engaged in standard academic practice or abided by rules at school. In
addition, they placed loyalty above all things and displayed attitudes and behaviors that devalue
education. Therefore, they were more likely to be enrolled in general or remedial courses. The
Cholo occupied the smallest of the groups. They were often identified as gang sympathizers and
the most distinct of all groups.
Concerning academic effort, school personnel generally described more Mexican
oriented students as motivated, serious about school, and described more Americanized
counterparts, Chicano and Cholos, as irresponsible and less motivated. School personnel reported
that not all Mexican-oriented students were successful at school, but they were unsuccessful due
to insufficient language skills or “lack of competency in academic skills” because they came
from rural or “peasant” background that did not prepare them for the academic rigor of school in
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 47

the United States. In spite of academic difficulties, school personnel described Mexican-oriented
students as “well-behaved” and as displaying appreciation for their teachers. On the other hand,
school personnel attributed the cause of failure for their more Americanized counterparts,
Chicanos and Cholos, to be lack of “motivation,” “interest,” and “respect for school.” As
described earlier, more Americanized counterparts, Chicanos and Cholos, who occupy
subordinate status within the Mexican-descent student population, have a propensity to disparage
behaviors and symbols that emulate the dominant white culture, particularly attitudes and
behaviors linked to academic success. Matute-Bianchi asserted that students belonging to
Chicano and Cholo groups utilize oppositional identity or oppositional cultural frame of
reference (Fordham et al., 1986), with the intent of resisting exploitation and subjugation by
dominant groups. However, these maladaptive strategies hindered academic achievement.
Although Matute-Bianchi does not explicitly state it, school personnel display lesser sympathy
towards more Americanized counterparts and appear to cast them in a negative light. For
example, Chicanos and Cholos were described by school personnel as “apathetic,” “sullen,”
“withdrawn,” and “mistrusting.”
Concerning academic success and the value of schooling, Mexican-descent students,
Mexican-oriented and Mexican-American, and Japanese-American students varied considerably.
Matute-Bianchi concluded that, although Mexican-oriented students were “achievement and goal
oriented,” they lacked specific career goals or specific strategies to achieve these goals. For
example, students acknowledged importance of education to their future career or college
enrollment, yet they lacked specific knowledge or strategies regarding how to reach their goals.
This lack of specific strategies may be attributed to the fact that they did not have role models or
personally knew people in the field whom they could model themselves after. Many students in
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 48

this category attributed their academic success to their parents’ support and encouragement and
those without parental support generally attributed their success to teachers and counselors. In
general, Mexican-descent students defined success in terms of finances or possessions and rarely
expressed success in terms of type of occupation.
On the other hand, successful Japanese-Americans were very specific on career choices
and jobs that they would like have upon graduating from postsecondary institutions. Most
interviewees expressed clear and specific plans for entering postsecondary institutions and
additional schooling to become professionals such as engineers, doctors, lawyers, or pharmacists.
Japanese-American students also had family members or relatives who occupied professions
they aspired to have as adults. In other words, they had visible role models who could provide
support and specific information concerning curricula in high school, admission to college, and
obtaining jobs upon graduation. Unlike successful Mexican-descent students, all of these
students enrolled in college preparatory courses and maintained outstanding grade point averages.
Further, successful Japanese-Americans had more detailed knowledge of curriculum in high
school and links between taking particular courses and gaining admission into prestigious
postsecondary institutions. Differing from Mexican-descent students, Japanese-Americans
recognized hierarchy of postsecondary institutions in California. As Ogbu (1987) described
voluntary minorities, Japanese-Americans were perceived as “smart” and “quiet” and school
personnel expected them to be high achievers and maintain excellent grade point averages. These
students also appeared to be aware of these images at school. Similar to Ogbu’s description
concerning voluntary minorities, these students shares the sentiment that academic success was
not due to inherent ability but gained through dedication, commitment, and hard work. Further,
they firmly believed that these values are essential in obtaining academic success and their
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 49

aspired careers. Similar to Mexican-descent students, Japanese-American students also stated
their parents’ support and encouragement was vital in achieving academic success.
Concerning ethnic identity, similar to Mexican-American peers, Japanese-Americans
appear to place less emphasis on the distinctness of their identity in school. As with Mexican-
Americans, most students in this category participate in mainstream student activities, such as
student government, and do not participate in ethnically-linked clubs or activities. Although
Japanese-Americans in the study were proud of their heritage, they did not necessarily want to
draw unnecessary attention to their identity as members of a distinct group. According to
Matute-Bianchi, Japanese-Americans made strides to accommodate themselves within the white
middle-class mainstream culture to be virtually indistinguishable from the dominant group. As a
consequence, later Japanese generations were not constrained with negative attributes of
minorities that predecessor experienced. It is, therefore, unnecessary for Japanese-Americans to
utilize ethnically-oriented strategies to establish positive identity.
On the other hand, the issue of ethnicity for Mexican-descent students appeared to be
more complicated. As noted before, Mexican-descent students were categorized according to
their level of cultural acculturation, perception on ethnic identity, opportunity structure, and level
of academic performance. Particularly, level of acculturation appeared to influence Mexican-
descent students’ perception of their identity. As with voluntary minorities in Ogbu’s
categorization (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987) recent Mexican-immigrants initially suffer
from primary cultural differences, such as language, pedagogy, and the academic rigor of school
in the United States. To overcome these differences, students do not necessarily need to struggle
with the issue of maintaining their ethnic identity. More Americanized peers like Chicanos and
Cholos, on the other hand, appear to suffer from secondary cultural differences similar to those
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 50

of involuntary minorities described in Ogbu’s study (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu
& Simmons, 1998). Unlike recently-immigrated-Mexicans, secondary cultural differences force
Chicanos and Cholos to choose between doing well in school, which symbolizes the dominant
white culture, or retaining their own identity. Since they perceive school policies and practices as
threatening and devaluing of their identity, they adapt oppositional qualities with the intent of
resisting exploitation and subjugation. Therefore, students in this group who attempt to overcome
secondary cultural difference will be most likely to experience the affective dissonance also seen
in subordinated African American groups (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986).
Matute-Bianchi’s conclusion drew parallels with that of Fordham & Ogbu (1986) in that
they both suggested the influence ecological structure on ethnic identity, perceptions of
opportunity structure, and academic performance. They concluded that the academic failure of
Mexican-decent students is primarily due to lack of adapting to their ecological structure.
Matute-Bianchi, however, noted that aspects of acculturation should also be considered when
examining intragroup academic variability. Even within Mexican-descent students, there are
considerable differences in perception concerning ethnic identity, value of education, and
opportunity structure. Although this study did not find intragroup differences among Japanese-
American students concerning perception of education, opportunity structure, and academic
performance, the study illuminated how Japanese-descent students perceive their own and others’
ethnic identity and. School personnel and peers at the school in this study described Japanese-
Americans as intelligent and well behaved. Students themselves also recognized the positive
stereotype concerning their ethnic identity at school, especially as regarded academic
performance. However, they avoided drawing unnecessary attention to their identity. For
example, although Japanese-Americans participated in “ethnically explicit” activities outside of
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 51

school, they avoided participating in club activities at school. Similar to Ogbu’s conclusion, this
study also assumed that both voluntary and involuntary minorities experience discrimination and
oppression from the dominant groups; voluntary minorities are described as occupied with
improving their lives and not struggling against the dominant group. Voluntary minorities do not
develop oppositional identities.
Voluntary Minorities’ Level of Acculturation and their Perception on Education and
Socioeconomic Mobility
Goto (1986) challenged the conventional assumption concerning voluntary minorities’
perception and behavior towards academic achievement. Goto (1997) referenced the cultural
ecological theory of Fordham and Ogbu (1986) to explain Chinese-American high-school
students’ utilization of conflicting adaptation strategies, accommodation and resistance. Goto
highlights the significance of students’ long-term and immediate goals. In addition, Goto
illustrated the influence of acculturation on perception, behavior on academic achievement, and
peer relations. Goto highlighted the necessity of examining intragroup variance among generally
“successful” voluntary minorities with similar ethnic backgrounds. The study entailed
conducting interviews with six “high-achieving” Chinese-American students attending at a
public urban high school in California which accommodated a diverse demography of students.
First, Goto briefly reviewed historical background on ethnographic studies pertaining to Asian
populations in an effort to illustrate the influence of earlier theory on current theoretical model.
Goto posits that prior theories primarily attributed the influence of Asian Americans’
upbringing on their educational success and lower rate of delinquent behaviors. During the 1960s
and 1970s, academia and popular press began to notice this population’s academic success,
higher income, lower rate of juvenile delinquency, and rate of social mobility despite belonging
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 52

to an ethnic minority group in the United States. Consequently, their unprecedented success
compared to other minority group lead to the highly publicized image of “model minority.”
However, by the early 1980s, researchers began questioning underlying assumptions of the
image, stating that images portrayed by the media overgeneralized their academic success.
Cultural ecologists such as Ogbu (1978) asserted that, rather than attributing their success
to their culture alone, their academic success must be understood through their “collective
experience.” Further, as stated in previous articles, Ogbu emphasized the significance of the
nature of the relationship with the dominant culture and its influence on minority’s perception of
the value of education and of opportunity structure.
Generally, cultural ecologists assert that Asian Americans, a group occupying minority
status, developed strategies unlike others to ensure continued existence in the host country.
However, other researchers refute such findings. According to Goto, a growing number of
researchers (Chun, 1995; Nakanishi, 1995; Takaki, 1989) report more instances of Asian
Americans’ experiencing barriers to social mobility. As a consequence, Asian Americans, in
some instances, form oppositional identity in response to such barriers (Omatsu, 1994.)
Behaviors noted in research were analogous to the findings of Fordham and Ogbu regarding
African Americans’ attitude towards dominant white culture.
As criticized by Spencer and Harpalani (2006), cultural ecologists often have difficulty
accounting for intragroup variability on behavior and perceptions of education and academic
success since this framework relies heavily on sociohistorical context to categorize minority
groups and draw conclusion for their adaptive behaviors. Therefore, Goto postulated that cultural
ecological framework could explain behavioral change when there is drastic change in a group’s
status, but it may not be able to explain variability in adaptive strategy, utilization of
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 53

accommodation or resistance within groups when the group status is stable. To account for the
variance in adaptive strategy within a group, Goto examined Chinese-Americans’ level of
acculturation, perception on academic achievement, and peer group relationships.
Research on social mobility revealed that there is consensus among Chinese-Americans
regarding the importance on academic achievement. Participants unanimously expressed that
attaining higher education was the only way to achieve social mobility. Although, students in this
study did not express specific career aspirations, virtually all participants expressed the intent of
attending postsecondary institutions. Rather than focusing on the long-term goal of social
mobility, participants were more concerned about maintaining harmonious relationships with
members of other groups. Although students appear to place premium on their academic success
and stressed academic standing in relation to other Asian peers, they wished to remain
anonymous and to not draw unnecessary attention to themselves for being high achievers.
Students desire to remain anonymous also reflected on their group identities.
Students in this study indicated the existence of five distinct groups (nerds, normal
people, popular people, homeboys, and wannabe) on campus, who were categorized according to
their level of academic success and sociability. Students described Nerds as students who placed
great effort in academic success but were socially inept. Normal people, which the majority of
participants identified themselves as, place lesser effort on academic success but, nonetheless,
were academically successful. Popular people were similar to normal people and appeared to be
less academically driven than nerds but more sociable as compared to normal people. Homeboys,
mostly identified as African Americans and Latinos, were perceived to not be academically
driven and associated exclusively with people within their own groups. Wannabes consisted
mostly of Cambodians who modeled their behaviors after homeboys but were not part of their
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 54

group. As stated earlier, most Chinese-Americans place themselves in the normal people group.
They appear to purposefully place themselves there to not draw attention to themselves for being
extraordinarily smart like nerds or as being very popular. Further, this strategic placement seems
to be a means of avoiding “jealousy” and ridicule from mainly homeboy groups and,
simultaneously, maintain harmonious relationships with other groups on campus.
Goto asserted that Chinese-Americans’ desire to retain anonymity is partially due to the
existence of racial tensions on campus. Although the demographics of the student body consisted
of predominantly African Americans, a disproportional number of European-Americans and
Asian Americans enrolled in honors programs. Group membership for most Asian Americans,
therefore, also acted as a protection against homeboys. Generally, Asian Americans in the
normal people group kept minimal contact with non-Asians. This behavior was particularly
noticeable among recent immigrants, since they were less capable of socializing with non-Asian
due to level of acculturation. These individuals were inclined to perceive Chinese and American
cultures as two distinct entities; hence, they believed that, while maintaining their own distinct
ethnic identity, they could choose cultural orientation depending on situations. On the other hand,
individuals who interacted with non-Asian peers, particularly homeboys, were generally more
acculturated (i.e., second or third generation). Goto discerned that these individuals behaved in
this manner either because they perceived socializing with homeboys as a mark of prestige or
because they were attracted to some aspect of their culture.
Asian-American students who willingly socialized with homeboys perceived American
and Chinese cultures in a different manner than did recent immigrants. Goto noted that signs of
affective dissonance, similar to that of African Americans, were present among these individuals.
Asian-American individuals who sympathize with homeboys appeared to struggle with
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 55

maintaining a Chinese culture that endorses academic success while rejecting academic success
in some instances. Goto asserted that resistant or “noncompliant” behavior was not merely their
attempt to disguise or conceal a desire for academic strides but was an indication that they
endorse the behavior of homeboys who reject standard academic practice in school. In other
words, these students who display noncompliant behavior adapted oppositional qualities.
The article highlighted the relationship between goals (long-term and immediate) and
adaptive behaviors. It emphasized the significance of acculturation on perception and behavior of
academic achievement. Goto concurred with Ogbu regarding the influence of immigration status
on perception of academic success and opportunity structure. In other words, collectively,
Chinese-American appeared to embrace traditional cultural values that promote hard work and
academic success. Although participants in this study stressed the importance of success in terms
of socioeconomic mobility, they also expressed the importance of maintaining harmonious
relationship with peers in other groups as their immediate concern. Students expressed this
importance partially due to their status within school; academically, Asian Americans constituted
the majority in college preparatory courses while they were the numerical minority within the
school. Therefore, to avoid conflict and ridicule from other groups, they camouflaged their effort
for their academic stride. The study revealed that, for more acculturated Chinese Americans who
sympathize with the homeboy culture, their “slacking off” behavior is more than an attempt to
camouflage their motives for academic strides. From interaction with homeboys, these
individuals also appeared to have “inherited” oppositional identity and perspective on education.
Particularly, those who are more acculturated appeared to struggle with maintaining their
traditional values while attempting to accommodate a new culture at school since the two were
incompatible. .
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 56

Goto provided an additional layer to the cultural ecological framework concerning
intragroup academic variance and its possible cause. Goto implied a significant correlation
between influence of generation or level of acculturation and perception of education and
socioeconomic mobility. The next article by Louie (2006) further explored the influence of
acculturation on the perception of education and social mobility.
Ethnic Identities and Perception of Education and Mobility
As illustrated in previous articles, there are apparent generational gaps in adolescents’
perception regarding their own ethnic identity and social mobility when compared with recent
immigrants and more acculturated counterparts. Similarly, Louie (2006) also examined the
influence of acculturation on perceptions of educational attainment and social mobility. However,
Louie focused on differences in intergroup perceptions to discern factors that account for
variability. Specifically, the study sought to address the contradictory data concerning
perceptions of educational attainment and social mobility between second-generation Chinese
Americans and their Dominican counterparts. By referencing interviews conducted with college
students, Louie hypothesized that a perception of pessimism among Chinese and optimism
among Dominicans concerning their educational attainment and social mobility was primarily
due to utilization of different frames of comparison and transnational and ethnic/panethnic
perspectives.
Louie conducted interviews with 40 Chinese and 39 Dominican second-generation
students who grew up in an ethnic enclave with a strong transitional social field. Chinese
participants were enrolled in either Hunter College or Columbia University. The Dominican
group consisted of students enrolled or graduated from private or public in postsecondary
institutions in New York and Boston. Most of the sample population, according to Louie, had
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 57

already surpassed their parents’ educational attainment and were considered to be in the “top
strata” within their own ethnic groups and within the general American population. Although the
study provided insight into the perspective on educational attainment and opportunity structure
for second-generation Chinese and Dominicans who grew up in the transitional social space,
Louie stated that the results do not represent the perspective of all second-generation Chinese
and Dominicans.
First, Louie alluded to aspects of opportunity structure and dual-frame of reference in
terms of the perception variability between the groups. As discussed earlier, the first generation’s
optimism regarding the opportunity structure of the United States (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986;
Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) originates from their utilization of a dual frame of
reference. By comparing the experience and opportunity structure of their homeland to that of
the United States, first generation immigrants generally find that the United Stated offers better
outcomes and opportunity for them and their children (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). Louie asserted
that the second generation’s measurement and evaluation of their outcomes, in terms of
education and social mobility, varies significantly depending on their frame of comparison.
Louie alluded to two prominent theories concerning second-generation immigrants’ process of
identity formation: segmented assimilation and transnational framework. By using these two
frameworks, Louie examined the variability in perception concerning education and social
mobility.
Segmented assimilation, according to Louie, is a process of cultural and economic
integration into the mainstream culture (Castro, Marsiglia, Kulis, & Kellison, 2010). Therefore,
the degree of successful integration in terms of culture and economics varies considerably among
individuals and groups. Furthermore, the experience of individuals and groups also varies
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 58

depending on the segment of society in which they assimilate into. This notion originated with
Gans (1992), whose study demonstrated that not all second-generation immigrants follow the
“straight-line assimilation,” paradigm that assumes successive generations will be more
acculturated to American culture and gain social status higher than that of previous generations.
First-generation immigrants, for example, may perceive low-paying jobs positively when
compared with job opportunities in their homeland. Second-generation immigrants would be
more likely to reject those jobs since their frame of comparison is different. Proponents of
segmented assimilation postulated that the educational and socioeconomic outlook of immigrants
who came after 1965 varies and can be categorized into basic three groups. The first two groups
consist of those who assimilated into mainstream culture by means of straight-line assimilation
or those who forged strong ethnic ties with their community and achieved a positive outlook on
education and mobility. A second group of immigrants, who experienced downward
socioeconomic mobility and settled in the vicinity of struggling minority neighborhood, tend to
have a negative outlook on education (Portes & Zhou, 1993.) A third group is generally
associated with Latinos, as they are known to have lower social and human capital as compares
to other groups. However, recent studies revealed that segments of Asians American, such as
Vietnamese refugees, are considered part of this group (Castro, Marsiglia, Kulis, & Kellison,
2010; Portes & Humbert, 2001.)
The concept of transitionalism, on the other hand, is a belief that, upon emigration, rather
than severing ties with the homeland and being assimilated into a new society, immigrants
maintain bilateral cultural and social relationships with both their country of origin and their host
country. Louie found that, for second-generation immigrants to maintain a transitional stance,
individuals must be equipped with sufficient mastery of language in both English and their
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 59

parents’ language. In addition, Louie asserted that, to engage in transitional practices, second-
generation immigrants must maintain “meaningful” ties with the society of their parents’
homeland. In the case of second-generation Chinese and Dominicans, studies suggested that it is
most likely for Spanish-speaking immigrants to maintain fluency as compared to their Chinese-
speaking counterparts. However, there appear to be only a few cases where second-generation
immigrants displayed a commitment to maintaining a true transitional stance (Rumbaut, 2002.)
In many cases, second-generation immigrants may hold a dual frame of reference. However, it is
symbolic and does not provide “meaningful” ties to the parents’ homeland. In other words,
second-generation immigrants may have heard stories regarding their parents’ homeland but
have no emotional or personal connection with that society (Espiritu & Tran, 2002.) Therefore,
Louie asserted that, in most cases, second-generation immigrants develop ethnic orientation,
recognizing a shared sense of belonging, culture, and history to a particular ethnic group, rather
than a transitional orientation. Louie asserted that living in a transitional social space alone does
not facilitate development of transitional orientation. Participating in transitional activities, such
as reading newspapers, magazines, watching TV, and listening music do appear to facilitate this
development.
Data on perception of pessimism among Chinese and optimism among Dominicans
concerning their educational attainment and social mobility appears contradictory at first, since
Chinese Americans, on average, attain higher rates of college completion and income levels. For
example, approximately 67 percent of Chinese aged 25 to 34 had at least a college degree (Xie &
Goyette, 2004) while only 26.4 percent of Dominicans above the age of 15 did (Levitt, 2001).
The median family income for Chinese was $63,000 and 13 percent were living in poverty while
the income of Dominicans was considerably lower, around $18,210, and 23.2 percent of that
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 60

population lived in poverty. Data appears even more confounding when considering typical
images projected onto these two ethnic minorities. As reviewed, Asians are generally portrayed
as high achievers, successful in obtaining high educational degrees, financial security, and social
status. On the other hand, Latinos are generally seen as underachievers, unable to complete
compulsory education, failing to obtain financial security, and as having higher delinquency rates
as compared to other minority groups. Louie stated that, along with differences in comparative
frame of reference, images also could affect an individual’s perception concerning outcome.
Although they grew up in the same transitional social space as second-generation
Dominicans, second-generation Chinese immigrants developed strong ethnic, rather than
transitional, orientation. Louie explicated that their social identity is distinct from that of their
parents, of their peers from their parents’ homeland, and of Chinese who grew up outside of the
enclave. As briefly suggested earlier, Louie partially attributed their inclination for ethnic
orientation to their level of fluent bilingualism. Approximately 58 percent of Louie’s sample had
functional speaking and listening skills, 20 percent minimal speaking skills and 5 percent could
not speak or understand Chinese. In regards to writing, a majority of respondents were unable to
write fluently in Chinese; 15 percent wrote at functional level, 43 percent wrote at a minimal
level, and 40 percent were not able to write in Chinese at all. Since the majority of respondents
were neither fluent in speaking nor reading Chinese, their participation within the enclave was
minimal. They also reported not having a strong sense of connection, cultural and political, to
their parents’ homeland. For example, although respondents participated in transnational
activities, Louie noted that second-generation Chinese did not truly comprehend the meaning
behind rituals and ancestral practice. Furthermore, interviews revealed that respondents were less
interested in transnational culture but were interested in an ethnic version of transnational culture
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 61

or “ethnic youth culture that drew on transitional products,” such as pop music and soap operas
(Louie, 2006, p550.) Louie, therefore, suggested that second-generation Chinese developed their
distinct culture. Lack of transnational orientation can also be seen by infrequent trips to their
parents’ homeland. Therefore, many reported a sense of disconnect from their parents’
homeland; when they did visit, they expressed the sense of being an outsider or a “tourist” (p.
551).
Louie concluded that pessimism among Chinese respondents concerning their
educational attainment and social mobility was due to ethnic and panethnic frames of reference.
First, respondents’ educational success was measured against that of other coethnics’ children
within parents’ networks. Often, the benchmark that parents used to compare their children was
not only their grades but admission to prestigious schools. A second benchmark was the others
who grew up in the ethnic enclave. Respondents compared themselves to others in similar
environment to measure degree of social mobility, specifically whether they obtained
professional careers or “ended up in immigrant jobs” similar to that of their parents. A third
comparative benchmark was the image of the “model minority” or pervasive societal stereotype
of Asians or Asian Americans as a successful minority group. Interview revealed that many of
their non-Asian peers assumed respondents were academically successful and financially stable.
Given their lower levels of college degree and financial achievement, Louie’s respondents
perceived themselves as less successful than high achievers in a nearby suburban enclave.
Unlike their Chinese counterparts, second-generation Dominicans’ optimism appeared to
derive from their transitional frame of comparison rather than from ethnic orientation.
Dominicans maintained a high level of bilingual fluency in speaking, reading, and writing. Louie
found approximately 77 percent of respondents were fluent in Spanish, 23 percent spoke a
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 62

functional level of Spanish. None held minimal or no level of Spanish-speaking ability. In terms
of reading and writing ability, they were not as fluent as in speaking, yet 54 percent reported
being fluent, 39 percent held functional ability, and only 7 percent held minimal ability, None
responded they could neither read nor write in Spanish. Dominicans’ bilingual fluency allowed
them to participate in transnational cultural activities within their ethnic enclave in a similar
manner to that of their parents. For example, Dominican respondents participated in higher levels
of transnational activities, such as reading Spanish-language magazines, newspapers, and books,
as compared to their Chinese counterparts. Furthermore, all Dominican respondents visited their
parent’s homeland at least five. Dominican respondents, upon traveling to their parents’
homeland, reported developing a deeper sense of belonging. In addition, Dominicans were often
sent to live in their parents’ homeland during their adolescence, which further contributed to the
development of transitional orientation or of belonging to both the United States and the
Dominican Republic.
Contrasting to Chinese respondents, Dominicans were much more optimistic about their
educational achievement and social mobility due to both ethnic and transnational frame of
reference. Although Dominican respondents expressed a sense of belonging to both countries,
second-generation respondents generally perceived they were more successful, in terms of
education attainment and social status, than their peers in the Dominican Republic. Some
described that society in the Dominican Republic was “closed” compared to the United States.
Thus, educational opportunities and opportunity for social mobility for many respondents, who
were of low socioeconomic status, would have been limited if they were to live there. Although
respondents mentioned inequality and injustice in the Dominican Republic, they expressed a
sense of affection towards the culture and people simultaneously. A second comparative
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 63

benchmark was other coethnics within their enclave. Dominican respondents described having
lived in poor neighborhoods and attending underperforming K-12 schools with overcrowded
classes, “apathetic teachers,” and a constant threat of violence. Therefore, the sense of optimism
could be explained by their use of coethnic frame of comparison. In other words, Dominican
respondents felt they fared better than others who may have not been able to pursue academic
careers due to their ecological structure. Furthermore, this perception is reinforced by the
pervasiveness of negative stereotype of Latinos as underachievers.
Louie concluded that second-generation Chinese and Dominican Americans’ pessimism
and optimism must be situated against their frame of comparison. The study revealed that
growing up in a strong transitional environment does not necessarily guarantee that second
generations will adapt strong transnational perspective. It also illustrated that second generations,
whether they participate in transnational activities or not, use dual frame of reference to
understand their educational experience and mobility. In addition, this study illustrated the
significant influence of ethnicity upon second generations’ perception of their educational
outcomes and social mobility. Louie concluded that, when examining perception on education
and mobility, multiple frames of reference must be taken into consideration
Cultural-ecological Theory Summary
By referencing cultural ecological theory, Matute-Bianchi (1986), Goto (1997), and
Louie (2006) addressed issues concerning Asian Americans in an attempt to answer some of the
research questions for this dissertation. Matute-Bianchi underlined the relationship between
acculturation level and perception of ethnic identity, value of education, and opportunity
structure. Goto’s study further explored the issue concerning the relationship between level of
acculturation and perception of education and socioeconomic mobility. Particularly, the more
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 64

acculturated struggle with maintaining their traditional values while accommodating a new
culture at school, since the two are not compatible. Goto posited that, in some cases, more
acculturated Asians choose to embrace an oppositional identity similar to that of African
Americans. Louie illustrated the importance of frame of reference when examining students’
perception of success, particularly for Chinese Americans who compare themselves against other
high-achieving coethnics and the stereotypical image of Asians as high-achievers. Although
Goto and Louie briefly touch upon the influence of the model minority stereotype, the next
section examines how the model minority stereotype affects Asian students’ experience at school
and their academic performance.
Model Minority Theory
Outline for the Section
Articles in the previous section mainly referenced Ogbu’s cultural-ecological theory to
discern plausible factors that contribute to intergroup variability in academic performance among
minority students. As noted earlier, Ogbu asserted two key elements in explaining academic
variability: ecological factors of the system and community forces (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986;
Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). The system is a manner in which minorities were treated in terms of
educational policies and remuneration for their academic degrees. Community forces are
consequences of perception and responses for their treatment in broad society and in school
(Ogbu & Simmons, 1998).
Although Ogbu provided important insight into the relationship between groups’
perception towards value of education and degree of educational attainment, some critics pointed
out conceptual flaws of his framework. Spencer and Harpalani (2006), for example, questioned
Ogbu’s sociohistorical analysis that attributed the development of oppositional qualities to the
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 65

ramification of historical oppression specific to African Americans and not as a part of normative
identity developmental process. Spencer and Harpalani argued that Ogbu does not provide
concrete empirical evidence to explain the process of how structural discriminations and
oppression cause African Americans to adapt and internalize oppositional qualities which
purportedly hamper academic achievement.
Other issue with Ogbu’s cultural ecological analysis is that voluntary minorities or
immigrants were described as homogenous groups who share a similar social identity, value of
education, and perception of opportunity. Further, Ogbu asserted that later generation immigrants
also endorse the cultural values of first-generation immigrants since the community forces of
first-generation immigrants exert great influence on later generations’ beliefs and values (Ogbu
& Simmons, 1998.) However, as illustrated in the latter section of cultural ecological studies,
there is a discrepancy in social identities and cultural value between first and later generation
Asian immigrants (Goto, 1997; Louie, 2006; Matute-Bianchi, 1986.) Studies illustrated that,
although later generation immigrants appear to maintain their ethnic identity, generally, as
immigrants acculturate more into the mainstream culture, their cultural orientation becomes less
ethnic and increasingly American oriented (Louie, 2006; Matute-Bianchi, 1986.) Since many of
these later generation immigrants perceive the two values are incompatible, they struggle to
maintain their traditional ethnic value while accommodating the new culture (Goto, 1997).
Furthermore, Ogbu’s categorization appears to be problematic. Although Ogbu (1987)
claimed categorization of minority is a guide with which to investigate the impact of ecological
structure and community forces and is not intended to stereotype attributes of minority groups or
to negate individual difference within each group, the process of categorization inadvertently
portrays voluntary minorities in a stereotypical light. In addition, categorization unwittingly
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 66

portrays two groups in a dichotomous light, highlighting the academic success of voluntary
minorities while underscoring the academic failure and social adjustment issues of involuntary
minorities. As illustrated in Goto’s study, due to the stereotypical image of Asians as high
achievers, Asian immigrants were burdened with not acting as “Asians” in order to avoid ridicule
and conflict with peers from other minority groups. In general, Asians accepted the belief that
education is crucial for obtaining social mobility and financial security. However, in some cases,
Asian Americans purposefully adapted oppositional identity similar to that of African Americans
to accommodate to the new social and cultural climate (Goto, 1997.)
In some instances, studies illustrated that a positive stereotype of Asians as an
academically successful group may negatively affect the process of identity development.
Generally, a majority of Asian immigrants are aware of the model minority stereotype, and many
reported that it does not necessarily represent their characters or their reality (Louie, 2006.)
Furthermore, individuals may experience a sense of pessimism and failure when they do not
measure up against the stereotype (Louie, 2006.) It appeared as though this unrealistic image of
Asians harms them emotionally and psychologically rather than promotes their self-confidence
or academic strides.
Within the last decades, increasing number of studies on model minorities and stereotype
threat shed light on the relatively unfamiliar topic of varying degree of academic achievement,
psychological issues associated with Asian Americans’ low academic performance and varying
degrees of attitude concerning the relationship between educational attainment and future
success. This section consists reviews the literature on the model minority stereotype, college
enrollment rate, and the proportion of white-collar professions of Asian Americans as compared
to those of other minority groups. In this section, the theory of the model minority is referenced
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 67

to discern the myth of the Asian American stereotype, particularly on the topic of academic
performance and perception of education. The literature examines how generation and degree of
cultural assimilation influence perceptions of and attitudes toward the stereotype. In addition,
adverse effect of the model minority stereotype is discussed in this section.
Intragroup Variability Regarding Perception of One’s Identity, Schooling, and Stereotype
of Model Minority
As with Ogbu (1987), Lee (1994) also utilized cultural ecological theory to explain
variability in Asian students’ social identity, perceptions of future social mobility, and impact on
academic efforts to examine the myth of the model minority. Lee conducted ethnographic
interviews at a public high school in Philadelphia, which consisted mostly of high achieving
students. Participants included six Asian and Asian American students from China, Hong Kong,
Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Lee placed particular emphasis on Asian American
students’ perceptions of their ethnic identity, education, and model-minority stereotype.
Lee referenced Ogbu’s cultural ecological theory as a foundation of the study since it
underlined the variability in academic performance between groups and further alluded to the
interconnections of culture, social identity, beliefs regarding social mobility, and perception
towards schooling (Ogbu, 1987). Lee concurred with the tenet of Ogbu’s theory that there is
variability in academic performance between voluntary and involuntary group, yet she implied
that Ogbu’s categorization of involuntary minority is inadequate in capturing the within-group
variability in regards to attitudes towards school and achievements. Therefore, purpose of this
study was to explore the link between opportunity structure and attitude towards education.
Lee categorized Asian participants into two distinct groups: Koreans and other Asian
groups. Unlike Koreans, Asians from China, Hong Kong, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Taiwan
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 68

shared panethnic identity. Although they shared panethnic identity, they were subdivided into
three distinct groups (Asian, Asian New Wavers, and Asian Americans) depending on their
perspective on schooling. Although respondents in all groups recognized the links between
education and future opportunity, each group had distinct identity and perceptions concerning the
value of education and opportunity structure.
In general, Korean students attending the high school were high achievers, perceived
themselves to be “superior” when compared to other Asians and almost exclusively socialized
with other Koreans. As stated earlier, Koreans did not identify with other Asians or Asian
Americans. Koreans often purposefully distanced themselves from other Asians motivated by
their attempt to be like white peers, whom they perceived to be superior. Parents encouraged
their children to emulate the traits and value of the white middle-class, yet they also persuaded
their children to retain their ethnic identity at home. With regard to education, Koreans believed
that education is essential for their social mobility in the United States and, as found by Goto
(1986), students attribute their academic success to sense of filial obligation and hard work. In
general, Koreans esteemed the model minority stereotype as an honor and as a vehicle of
obtaining social mobility.
Unlike previous groups, Asians, according to Lee, encompasses a wide range in ethnicity
and social class, which includes American born Chinese, immigrants from Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Southeast Asian refugee. Dissimilar to their Korean counterparts, this group appears to possess
panethnic identity and fits the description of prototypical Asian students, which she described as
“quiet, polite, and hardworking” (p 418). Similar to Koreans, the Asian participants perceived
schooling as a key to their future success and were prompted by their sense of duty to fulfill a
filial obligation. Asians perceived discrimination as a deterrent to their future success, yet they
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 69

appeared not to challenge it and, instead, modified their opportunity structure accordingly. Both
low and high achievers in this group perceived academic success as achievable only through hard
work. However, for low achievers, mastery of English appeared to be the deterrent in
accomplishing this objective. Lee posited that the model minority stereotype compelled both
high achievers and low achievers to succeed at school, but it appeared to have a significant
adverse effect on low achievers. Since individuals in this group resembled the characteristics
described by the model minority stereotype, their academic failure may often go unnoticed by
other non-Asian peers or school authorities. Further, low achievers interpret failure at school as
dishonorable to themselves since they perceive it as failing to fulfill filial obligation. Therefore,
low achievers in this group may hesitate to seek academic assistance from peers or teachers. Lee
asserted that this refusal would further perpetuate academic difficulty and these students might
ultimately isolate themselves from other peers or exhibit signs of depression.
Lee identified New Wavers as primarily consisting of Southeast Asian refugees from low
social economic backgrounds. Similar to Asians they possess panethnic identity. Lee described
New Wavers as less focused on educational attainment as compared to other groups since they
do not necessarily believe in folk theory or the links between academic achievement and future
opportunities. Consequently, they were reluctant to follow the standard academic practices
necessary to achieve academic. As evidenced by their teachers, they were uncharacteristic of the
typical Asian who exemplifies the model minority stereotype. Distinct from Koreans or Asians,
Lee posited that they were less concerned with filial obligation than with the perceptions of peers
at school, especially in terms of outward image and of gaining social acceptance from non-Asian
peers New Wavers perceived the model minority stereotype negatively since being conventional
and too fixated on educational endeavors would negatively affect their gaining social acceptance
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 70

from non-Asian peers. Lee asserted the peer orientation of this group was motivated by negative
discriminatory experiences with authority figures. Lee concluded that New Wavers did not trust
school authorities to be fair and believed that the teachers perceived them to be unwilling to learn.
New Wavers’ experiences with peers, authority figures at school, and authority figures outside of
school lead them to develop a resistant attitude towards academic achievement.
Asian Americans, as Lee identified, were a significantly smaller population than were the
other three Asian groups and had diverse ethnicities, social status, and the length of their time in
the United States varied. Similar to Asians and New Wavers, they possessed panethnic identity
and socialized exclusively within group. Asian Americans appeared excelled academically
through hard work. Unlike Koreans or Asians, they were compelled to excel order to mediate
racial discrimination. Although both Asians and New Wavers spoke of experiences with
discrimination, individuals in both groups neither dispute nor question “white authority” in direct
manner. In contrast, Asian Americans were forthright and outspoken regarding racism and the
stereotype of Asians as a model minority. Further, Asian Americans recognized their right or
privilege citizens of United States. Therefore, unlike Asians or New Wavers who perceived
themselves as “visitors”, they were less hesitant to accommodate the demands of dominant
whites.
In part, Lee’s study drew conclusions analogous to Ogbu’s (1987), assuming correlation
between students’ perception of opportunity structure and educational effort, but differs in
opinion regarding intragroup variability regarding academic performance pertaining to the Asian
American population. Lee’s study illustrated the existence of intragroup variability regarding
perception of one’s identity, schooling, and the stereotype of the model minority, which Ogbu’s
categorization did not fully explore. Lee stated that it is pertinent for researchers to understand
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 71

diversity within Asian American populations and that further ethnographic research is required to
comprehend their experiences at school.
Asian American’s Cultural Practice and Academic Performance
Kao (1995) examined the stereotype of the model minority, the perception of Asian as
high academic achiever, by utilizing the National Educational Longitudinal study of 1998
(NELS:88), a nationally conducted survey of eighth-graders regarding school, home experiences,
peer and parental influences in education, and educational aspirations. Utilizing data from NELS
and from focus groups, Kao sought to determine whether Asian Americans fit the description of
the model minority in terms of academic achievement and to further discern whether any aspects
of their cultural practices facilitate Asians’ higher academic performance as compare to other
groups. The objective of the study was threefold: assessing the validity of stereotypes concerning
academic achievement between Asians and their white counterparts; utilizing “self-reported”
grade point average to determine variability in academic performance between groups; and
determining cultural influence on student’s academic performance at school.
At first, Kao focused on home resources, which studies demonstrated influence academic
success (Teachman 1987; Stevenson and Stinger 1992). Studies suggested that parents with more
education and income have a propensity to provide children with more resources conducive to
studying. Therefore, according to the model minority stereotype, Asian parents would have more
education and resources than would their white counterparts. When compared to whites, Asians,
as a group, had college graduation rates (49 percent versus 35 percent). However, at the same
time, Asian parents had a higher rate (8 percent versus 6 percent) of parents with less than a high
school education. Furthermore, disaggregated data revealed large intragroup differences
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 72

regarding parents’ level of educational attainment. Within Asian groups, south Asian parents had
the highest educational status, while Southeast Asian parents had the lowest.
Data further revealed variability in financial resources among Asians. Overall, Asians
had family incomes comparable to those of their white counterparts. However, there was
significant intragroup variability. For example, among Asians, south Asians had the highest
family income ($77,983), while Southeast Asians had the least ($28,789). However, overall data
suggested that Asian families invest significantly more in children’s educational endeavors, such
as a college education, than do their white counterparts. For example, when Asian and white
families income are equivalent, more Asian parents reported having saved money for their
children’s college. Furthermore, Asian parents allocate their resources in creating space
conducive for their children to learn good study habits rather than in providing privacy, such as
having an own room, which was the case for their white counterparts. Therefore, culturally,
Asians appear to invest significantly more on educational resources when compared to whites.
Parenting behavior appeared to be different between Asians and whites. Compared to
white parents, Asian parents were more likely to have rules regarding amount of time spent
watching television or maintaining grades at school, but were less likely to have rules about
chores at house. Furthermore, Asian parents were less likely to talk to their children regarding
their experience at school or plans after graduating high school, and they were less likely to help
their children with schoolwork. Although some studies (Ferman et al., 1987; Hoover-Dempset et
al., 1987) suggest there is a positive impact on grades when there is interaction between children
and parents about the school experience, it appeared to have a positive impact on whites but not
on Asians. Kao presumed from the data that, rather than reminding children about daily school
work, Asian parents stressed educational activities in a more abstract manner. Data also revealed
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 73

that Asian parents’ rewards were based solely on their children’s academic success and showed
much less regard to success in other domains in their children’s lives. Asian parents expressed
the least amount of interest in children’s school experience, yet stipulated their children achieve
exceptionally high academic success. Therefore, Kao suggest Asian parenting style to be more
authoritarian than white parents.
According to Lee (1994), Asian parents and children acknowledge the existence of racial
discrimination as a deterrent to achieving future success. Unlike African Americans (Ogbu,
1986), Asian Americans receive remuneration that corresponds with educational attainment yet
is unequal to that of their white counterparts. Although children may aspire to pursue creative
fields, Asian parents would discourage their children from these since they perceive them to be
“unsafe” (p.151) in terms of obtaining future financial stability. Further, Asian parents deemed
technical careers, such as physician, engineer, physical science researcher, or accountant, as safer
because these fields would protect their children from being discriminated against. Overall,
Asians appeared to be successful in academics, yet they believe there were limitations on how far
one can move up within corporate hierarchy. Therefore, Kao found that Asian parents’
exceptionally high expectations were prompted by attempts to compensate for job ceilings or
anticipated limitations in upward advancement. While racial discrimination and job ceilings
appear to cause African Americans’ ambivalence towards education (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986;
Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998), Asian Americans were compelled to overcome this
hindrance by excelling academically.
Kao also examined the correlation between grades and level of educational aspiration
with the hypothesis that higher educational aspirations promote higher test scores and GPAs.
There appear to be cultural practices that differentiate between Asians and whites in regards to
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 74

level of grades necessary to achieve their educational aspirations. Data revealed both parents and
students in the Asian group, with the exception of Pacific Islanders, had higher educational
aspirations than did their white counterparts. Kao asserted that Asians’ higher educational
aspirations motivate them to achieve higher grades, receiving higher grades reinforces their
educational aspirations. Even after controlling for the level of educational aspirations, Asians
performed better overall than whites with regard to grades. Results confirmed that Asians
generally overestimate the level of grades necessary to achieve their educational aspirations.
However, there was no clear “Asian advantage” regarding test scores once level of aspirations
was controlled. Although Asians had higher grades, these did not appear to significantly
influence their test scores.
When gender and parental socioeconomic status remained constant, Asians earned
slightly higher math scores and comparable reading score. However, when including variables
such as household structures and immigrant status of the mother, both math and reading test
scores were identical between Asians and whites, with exception of Pacific Islanders. Data
revealed that Pacific Islanders consistently received considerably lower scores on both math and
reading when compared to their white counterparts. As briefly stated above, the parents’
immigration status appeared to significantly influence Asians’ academic performance.
Pacific Islanders, a group considered to be more culturally acculturated compared to
other Asian groups, had consistently lower test scores and grades when compared with other
Asian groups and their white counterparts. The result were similar to the result of previous
studies (Goto, 1997; Louie, 2006) in that more acculturated immigrants were less likely to
identify with traditional cultural values of the first generation that placed significant emphasis on
work ethic and academic pursuits. Because more acculturated immigrants may not share the
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 75

values and beliefs of fist generation, such as perception of opportunity structure and meritocratic
means of achieving success, they may place lesser effort in achieving academic success, which
subsequently lead to lower academic achievement. Although Kao acknowledged intragroup
difference, she concluded that overall there was no difference in test scores between Asians and
whites from comparable family background and resources.
At first glance, Asians appear to achieve higher academic success in terms of test scores
and GPA when compared to their white counterparts, yet, when controlling family income and
home resources, data revealed Asians had a slight advantage on grades, but no perceivable
difference with regard to test scores. The study revealed that the group was not homogeneous
with uniform advantage in terms of educational skills and financial resources. However, they
shared similar cultural values and practices that gave them a slight edge with regard to grades.
The study did not indicate which cultural aspects or variables influence Asian youth to perform
slightly better than their white counterparts, but data suggested that Asians as a group were more
committed to allocating resources towards children’s education, and both parents and children
had higher educational aspirations than did white counterparts. Succeeding Lee’s study, Kao
illustrated heterogeneity of Asians as a group and urged further investigation regarding cultural
influence upon educational outcome and validity of model minority stereotype.
Influence of Cultural Orientation (Individualistic vs. Collectivistic) Upon Identity
Formation, Perception of One’s Ethnic Group, and Perception of Model Minority Label
Oyserman and Sakamoto (1997) sought to examine the interaction among Asian
Americans’ ethnic identity, their perceptions of being portrayed as a model minority, and the
stereotyped image depicted by mainstream culture. Specifically, the study examined how a
cultural orientation of individualism (heavy emphasis on individual effort that is often seen as a
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 76

hallmark of American culture) and collectivism (interdependence and connectedness believed to
be a characteristic of the Asian culture) affect the formation of identity, the perception of one’s
ethnic group, and the valuation of model minority image. Dissimilar to previous studies that
focused on the interplay between the image of model minority and academic performance (Kao,
1995; Lee, 1994), Oyserman and Sakamoto placed emphasis on the construct of one’s ethnic
identity and the valuation of model minority image.
This study placed emphasis on two seemingly contradicting cultural orientations,
individualism and collectivism, to illustrate the perception of Asian Americans’ ethnic identity,
academic achievement, valuation of group membership, and the model minority stereotype. First,
individualism was discussed since Americans are often described as possessing this orientation
in terms of valuing personal independence and achievement. This value also influences the work
ethic, which promote success through hard work and effort.
Although all immigrants exert much effort to emulate American cultural orientation,
some groups were never fully incorporated into the mainstream society due to their distinct
culture and appearance. Asian Americans, for instance, valued the American orientation of
success, but were considered part of the mainstream. As an example, Asian Americans were
neither underrepresented in academia nor in middle class status, but they are often labeled as
“model minority” rather than described as successful Americans.
Although some Asian Americans may perceive the model minority in a positive light,
others may argue that the label in itself presents a barrier and can lead to discrimination during
attempts to enter mainstream American society. In fact, Oyserman and Sakamoto presented
evidence of structural racism and gaps between whites and Asian Americans in terms of
educational achievement, opportunity structure, and financial success (Sue, 1991; Uyematsu,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 77

1971). These studies point to the fact that white-Americans reward and favor their in-group
members (white Caucasians) rather than out-groups even when out-group members embrace
American cultural values more than in-groups.
Oyserman predicted that Asian Americans reference collectivistic cultural orientation to
define their ethnic identity, which builds on aspects such as “interdependence and connectedness”
(p.437.) Furthermore, Oyserman and Sakamoto (1997) hypothesized Asian Americans’
collectivistic orientation had strong correlation with positive valuation of group membership and
positive valuation of the model minority label since group members are inclined to believe others
would also perceive them in a similar manner. Therefore, Oyserman and Sakamoto suggested
that Asians who reference collectivism to define their ethnic identity would be more susceptible
to discrimination. In other words, when there is structural racism, they would be more inclined
attribute the experience to one’s effort and skill instead of structural racism or discrimination.
Unlike previous articles (Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Kao, 1995; Lee, 1994) where some
Asian Americans were described as having a collectivistic cultural orientation (especially first-
generation immigrants), the results of this study revealed that a higher percentage of Asian
American respondents endorsed the individualistic orientation. The discrepancy between the
results of previous studies and those of this study may be due to differences in the demography
of the sample populations (respondents in this study consisted of eighty percent U.S. citizens or
permanent residents). As discussed earlier, (Goto, 1997; Louie, 2006) more acculturated Asians
possess different ethnic identity from first-generation immigrants, who hold traditional values
that align more closely with a collectivistic cultural orientation. Therefore, it can be discerned
that higher percentage of respondents subscribed to individual cultural orientation because they
were more exposed and acculturated to American culture.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 78

The study found that individualistic cultural orientation correlated with positive valuation
of one’s group membership but not with ethnic identity. Furthermore, individualistic cultural
orientation correlated with public self-esteem and connectedness. In comparison, those who
possessed a collectivistic cultural orientation were inclined to define identity through group
membership. Interestingly, the study revealed that a collectivistic cultural orientation was related
to aspects of connectedness and as well as of independent achievement. Although respondents in
this study showed higher individualistic cultural orientation, they endorsed both values, which
suggest these cultural values are independent of each other. Oyserman and Sakamoto (1997)
concluded that, due to cultural accommodation, respondents subscribed to individual cultural
orientation while also maintaining a collectivistic cultural. Consequently, respondents perceived
their group membership in positive light and defined their identity through their group
membership while focusing on their individualistic goals.
As stated earlier, collective beliefs are strongly correlated with ethnic identity and a
positive valuation of the model minority label. Therefore, collectivism increases the acceptance
of the image of model minority. Further, those who perceived the label positively anticipated
that it would promote a favorable impression of themselves to members of out-groups, especially
with regard to academic achievement. Overall, those who perceived the label positively
perceived a sense of connectedness to the first-generation immigrants who worked hard and
strove towards achievement, which led to the stereotype. Therefore, respondents who perceived
the stereotype positively believed that the stereotype had some accuracy in describing their
identity, especially regarding the value of hard work. Those who regarded the model minority
stereotype in negative light focused on non-academic issues, such as lacking social competence
and interpersonal generosity. Therefore, data revealed that those who perceive tradition and
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 79

heritage positively also have valuate the label positively, but those who perceive the label
negatively see the label as undermining individual’s effort and as a barrier keeping them out of
the mainstream.
With regard to strategies to deal with stereotypes, results of this study also confirmed
findings from previous studies (Goto, 1997; Lee, 1994) in that respondents devised similar
strategies to avoid being perceived stereotypically. For example, more than half of the
participants reported having strategies for dealing with stereotypes concerning social competence
and interpersonal generosity. Their strategies mainly focused on avoiding certain situations, such
as refraining from joining ethnic-oriented clubs, avoiding places where Asians were known to
congregate, making efforts not to speak the language of their ethnic background in front of
“whites,” and attempting to make friends with members of out-groups. Although stereotypes
regarding academic achievement were those most commonly noted by participants, a small
percentage (22.7 percent) had specific coping strategies to mediate them. Finding suggested that,
although respondents placed a premium on their academic success, they made efforts to avoid
being seen as overachievers or a “nerds.” Therefore, strategies focused on camouflaging their
academic strides and avoiding the stereotypical image of Asian as “nerds” rather than avoid from
receiving good grades. Although not mentioned in the study, it can be discerned that respondents
may attempt to avoid the perception of being a nerd in order to not draw attention to themselves
as extraordinarily smart and to avoid jealousy and ridicule from members of out-groups (Goto,
1997).
As with previous studies (Goto, 1997; Louie, 2006) Oyserman and Sakamoto’s (1997)
data also revealed that generational status in the U.S. affects perceptions of being a model
minority and valuation of the label. Furthermore, the findings confirmed previous studies (Goto,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 80

1997; Kao, 1995; Lee, 1994; Louie, 2006; Matute-Bianchi, 1986) in that Asian Americans
recognized the existence of the model minority stereotype and prejudice towards them. Although
some Asian Americans placed positive valuation towards the label, it also hindered their
development of self-definition and, in some cases, rendered them susceptible to the effects of
structural racism or discrimination.
Model Minority in the Historical Context and the Dominant Groups’ Perception towards
Asian Americans
McGowan and Lindgren (2003) sought to investigate the assertion of critical scholars that
the model minority stereotype conceals hostility towards Asian Americans and serves to increase
disdain toward immigrants and other minorities, mainly African Americans and Latinos.
By referencing data from the General Social Survey (1990, 1994, 2000), McGowan and
Lindgren sought to evaluate the validity of the negative stereotype: a perception of Asians as
perpetual and unpatriotic foreigners; hostility towards immigrants and issues of immigration; a
perception that Asian Americans are not discriminated against in both job and housing; and a
hostility towards creating government-sponsored programs to increase opportunity for Asian
Americans and other immigrants.
In particular, the researchers focused on a set of questions concerning positive
stereotypes, which supposedly concealed negative views about Asian, to test above negative
stereotypes. Positive stereotype questions were both weak form (a comparison between Asian
Americans and other minorities concerning intelligence, work ethic, and financial stability) and
strong form (comparison of above factors against whites). The authors hypothesized there is a
correlation between positive beliefs of Asians (i.e., as intelligent, hardworking, and wealthy) and
negative stereotype (i.e., hostility towards Asians, immigrants and immigration, other minorities
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 81

and government programs for African Americas). In other words, they assumed positive belief is
linked to hostility towards Asians and other immigrants.
First, it must be noted that the approach of critical scholars differs vastly from previous
studies in that, rather than asking about perceptions of being a model minority or about valuation
of the label, most critical scholars assume attributes ascribed to the label, whether positive or
negative, are hostile. In other words, whether positive or negative valuation is ascribed to the
stereotype, it is perceived as harmful to Asian Americans and as impeding their progress.
Furthermore, orient their study towards questioning and analyzing existing social structures and
practices that discriminate against minorities, which they believe will create social inequity. In
addition to questioning iniquitous practices in maintaining the status quo, critical scholars seek to
reveal and combat the existence of oppressive elements that hinder the progress and rights of
groups who their subjugation. McGowan and Lindgren (2003) not only opted to utilize a
somewhat controversial critical theory, but they also attempted to investigate the influence of the
model minority stereotype on Asian Americans by referencing historical and social context to
unearth the seemingly benign and pervasive practices they posit are inequitable practice in
disguise.
First, in a narrative manner, McGowan and Lindgren (2003) examined how the model
minority stereotype is portrayed by the media, scholars, and politicians. During the 1960’s, when
the nation faced an economic downturn, Asian Americans, particularly Chinese-Americans, were
largely publicized in the media and portrayed as a one of the successful minority groups, who, in
spite of adversity and hardship, achieved financial success on their own effort through means of
hard work. They were lauded for their financial achievement without monetary assistance from
the government. Critical theorists argued that the intent was not to portray Asian American in a
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 82

positive light, but, instead, to utilize their financial independence and success to underline the
financial burden imposed by other minority groups, particularly African Americans. Therefore,
critical theorists claimed the positive portrayal of Asian American was intended to undermine the
efforts of other minority groups and to criticize their lack of financial independence and success.
During the 1980’s, when there was large increase in Asian American college enrollment,
the popular press depicted Asian American as intelligent and academically capable groups those
mental capacity were equal to or superior to that of their white counterparts. Further, the media
highly publicized Asian Americans’ business acumen, stating that, while they may not occupy
higher ranks in corporate America, they attain financial success through their own effort by
establishing their own business. Therefore, the perception of consensus regarding Asian
Americans was that they are intelligent, hardworking, and economically successful individuals.
Asian Americans’ seemingly successful in integrating into the mainstream society lead others to
believe that past racial discrimination and policy associated with discrimination had no persistent
impact on their progress.
Again during 1980 to 1990, of the growth of Asian American college enrollment and the
leveling enrollment of other groups fueled a debate concerning Affirmative Action and the
model minority stereotype. Proponents of Affirmative Action perceived rapid the increase in
Asian American enrollment unintentionally affected the enrollment of other minorities,
specifically African American and Latino and even Caucasian enrollment. Subsequently, some
of the elite universities set quotas on Asian American enrollment. Thus the positive valuation
ascribed to the label of being intelligent became burden for Asian Americans. On the other hand,
opponents of Affirmative Action argued that admission based solely on ethnicity is an unfair
practice. While this rhetoric seems to favor racial equity, it tacitly promotes the agenda of the
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 83

dominant group of removing mandatory minority student enrollment to increase the percentage
of white student enrollment. As a consequence, Asian Americans and the argument of the model
minority were used by proponents and opponents of Affirmative Action to hinder the academic
strides and efforts of Asian Americans in the US.
As illustrated in the narratives above, critical scholars have been skeptical of the manner
in which Asian Americans’ success was portrayed in the media and scholarly journals, since they
believe that success story was mainly used to further the agenda of whites and to establish their
political and cultural hegemony rather than to genuinely commend Asian Americans’ hard work
and effort. Critical scholars are concerned that characteristics and attributes ascribed to the label
tend to be an overgeneralization of the group. Furthermore, data or statistics used to argue the
success of Asian Americans and provide grounds for the model minority stereotype do not
necessary portray an accurate picture. As reviewed in previous studies (Goto, 1997; Louie, 2006),
while aggregated data appear to portray Asian Americans as a homogenous group, disaggregated
data shows considerable variability in terms of academic achievement and economic success.
Critical scholars further argued that model minority stereotypes intentionally misconstrue
facts and invites deleterious consequences for Asians. First, the stereotype distorts the truth and
conceals the need for Asian Americans to receive assistance or government programs. Second,
the image of the successful Asian distracts recognition of the pervasive and harmful nature of
discrimination against Asian Americans. Third, it reinforces the idea that anyone can attain
success regardless of race or ethnic background. Fourth, the stereotype instills the mindset that
those who do not succeed do not exert sufficient effort or inherently lack the ability to succeed,
which allows the dominant group to blame other minority groups for their failure. Furthermore, it
is used as argument against providing special support or government programs for African
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 84

Americans and Latinos. The stereotypes create tension between Asians, and African Americans
and Latinos, which further enables whites to maintain the status quo and their dominance over
minority groups. Fifth, the stereotype conveys the message that Asian Americans are perpetual
foreigners, which leads others to question their patriotism and, consequently, causes hostility
towards immigration and other immigrants.
Data from GSS allowed Oyserman and Sakamoto (1997) to test their hypothesis, which
was to determine whether there is a connection between positive stereotypes and negative
perception of Asian Americans. In other words, McGowan and Lindgren (2003) conjectured that
outwardly positive stereotype, such as Asian Americans’ success story, was, in fact, aimed at
concealing white’s negative attitude toward Asian Americans and other immigrants. The data
generally do not confirm the hypothesis; non-Hispanic whites who believed Asian Americans are
intelligent and hardworking generally did not hold negative views towards Asian Americans or
hostility towards other immigrants or issues concerning immigration. Furthermore, those who
held positive stereotypes also did not oppose assisting Asian Americans or creating government
programs to aid other minority groups. However, data confirmed one hypothesis: those who held
positive beliefs thought Asian Americans were not discriminated against in jobs or in housing.
Although GSS data ran contrary to the argument of critical scholars, arguments
highlighted struggles and challenges that Asian Americans faced in the past. This is a relatively
unknown and less researched topic as compared to issues concerning African Americans or
Latinos. Furthermore, the analysis suggested that there should not be any reason to believe those
who hold positive beliefs about Asian Americans would purposefully suppress or disguise their
negative feelings or hostility towards them. However, this research did not suggest that non-
Hispanic whites do not hold any types of prejudice, discrimination, or hostility towards Asian
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 85

Americans. In fact, research suggested that many of those who held positive views of Asian
Americans would most likely not recognize the existence of discrimination in the job market. In
other words, the model minority stereotype continues to discriminate against Asian Americans
and hinder their opportunities in the U.S. Furthermore, the model minority stereotype hinders
individuals’ ability to define their own identities and creates certain expectations about
individuals’ belonging in the Asian American group.
Impact of Model Minority Stereotype on a Low-Achieving Student, Parents, and Teachers
The model minority stereotype affects not only students but also parents and teachers. A
case study conducted by Li (2005) sought to examine the impact of the model minority
stereotype on a low-achieving Chinese student and on parents and teachers. Although the setting
within which the study took place, a primary school system in Canada, differs from that of
previous studies, the study revealed in-depth detail concerning the impact of the model minority
stereotype on each stakeholder. To highlight the results of this study, Li first expounded the myth
of model minority, and then examined the adverse effects of the stereotype on Asians, especially
on underachieving students.
As with previous studies (McGowan & Lindgren, 2003), Li argued that the model
minority stereotype serves to conceal the need for Asian Americans to receive assistance or
government programs. Second, it reinforces the belief that those who do not succeed wither lack
effort or the ability to do so. Although the stereotype presents itself as innocuous, it could be
potentially detrimental to underachieving Asian students or individuals who do not fit the
stereotype. Furthermore, Li argued that the stereotype misrepresents facts concerning Asian
Americans’ educational attainment and financial resources. As noted in previous studies (Kao,
1995), overall, Asians and whites had comparable family incomes, yet disaggregated data
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 86

revealed significant intragroup variability. In addition, as illustrated by Louie (2006) there is
wide variability in terms of educational attainment and financial resources within Chinese
Americans.
Furthermore, Li was concerned that the model minority myth does not accurately reflect
the increasing level of underachievement and dropout rates for Asians. The National Center for
Educational Statistics (NACS, 2004) reported that, in some states, Asians in subgroups do not
necessarily have higher achievement when compared to other minorities. For example, as
illustrated in the study by Kao (1995), Pacific Islanders consistently received considerably lower
scores on both math and reading when compared with whites. Further, Li noted that educational
attainment for Hmong, Cambodians, and Laotians was significantly lower than that of other
Asians. With regard to dropout rates, Southeast Asians are reported to have higher rates than
East Asians. Therefore, the model minority stereotype does not accurately capture attributes and
characteristics of all Asians, and, subsequently, it perpetrates an erroneous image of Asians and
hinders their advancement.
As McGowan and Lindgren (2003) illustrated, the model minority myth more than
misrepresents facts. It also has undesirable consequences for Asians: it masks Asian Americans’
experience of racism, it functions as an instrument of white social and political hegemony, it
fosters the notion that minorities should not require government assistance to succeed, it creates
tension among minorities, and it may contribute to Asian Americans’ feeling marginalized,
misunderstood, and disconnected from mainstream culture (Lagdamero, Lee, & Ngyen, 2002;
Suzuki, 2002, cited in Li, 2005). In addition, it may influence the development of intellectual
identity in that those who do not fit the archetype of high achiever could develop psychological
and emotional issues, such as frustration, anger, embarrassment and anxiety.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 87

By referencing both cultural ecological and model minority stereotype theory, Li sought
to determine factors that may contribute to Asian children’s academic underperformance. This
case was based on a larger ethnographic study conducted on Chinese immigrants’ on home and
school connections. Data collection for this study entailed observations of the student, Andy Lou,
in school and at home, interviews with Andy, his mother, Mrs. Lou, and his teachers. Li asserted
that this case study would illustrate social and environmental factors that contributed to his
academic difficulty and underachievement at school.
Andy was a ten-year-old, second generation Canadian Chinese boy born to immigrants
parents from Hong Kong. The school Andy attended consisted of predominantly Chinese
second-generation students who were categorized as ESL learners. Although he was eager to
learn, Andy was performing below average in almost every subject except math. His ESL teacher
attributed his academic performance to his low attention span, and she guessed Andy might have
attention-deficit disorder. Before fourth grade began, he was pulled from regular class to receive
special instruction on subjects in which he needed remediation. Andy’s mother believed that
school mistakenly placed him in an ESL class that was below his language ability, which stunted
his learning. Unsatisfied with Andy’s being placed in ESL class, Andy’s mother requested
school remove him from ESL classes.
Andy was motivated and eager to learn many subjects, yet he and his group mates would
often get distracted from tasks at hand and engage in trivial conversation. With regard to English,
Andy appears to have liked reading yet his limited vocabulary hindered him from
comprehending stories. Andy also had writing difficulties and disliked activities that involved
writing. His writing illustrated that he struggled with vocabulary, basic grammar, and often
lacked coherence of ideas. Although Andy took pride in his ability to speak Cantonese, Mrs. Lou
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 88

decided Andy would speak more English at home. At home, Andy’s mother encouraged him to
read books and write every day. Furthermore, to improve his concentration, his mother enrolled
him in piano and swimming class. In addition, to help him with English and math his mother
hired a tutor and enrolled him in a private tutoring school.
Andy’s failure appeared to stem from issues of a difference in teacher’s perspectives
concerning the causes of said failure. As illustrated in narrative, teachers tend to hold assumption
of Asians as high achievers, which leads them to believe all Asians should succeed academically.
Therefore, in general, teachers are likely to attribute their failure to behavioral issues or to
learning difficulties rather than to their instructions. As noted in above narrative, teachers
attributed Andy’s lack of progress to his inattentiveness and immaturity rather than to the
ineffectiveness of their instructional methods. For example, one of the Andy’s teachers described
him leaving his desk, wandering around, and playing with toys. Similarly, his lack of English
development was attributed to frequent usage of a language other than English during class.
Furthermore, teachers felt that his mother’s decision to remove him from ESL classes was a
disadvantageous because he needed remediation. Overall, teachers were more likely to attribute
students’ failure to individual mental and behavioral issues rather than to instructional methods.
On one hand, teachers perceived Andy’s academic failure as a result of his behavioral
issues and of his family’s action. Mrs. Lou perceived otherwise. Mrs. Lou attributed both
ineffective teaching and an unfavorable classroom setting as the cause of Andy’s lack of
academic progress. Mrs. Lou explained that many first generation immigrants do not speak
fluent English to teach their children and rely on teachers to teach proper English. However, Mrs.
Lou believed that teachers expect parents to teach English at home, and that this was many first-
generation immigrant children have problems with learning proper English. In terms of reading
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 89

and writing skills, Mrs. Lou believed that teachers were utilizing ineffective instructional
methods to teach multicultural students. Furthermore, Mrs. Lou attributed Andy’s lack of writing
progress to inconsistency in teaching methods among teachers. In addition, Mrs. Lou claimed the
class environment was not conducive for learning: first, the group-seating arrangement was
distracting; second, a combined 4th and 5th grade class allowed teachers to allocate only half of
their class time for students at each grade, which hampered their academic progress.
This case study allowed Li to examine the interplay between the influence of school and
of the home environment. The study highlighted two crucial points: first, as McGowan and
Lindgren (2003) suggested, the stereotype instills the mindset that those who do not achieve
success do not exert enough effort, which promoted a “blaming the victims” approach; second,
the stereotype induces and heighten parents’ “educational fever” (p.81), high expectations and
aspirations for children’s educational achievement, which placed additional burdens on already
existing problems. This case study illustrated that the model minority myth hinders individuals’
ability to define their own identities as well as creates certain expectations about individuals
belonging to Asian American group. The stereotype rendered teachers imperceptive to the
possibility that their lack of attention to students’ instructional needs, a mismatch of culture
between school and home, and school policies may have contributed to Andy’s learning
difficulty. On the other hand, the model minority stereotype may contribute to parents’
“education fever,” promoting excessive competition for better grades, creating unrealistic goals
and high pressure towards achievement, which may predispose children to stress and
psychological and cognitive issues. Furthermore, this pressure could hinder students’ wiliness to
engage in process of learning. Li highlighted the damaging effect of the seemingly benign model
minority stereotype and its influence on not only children but on other stakeholders in education.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 90

Five Most Commonly Held Misconceptions of the Stereotype
Descriptive reports by Museus and Kiang (2009) addressed the misconception of the
model minority stereotype and its implication upon Asian Americans. Although this study
focused on field of higher educational research, it nonetheless highlighted the adverse effect of
the model minority myth and how it contributed to the widespread omission of research
concerning Asian Americans from the topics of minority research and federal agencies to
overlook significance of research pertaining Asian Americans. Museus and Kiang argued that
Asian American population could be perceived as one of the “misunderstood” populations in the
United States.
As did previous research (Li, 2005; McGowan et al., 2003) Museus and Kiang (2009)
also argued that, although the stereotype appears to be innocuous and to connote positive
attributes, it has negative ramifications. Some studies have illustrated that the model minority
myth not has consequences not only at the societal level but at the individual level as well. For
example, studies have shown that Asian American experience the need to adhere to the high
achiever image (Lee, 1994; Louie, 2006; Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997) and incur psychological
stress when they do not fit the “prototypical” image, which could also impede students’
willingness learn (Li, 2005).
Museus and Kiang (2009) argued that studies on Asian Americans are increasingly
necessary due not only to the scant number of empirical studies in the field of higher education
or the lack of government programs in to assist them, but also due to the tangible sense that, with
the Asian population predicted to be second fastest growing population (U.S. Census Bureau,
2004), there is an urgent need to address the knowledge gap regarding Asian American. The
researchers presented the five most commonly held misconceptions they believe are strongly
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 91

linked to the perpetuation of the model minority myth and attempted to demystify these
misconceptions in order to illustrate the inaccuracy of the stereotype.
First, Museus and Kiang (2009) disputed the assumption of Asian Americans’ academic
prowess. Most often, statistical data show Asians as a whole excel academically and achieve
phenomenal success as compared to other minorities to their white counterparts (Kao, 1995; Lee,
1994, Meseus, et al. 2009). Disaggregated data, however, revealed wide variance in academic
achievement within the group. For example, Asian Indians have the highest rate of baccalaureate
attainment, whereas Southeast Asians (consistently showed lower levels of degree attainment
(Museus & Kiang 2009). The authors illustrated the fact that although discourse on Asian
Americans increased in the last few decades, the perception of Asians as a homogeneous group
in terms of academic success is still prevalent among scholars and in the general consensus (Kao,
1995; Lee, 1994; Li, 2005; McGowan & Linden, 2003).
Second, Museus and Kiang (2009) addressed perceptions that exclude Asian Americans
from ethnic minority groups, as these foster ideas among the general public that Asians do not
need support or assistance from federal agencies like other minorities. Furthermore, as with
previous studies (Li, 2005; McGowan & Linden, 2003), Museus and Kiang also expressed
concern that this misperception would affect funding policy and practices towards Asian
Americans. In addition, Asian Americans, as do other minority populations, experience
discrimination and barriers associated with being ethnic minorities (Li, 2005; McGowan &
Linden, 2003). Furthermore, Asian Americans also struggle with navigating through multiple
cultures like other members of minority groups (Goto, 1997; Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997).
A third misconception concerning Asian American is that they do not face major
obstacles like other underrepresented minorities because of their race. As illustrated by
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 92

McGowan and Linden (2003), non-Hispanic whites who believe the myth of the model minority
are less likely to perceive that Asian Americans are discriminated against in employment and the
housing market. Often, aggregated data regarding Asian Americans’ educational attainment and
income is used to argue against providing them assistance (Museus, 2009). However,
disaggregated data showed that rate of college attainment for some Asian subgroups is lower
than the national average and that of other minority groups (Kao, 1997; U.S. Census Bureau,
2004)
Fourth is the misconception that Asian Americans neither seek nor request resources or
support. This assumption appears to stem from the fact that Asian Americans do not often utilize
existing campus resources such as counseling services. Data suggests that Asian Americans, as a
group, seek counseling services less frequently (Museus & Kiang, 2009)) than other minority
groups. As suggested in previous studies (Lee, 1994; Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997) Asian
Americans who perceive the label of model minority positively interpret academic failure as sign
of dishonor to themselves and, most importantly, to their family. Therefore, it is discerned that
students who do not fit the prototype, would be less inclined or hesitant to seek academic
assistance or talk about their failure. Although, culturally, Asians prefer to use avoidant
strategies in with dealing personal challenges and difficulties, they may still require services on
campus. Therefore, Museus and Kiang urged researchers to develop cultural competency and
sensitivity towards Asian Americans, since attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors maybe
culturally bounded.
The fifth misconception is that level of educational attainment predicts an individual’s
future success. Generally, data would concur that recipients of a baccalaureate degree would earn
significantly higher income than would individuals who hold only a high school diploma.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 93

Museus and Kiang argued that, if this were true, Asian Americans, who supposedly attain higher
educational achievement, would not need special attention. However, studies have shown that, in
spite of their success, they do not necessarily receive the remuneration that corresponds with
their educational attainment (Kao, 1995; McGowan, 2003).
Museus and Kiang (2009) posited that numerous researchers often utilize oversimplified
aggregated data to reach erroneous conclusions regarding Asian Americans and their academic
and economic success, which further perpetuates the model minority myth. As illustrated in
previous studies, although the stereotype of the model minority appears positive, it has a negative
impact on various aspects of Asian American’s lives and on educational policies and practices,
which further exacerbate the situation for this population. As with previous studies, Museus and
Kiang acknowledge that the pervasiveness of the stereotype makes it a difficult one to challenge. ,
yet they urged researchers and policy makers to critically examine it.
Immigrant’s Educational Experience and Perception of the Relevance of Education
As illustrated in previous articles, although scholars are becoming more aware of the
issues concerning the model minority stereotype, the Asian American population is still
“misunderstood” in the United States (Museus & Kiang, 2009). The myth continues to
perpetuate ideas that studies concerning Asian Americans are unnecessary since they are not
discriminated against or are disadvantaged when compared to other minorities. As noted earlier,
however, careful observation revealed wide variability within groups in terms of educational
attainment and household income, and that they also experience prejudice and discrimination.
To ascertain the difference in perception regarding education and socioeconomic class,
Louie (2006) utilized the cultural ecological frame, commonly referenced by researchers to
examine interplay among environment, culture, and social status. Although the cultural ecologic
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 94

frame addresses variability in students’ educational experiences along the line of race and
ethnicity, the theory overlooks the relevance of social class. Louie, therefore, conjectured that, in
order to understand the difference in perception concerning opportunity structure, effort to
achieving educational success, and subsequent career choices, the result of cultural ecological
theory must be interpreted in conjunction with class and socioeconomic status.
To examine the influence of the social class, Louie drew samples from two distinct four-
year institutions, a private Ivy League university and a public commuter college, based on
assumption that the socioeconomic backgrounds of students would corresponds to the type of
institution. As Louie conjectured, students attending Columbia University were primarily of
middle-class family background and resided in suburban areas, whereas students attending
Hunter College were mainly from working-class family backgrounds and resided in urban area.
Louie posited that the experience of this population was neither representative of all Asian
American nor of all Chinese Americans, but the sample was drawn primarily to provide support
for the premise of differences along socioeconomic class. In addition, Louie selected this
population with the intent to compare how sociocultural background affects identity
development and perception of outlooks.
Although Louie’s (2006) respondents identified themselves as Chinese American, they
also possessed panethnic identity. A Majority of Louie’s respondents were familiar with rituals,
customs and traditions associated with Chinese culture, both from urban and suburban groups
and did not fully comprehend the significance or meanings associated with these customs.
Interviews revealed that, for a majority of respondents, their primary source of information
regarding their ethnic heritage or culture was an ethnic version of transnational culture, which
catered to American. In most cases, respondents reported that Chinese fluency came not from
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 95

their parents but from media and peers. Therefore, participants showed low levels of
bilingualism in terms of speaking, reading, and writing. Louie asserted that the lack of language
fluency created a gap between the first and the second generation in terms of appreciation and
valuation towards their culture and heritage.
As previous studies suggested, generally, second-generation respondents subscribed to
traditional cultural values assumed to be held by first-generation immigrants, such as a sense of
filial obligation, and a belief in meritocratic means of achieving success (Fordham & Ogbu,
1986; Goto, 1997; Li, 2003; Matute-Bianchi, 1986; McGowan & Lindgren, 2003; Museus &
Kiang, 2009; Ogbu, 1987; Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997) as well as the prospect of monetary
success for certain careers (Kao, 1995). Although a majority of respondent’s parents held firm
beliefs that immigration would offer better opportunities for their children, they understood that
it would not necessarily the offer same advantages for themselves. As noted in previous studies
(Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987), immigrants were assumed to embrace commonly the
held assumption that one can achieve upward social mobility through meritocratic means.
Respondent’s parents also encouraged their children to achieve high academic success, which
would presumably lead to future success. Respondents from both urban and suburban areas noted
that, through observing parents’ adversity and struggle upon immigration, they had come to
believe that education was a means to circumventing struggles and obstacles their parents faced.
Further, interviews suggested that respondents’ sense of filial obligation and striving for
academic success were driven by their attempt to recompense for their parents’ loss. In addition,
interviews revealed that Chinese children excelled in particular fields, such as science and math,
not due to their innate ability but through hard work and effort toward high academic
achievement, which was often endorsed by their parents. Interviews revealed that parents in both
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 96

urban and suburban area place more emphasis on succeeding in certain subject areas, which
indicated that parents have great influence in choosing majors for their children.
Interviews revealed that parents from both backgrounds give consent to their children to
pursue certain academic majors and disapprove of others. Since parents invested large sums of
money into their children’s education, the rule appears to be to select majors that potentially
yield a higher return on their investment. In other words, parents only deem a few particular
fields, such as medicine, engineering, and computer science, to be “safe” in terms of offering
financial stability for their children in the future. Safe fields also appear to require less subjective
judgment, such as verbal and interpersonal skills and more logic and objective data. In most
cases, parents were reluctant to acknowledge the likelihood that other fields could offer financial.
Likewise, interviews revealed that respondents also shared their parents’ sentiment. Respondents
perceived education as means of obtaining future financial security and was not undertaken for
the sake of learning or other academic pursuits.
There appeared to be slight dissimilarity in parents’ perceptions concerning their
children’s career choices along social class. Parents who resided in suburban areas (upper/middle
class) expected their children to pursue the professional career of their parents. On the other hand,
working class parents perceived that some careers were unattainable for their children. Thus,
parents would steer their children to fields which they deemed to be the next best choice, such as
pharmacy, computer science, and accounting. Available family resources appeared to
significantly affect children’s career choices. In some cases, however, interviews revealed that
differences in parents’ perceptions of their children’s career choices did not reflect their
socioeconomic class or available financial resources but were the parents’ own career aspirations.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 97

As stated earlier, a majority of respondents felt a sense of obligation to compensate for
the losses incurred by their parents upon immigration and, to some extent, to oblige to parents
request. However, some respondents had determination and will to pursue the fields of their
choice in spite of their parent’s consent. Louie (2006) identified three types of students according
to their choice of academic career. First, she described those who were “following the family
example.” Students in this category chose to pursue “Asian fields” since their parents were
already financially established and worked as professionals in those fields. Typically,
respondents in this category consisted of suburban middle-class families, and their children
shared parents’ sentiment concerning education that education would circumvent struggles and
obstacles in the future. The “Choosing what is practical” category consisted of respondents who
were forced to subscribe to their parents view because of filial obligation. For example,
respondents who may have aspired to pursue a field deemed unsafe by their parents, eventually
compromised in their career choices for the presumably safer higher paying jobs to support their
parents. Interviews revealed that respondents in this category mainly consisted of working class
Chinese who lived in an urban Chinese enclave. The last category Louie (2006) labeled were the
“reluctant rebels” who were bold enough to pursue their aspired field, deemed unsafe by their.
Although respondents in this category did not share their parents’ sentiment concerning
obtaining a lucrative career for the sake of financial stability, they stressed the internal struggle
between their aspiration and a sense of filial obligation upon deciding to pursue their field of
choice.
With regard to career choices and the gender of their children, interviews revealed a
difference in parents’ philosophy along the class line. The urban enclave Chinese respondents
endorsed their female children’s pursuits in “traditional female fields,” such as clerical worker,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 98

nurse, and flight attendant. On the contrary, parents who reside in the suburban area encourage
their female and male children to have high aspirations and professional careers such as doctors
and lawyers. However, unlike the male children, female children were expected to also carry out
family duties such as rearing their children and other household chores.
Interviews also covered aspects concerning prospects for their educational career as well
as future occupation. In most cases, respondents did not indicate anxiety concerning their
educational career, yet three-fourths of respondents from both classes indicated that prospects of
working in corporate settings upon graduation provoked anxiety. Interviews revealed that anxiety
was not associated with working but with recognizing that corporate America was not “race
neutral” when it comes to mobility (Kao, 1995; McGowan & Linden, 2003; Museus & Kiang,
2009). In most cases, anxiety derived from stories heard regarding their parents and peers’
experience of racial discrimination in the workplace, which caused them to hold pessimistic
views pertaining to race and mobility in the workplace. Furthermore, their experience and
observation of discrimination at school reinforced the notion that academic success does not
always have a direct correlation with promotion. Consequently, many respondents perceived a
lack of racial equity in workplaces and were pessimistic towards their future social mobility.
Although respondents believed that obtaining degrees would circumvent hindrances and the
struggle their parents faced, they also recognized that doing so would not necessarily protect
them against possible racial discrimination. Furthermore, in spite of their effort to embrace
mainstream culture, they recognized that race would always be a salient factor in preventing
them from fully integrating into the mainstream culture. Although many respondents were
optimistic concerning the relationship between education and future mobility, their experience
and stories they heard rendered them anxious.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 99

Louie (2006), in a cultural-ecological narrative study, focused on how second-generation
Chinese Americans internalize the relevance of education by referencing socioeconomic context.
The study sought to examine the process through which these U.S. born ethnic minorities reflect
and reexamine their culturally held assumptions regarding the link between educational
attainment and their outlooks. The study revealed that a majority of respondents held a sense of
obligation towards their parents because of their loss. However, respondents did not necessary
believe that academic achievement would guarantee their social mobility or financial security in
the future. This study revealed that second generation Chinese Americans may have been more
disadvantaged than previously considered, which further validated myth of the model minority.
Theory of Stereotype Threat
Outline for the Section
The previous sections touched concerned not only the correlation between academic
performances and stereotype of the model minority but also on the detrimental nature of the
stereotype in terms of Asian Americans’ cultural identity development, implementation of
programs to assist them, their perception of outlooks, and their career choices. Although the
stereotype appears to have a positive connotation, in that it references diligence towards
educational effort and respect for one’s elder, the literature suggested that Asian Americans
continue to struggle with racial discrimination. The myth appears to endorse the idea of equal
opportunity and of instilling the significance of merit in achieving success, while overlooking
widespread discrimination based on ethnicity. Earlier studies have often utilized oversimplified
aggregated data to arrive at erroneous conclusions regarding Asian Americans, which, in turn,
had various adverse ramifications on Asian Americans’ lives.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 100

The theory of stereotype threat, unlike the model minority stereotype, focuses on the
relationship between awareness of societal stereotype concerning one’s group and decreased
academic performance in a particular domain (Steele, 1997). Further, unlike the former, in most
cases it appears to be temporal in nature. In other words, the phenomenon appears to manifest
solely when there is a specific cue. Issues concerning achievement gaps faced by female students
in advanced quantitative areas like math, engineering, and physical sciences, and by African
Americans as compared to white Americans prompted initial study of the stereotype threat.
This section first focuses on the effects of negative stereotypes on students’ academic
performance in the domain of self-relevance and their intellectual identity in domain of
schooling (Steele, 1997). Although first article does not touch upon issues specific to Asian
Americans, it underlies the conceptual framework of the theory and explains how it affects
students’ sustained motivation for academic success. Second is a discussion concerning the
effect of individuals’ multiple dimensions of social identity and interaction on academic
performance (Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady, 1999). Shih et al. focus on both positive and negative
stereotypes of Asian women and examined the ramification of triggering positive stereotypes on
individuals’ academic performance. Furthermore, the study explored possibilities that social
identity’s association with either positive or negative stereotypes could be a culturally-bounded
phenomenon. Lastly, Cheryan and Bodenhausen (2000) examine the prospect that positive
stereotypes may also hinder the academic performance of Asian women if they are expected to
meet the high academic expectation of the Asian stereotype. The authors explore the possibilities
that both positive and negative stereotypes could impair the academic performance of Asian
women. This section further explores the implications of negative stereotypes on Asian
American’s test performance.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 101

Influence of Societal Stereotype upon Academic Performance and Identity Development
Steele (1997) sought to examine how stereotypes of groups affect academic performance
and identity development. In particular, Steele sought to describe the achievement gap faced by
African Americans and women in quantitative areas by utilizing the framework of stereotype
threat.
Stereotype threat is a socio-psychological theory that describes situational threat that
arises as a consequence of negative stereotype. In general, it can affect members of any groups
when there is a negative stereotype about that group, such as the elderly, teenage drivers, or
white men. Furthermore, those who identified with the domain being judged based on the
stereotype. In addition, those who strongly identify with the negatively stereotyped domain face
being reduced to that stereotype, which, in turn, threatens their self-identification with the
domain of interest. Issues concerning stereotype threat are especially relevant since Steele
identified a correlation between sustained school success and identification with the domain of
schooling. In other words, those who perceive school achievement as art of their self-identity
would presumably be more motivated to sustain academic success than would those who do not.
To illustrate the influence of stereotype threat, Steele (1997) described its five key
characteristics. First, stereotype threat is defined as a negative stereotype concerning the
reputation of any group and not exclusive to a particular stigmatized group. Therefore,
individuals belonging to any group may experience it. Second, in most cases, the threat is a
situational or temporal in nature, manifested solely when there is a specific cue. Third, the threat
of the stereotype differs in context and situation. Thus, the type and degree of threat experienced
by each group varies. Fourth, Steele suggested that individuals who do not acknowledge the
stereotype or believe that it capture their characteristics could also experience its effect. Lastly,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 102

the stereotype threat is difficult to overcome and becomes a “daunting” task in terms of the
domain identified. Since it is widely disseminated, disproving the validity of the stereotype in
one setting, one would need to repeatedly disprove it in different settings.
Considering the characteristics of the stereotype threat, Steele hypothesized that, when
there is threat to the domain in which individuals self-identify, they would underperform.
Furthermore, when threat is removed, individuals’ test performance would greatly improve. In
addition, having to face persistent threat in already self-identified domain, individuals would be
more likely to engage in disidentification, no longer identifying with the domain. Those who
had not already identified with the domain would be less likely to do so.
Disidentification is a process through which an individual attempts to remove self-
relevancy in the negatively stereotyped domain and to protect self-confidence. Although it offers
temporary relief from the stress associated with the threat, the process of disidentification
simultaneously diminishes an individual’s sustained achievement motivation in the domain.
Therefore, there would be serious consequences when disidentification occurs in the domain of
academic achievement. Stereotype threat in the domain of school achievement is especially
problematic for high-achieving individuals who self-identify with the domain, since it affects
their self-confidence and skills within this domain.
The study concluded that, women in an advanced quantitative field, where scoring poorly
on a difficult math test would signal a limitation of their ability, performed worse than men with
equal skills and degree of self-identification with the domain. Although men faced the pressure
of the threat, they did not necessarily experience fear of confirming limitations on their math
ability. Therefore, when participants were told that the test would yield variability in score
depending on gender, the presence of the threat caused these women, who self-identified with the
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 103

domain, to perform worse than the men. As hypothesized, when the threat was removed,
women’s performance was equal to that of their male counterparts. Therefore, Steele concluded
that women’s academic performance was hindered by the anxiety of confirming a negative
stereotype regarding their ability in math than their expected performance. Again, Steele’s result
confirmed that the effect of the threat did not elicit internal anxiety about own ability, but, rather,
a situational pressure regarding the negative stereotype about one’s group.
Stereotype threat concerning the intellectual ability of African Americans was also tested.
When the test was presented as “ability-diagnostic,” a measure of one’s intellectual ability,
participants greatly underperformed, while on an “ability nondiagnostic” test, one unrelated to
intellectual ability, participants’ scores were equivalent to those of their white counterparts.
When African American participants were asked to record their race on a demographic
questionnaire prior to the test, their performance worsened significantly as compared to the
control group who did not recorded their race. This second experiment suggested that mere
acknowledgement of negative stereotype regarding one’s race depressed academic performance.
For a third experiment, Steele and Aronson (1995) examined whether the presence of threat
would motivate test takers to avoid being stereotyped. Results suggested that African American
participants appeared to prefer values and cultures related to African Americans (i.e., hip-hop
and basketball) less in order to avoid being seen in a stereotypical manner. However, in when
African Americans do not need worry about triggering threats, they valued things that related to
their own culture. Therefore, Steele suggested that, in general, African Americans utilize “stigma
adaptation” strategy, a strategy to avert the threat temporarily by making the identified domain
less self-relevant. As results revealed, the effect of stereotype threat can be mitigated when
individuals do not identify with the domain of relevance. In other words, by disidentifying with
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 104

the domain of self-relevance, one can temporarily dispel the stigma attached to the one’s group.
However, the process of disassociation has lasting impact on those who perceive school
achievement as their self-identity.
Steele further explored how the process of disidentification affects various aspects of
stigmatized groups. First, Steele examined the self-esteem of stigmatized groups. While it may
be expected that stigmatized groups have lower self-esteem, empirical studies (Cocker & Major,
1989; Steele, 1990) suggested that the self-esteem of these group was as high as that of non-
stigmatized groups. From these studies, Steele conjectured that the threat only applies in specific
domain. Therefore, through the process of disidentification, it is possible to preserve a
stigmatized groups’ overall self-esteem. Second, Steele examined the relationship between cast-
like minorities and underachievement. Steele noted that cast-like minorities throughout world
tend to have lower school performance, higher dropout rates, and more behavioral problems as
compares to their dominant-culture counterparts. Therefore, Steele postulated that the prevalence
of disidentification in the domain of schooling among cast-like minorities is due to the negative
stereotype that undermines their intellectual ability, which, in turn, becomes a threat to their self-
identity. Third, Steele examined the relationship between African Americans’ school
achievement and their high overall self-esteem. African Americans’ overall self-esteem has a
significant correlation with the domain of peer relationships, but not with the domain of
schooling, in which they perceive themselves to have lower prospects of succeeding. Steele
found that this disidentification with the domain of school increased over time, which further
increased the academic gap between them and their white counterparts.
The study described the nature of stereotype threat as well as the ramification of the
threat upon those who self-identified with a domain. Although stereotype threat is situational in
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 105

nature, individuals disidentify with a domain in attempt to protect self-confidence. This
stereotype threat becomes problematic when individuals disidentify with the domain of school.
Although a direct correlation cannot be assumed between stereotype threat and disassociation
with the domain of school success, Steele discerned that the threat hampers one’s intellectual
identity as well as future career choices. Subsequent articles focused on the influence of
stereotype on Asian Americans’ academic achievement, specifically on the interplay between the
identity of the model minority and the stereotype threat of being women.
Positive and Negative Social Identities and Their Effect on Quantitative Performance
As noted earlier, with regard to academic performance, when there is a negative
stereotype, those who identify with that domain are likely to underperform. Dissimilar from
Steele’s study, which focused on individuals’ single dimension of social identity, Shih, Pittinsky,
and Ambady (1999) asserted that students possess many dimensions of social identity and the
activation of different identities is contingent upon social situation and presence of various cues.
Furthermore, implicit activation of these social cultural stereotypes, specifically positive or
negative stereotype associated with these identities, either facilitates or impedes test performance.
Shih et al. sought to examine how these coexisting positive and negative social identities interact
and affect tests of quantitative performance for Asian American women.
Shih et al. (1999) focused on two particular points, which they considered were not
adequately addressed by social psychologist: first, the effects various self-applied identities have
on individuals; second, the influence of positive stereotypes on test performance. First, as noted
earlier, Shih et al. asserted that individuals carry multiple dimensions of social identities and that
these self-applied identities are actuated depending on social situations or goals. For example, an
individual can identify as an Asian American, as a woman, as a mother, and as an accountant. As
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 106

noted earlier, various social identities are associated with either negative or positive stereotypes;
therefore, Shih et al. postulated that it is possible for individuals to carry opposing or conflicting
social identities, such as being Asian and a female accountant. Second, according to the authors,
social psychologist have focused solely on negative effects of stereotypes and largely omitted
cumulative effects of both positive and negative stereotypes on individuals. In other words, they
contended that, to examine the manner in which stereotypes affect test performance, it is also
important to investigate how positive stereotypes can mitigate the effects of negative stereotypes.
To examine whether implicit activation of different dimensions of social identity elicit
behavioral patterns congruent with stereotyped identity, Shih et al. (1997) examined the test of
quantitative performance for Asian American women. They sought to test whether implicit
activation of positively and negatively stereotyped social identities would facilitate or hinder test
of quantitative performance for Asian Americans. A sample population of Asian American
women was chosen since they carried both positively and negatively stereotyped social
identities; a positively stereotyped identity concerning Asian’s superior quantitative skills and a
negatively stereotypes one regarding women in a quantitative domain. The researchers
hypothesized that the activation of Asian identity would facilitate academic performance while
the activation of the identity of women would depress test performance.
Shih et al. (1997) conducted two different studies to test the hypothesis. In the first study,
they sought to discern whether implicit activation of Asian identities would enhance test
performance while female identity would depress performance. This first test was conducted in
the United States. Forty-six Asian Americans female undergraduate students, who did not
identify math as a domain of their relevance, participated in the study. Participants were
randomly assigned into either an experiment (a female-identity-salient or an Asian-identity-
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 107

salient condition) or a control group. Prior to taking a difficult quantitative test, participants in
the experimental groups were told to complete a questionnaire constructed to implicitly elicit the
targeted social identity. Afterwards, participants were asked about the difficulty of the test (self-
evaluation of the performance on the test) and for their assessment of their math ability. Results
corresponded with the hypothesis: participants in the positive social identity group, or Asian-
identity-salient group, scored the highest among three groups, yet participants in each group did
not show significant differences in number of attempted questions, guesses, assessment of their
performance, evaluation of the difficulty of the test, or assessment of their own quantitative
abilities.
On the second test, an identical paradigm was applied to nineteen female Asian students
in Vancouver Canada, which was recognized as having one of the largest communities of
recently immigrated Asians. Shih et al. (1997) postulated that, in Canada, the stereotype
concerning Asians’ superior quantitative skill would be less prevalent than in the United States.
Therefore, there would be a smaller performance gap. In accordance with their hypothesis, the
stereotype concerning Asian’s superior quantitative skill was less prevalent in Canada, and it did
not significantly influence performance on the test. Results revealed that the control group had
the highest accuracy rate, followed by the Asian-identity salient and female-identity-salient
groups. The second test suggested that stereotype is a culturally-bounded phenomenon; thus,
social identity associated with positive stereotypes, in this case Asian’s superior quantitative
skills, may not elicit similar responses when applied within the context of another culture. In
other words, in Canada, the stereotype concerning Asian’s superior quantitative skill is not as
prevalent as in United States, so Asian identity alone did not enhance test performance.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 108

Topics concerning the influence of various dimensions of social identity were explored in
this article. Unlike previous studies (Steele, 1997), Shih et al (1997) concluded that, although
implicit activation of negative social identity could impede test performance, activation of
positive identity could the mitigate effect of the negative stereotype. In addition, the study
demonstrated that stereotype is culturally-bounded phenomenon. Thus, identity associated with
the stereotype varies depending on culture. Therefore, negative stereotypes associated with
women’s inferior quantitative skills and the positive stereotype associated with Asian’s superior
quantitative skill did not yield differences in scores for Canadian participants as they did for
participants in the United States. In addition, the study revealed that an individual carries
multiple dimensions of social identities and implicit activation of any of these could either
impede or enhance test performance.
Positive Stereotype and Decreased Academic Performance
Although Shih et al. asserted that positive stereotypes facilitate the test performance, the
following study examined the manner in which positive stereotype could also possibly hinder
test performance. Shih et al. (1999) revealed implicit or “subtle” activation of positively
stereotyped social identity (Asian’s superior quantitative skills) enhanced performance on
quantitative tasks, while Cheryan and Bodenhausen (2000) argued that manipulation of an
experimental variable (Asian Americans’ superior quantitative skills) in previous research (Shih,
Pittinsky, & Ambady,1999) was so subtle that it did not invoke anxiety or concerns about groups’
reputation or failing to meet the meet the stereotype. Cheryan and Bodenhausen hypothesized
that highlighting the dimension concerning Asians’ superior math skills would not increase
performance on quantitative tasks, but, rather, create the potential for “choking” or hinder
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 109

performance when individuals are under pressure to meet the expectations of the positive
stereotype.
As discussed earlier (Steele, 1997), a negative stereotype concerning one’s groups (i.e.,
African American, women’s quantitative skills) can impair academic performance for
individuals who identified with those domains. In other words, negative stereotypes impair the
performance of stigmatized groups by eliciting psychological stress regarding how their
performance may confirm a negative assumption (low performance expectation) about their
group. Steele was mainly concerned with single dimension of social identity and its detrimental
effect on intellectual ability, while Shih et al examined ways in which multiple dimensions of
social identities influence academic performance. Shih et al. suggested that implicit and
automatic activation of social identity associated with either positive or negative stereotype could
facilitate or hinder academic performance. Shih et al. concluded that, only within Unites States,
the identity of Asian American woman depressed test performance while that of Asian enhanced
performance.
Cheryan and Bodenhausen (2000) hypothesized that enhancement of performance was
not merely due to activation of positive social identity but also to activation of cognitive
responses, such as self-confidence and expectation of success, which resulted from association
with positive stereotypes. In other words, positive stereotype associated with social identities
would most likely boost self-confidence, which facilitates performance on the quantitative task.
Furthermore, Cheryan and Bodenhausen postulated that the phenomenon of boost in self-
confidence occurs only when an individual hold expectations of success privately. However,
when such expectations are anticipated by others, individuals experience anxiety about meeting
those high expectations, which impedes test performance or elicits the phenomenon often
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 110

referred to as “choking under pressure” (p. 399). Therefore, Cheryan and Bodenhausen assumed
manipulation by Shih et al. likely caused individuals to hold expectations of success privately,
which boosted self-confidence and lead to enhanced test performance.
Cheryan and Bodenhausen (2000) sought to examine whether positive stereotype could
also impede performance. Specifically, they examined whether the positive stereotype invoked
anxiety or concerns about a group’s reputation in failing to meet the stereotype of Asian’s
superior quantitative skills. The study utilized a paradigm identical to that of the previous study.
However, unlike the previous study, which relied on manipulation of subtle cue, manipulation
utilized in this study made participants aware of the public perception concerning their ethnic
identity and the expectation of their group performance. As with the previous study, participants
were tested individually in a lab setting. They were also randomly assigned to one of three
conditions, two experimental groups (ethnicity salient and gender salient group) and a control
group. All participants in this study placed self-relevance in the domain of mathematics. Prior to
taking the test, all participants were asked to complete a questionnaire, which, in theory, makes
the targeted dimension salient except for a control group. Participants then completed
quantitative skills test and a questionnaire to assessing their reaction to the test.
Unlike the questionnaire used in the previous study, the one used here was designed
specifically to make Asian identity more salient, which would, supposedly, elicit external
pressure for positive performance or create the perception of high expectations. For example, the
questionnaire contained items such as “Overall, my race is considered good by others” or “I am a
worthy member of the racial group I belong to” (p.400). In the gender group, the questionnaire
was also similarly designed to elicit gender identity. Manipulation in this test was more likely to
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 111

present public expectation of positive performance than was the manipulation in the previous
study.
In accordance with the hypothesis, results revealed that making participants aware of
public perception of their ethnic identity and expectations of their group’s performance created
difficulty concentrating on the task at hand, which hindered their academic performance.
Therefore, significant reduction in performance was limited only when participants become
aware of public perception concerning their ethnic identity and expectation of alleged group’s
performance but improved performance when the positive identity associated with stereotype
was privately held. In addition, manipulation of gender domain did not produce “reliable”
difference in performance when comparing to the control group. Although the study did not
clarify participants’ level of self-relevance in the gender domain, Cheryan and Bodenhausen
(2000) postulated that Asian women would be less susceptible to the negative stereotype
concerning ability in quantitative domain since they may counteract it by referring to the positive
domain of identity, which would boost private confidence.
Referring to the sections concerning cultural ecological theory and the model minority
stereotype, culturally, first-generation Asian immigrant parents place significant value on
education and hard work, and they expect their children to endorse those values and succeed in
domain of school (Kao, 1995; Lee, 1994; Li, 2005; Louie, 2004; Oyserman, & Sakaomoto, 1997).
These public expectancies of positive performance or anticipated academic excellence may
evoke anxiety regarding failing to meet these expectations and may place an additional burden
on Asian American students. The study concluded that Asian women may be subject to both
positive and negative stereotypes.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 112

Theory for Social Capital in Education
Outline of the Section
The literature discussed in the previous sections focused on the manner in which
academic performance is affected by images of stereotypes and ecological and community forces.
The literature in this section provides a conceptual framework of social capital and presents the
limitations of the theory. Social capital can be defined as a social relationship that provides
resources which benefit an individual. The theory underlines the importance of social
relationships and collaboration to achieve goals like economic advancement). Despite the fact
that researchers have no consensus over the concept or precise definition of the term, it is often
referenced in the field of social science and education as a panacea for all problems in modern
society. Although the concept originated prior to Bourdieu (1977) and Coleman (1988), a
significant portion of existing educational literature on social capital during past decade
references their framework as a backbone to support hypotheses. Therefore, this section
primarily focuses on concepts of Bourdieu and Coleman to discern the benefit of social capital to
an immigrant minority population.
Dika and Singh (2002) provided an introduction to two major conceptual frameworks that
provided groundwork for research in social capital. They also addressed the limitations of this
widely referenced concept of social capital by providing empirical studies. Stanton-Salazar
(1997) utilized Bourdieu’s framework of to examine the mechanism he perceived as a
responsible for minorities’ academic failure. In contrast to Coleman’s approach, Stanton-Salazar
found role of the institutional agents to be significant as measure through the access gained from
agents instead of family structure, parent-child interaction, or a community that promotes pro-
educational behaviors, motivation, and engagement. Therefore, Stanton-Salazar’s approach is
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 113

different from Coleman’s in that he provides specific measures to gain access to resource rich
networks (social capital).
Kao (2004) and Noguera (2004) segue into the influence of social capital and the
educational outcomes of immigrant children. Noguera addressed the ways in which research
concerning minority and immigrant students evolved from categorization or generalization of
attributes to careful analysis of schooling practices. Commentary by Kao, on the other hand,
addressed three key components of Coleman’s social capital theory and suggested its relevance
to minority and immigrant students. Zhou and Bankston (1994) examined the correlations among
adherence to family values, commitment to hard work, and involvement in ethnic community,
and educational outcomes and positive academic orientation. Zhou and Bankston asserted that
immigrants might gain adaptive advantage by maintaining group membership and their original
cultural patterns. Furthermore, maintaining these provides resources for otherwise disadvantaged
immigrants such as the support and guidance needed for socioeconomic advancement.
Background and Limitations of Social Capital Theory
Dika and Singh (2002) utilized critical analysis to examine the social capital framework
by referencing journal articles, books and conference papers between 1990 to 2001, as these
became underpinnings of much educational literature linking social capital and educational
outcomes. Dika and Singh stressed the need for researchers to critically review and analyze
existing literature on social capital. Therefore, they sought to illustrate the issues pertaining to
the concept of social capital and to urge researchers to develop and apply alternative models of
social capital.
Dika and Singh (2002) divided their study into three sections. In the first section, they
discussed the characteristics of Bourdieu and Coleman’s framework of social capital. The
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 114

authors mainly focused on the conceptualization of social capital by Bourdieu and Coleman,
since significant portion of existing educational literature on social capital during past decade
were referencing their frameworks to substantiate their hypothesis (positive links between social
capital and educational outcome). Second, Dika and Singh undertook a critical review of
literature to analyze the influence of social capital on educational attainment, educational
achievement, and education-related psychosocial factors. Finally, they discussed gaps in the
conceptualization and analysis of existing educational literature.
The approach of Bourdieu and Coleman (they differ in perspectives) had been adopted by
researchers in the realm of education to discern the variability of educational achievement among
students. Pierre Bourdieu defined social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential
resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized
relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (Bourdieu 1986, p. 248). In other words,
through membership, individuals gain access to collectively owned capital either in material or
symbolic exchanges. Further, Bourdieu asserted the volume of social capital was dependent upon
the size of the network and the volume of capital (economic, cultural, and symbolic) that
individuals can mobilize. Dika and Singh interpreted Bourdieu’s concept of social capital as a
system for maintaining the status quo for the dominant group and for further strengthening their
cohesion.
Bourdieu noted that cultural capital may exist in three forms: embodied, as in mind and
body; objectified, as in culture goods; and institutionalized, as in educational qualification (p33).
The key concepts of his theory are habitus and field. According to Bourdieu, parents pass on to
their children cultural capital such as attitude and knowledge to succeed in educational system.
Field is defined as a structure of social relations and a site of struggle between individuals or
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 115

groups who endeavor to obtain different means and ends (Bourdieu, 1998). Habitus is defined as
an individual’s inherent qualities and characteristics instilled by his/her family. Much in the past
decades referenced Bourdieu to explain how class, gender, and race significantly affect
educational experience and outcome of minority children.
James Coleman (1988) defined social capital in terms of norms and social control (forms
of social capital) which promote pro-educational behaviors, motivation, and engagement.
Therefore, he considered “developing effective norms” through family structure, parent-child
interaction, and particular type of community (one with strict, traditional values that promote
pro-academic behaviors) is crucial in determining students’ educational outcomes. Therefore,
Coleman’s framework primarily focused on the positive impact of participation in particular
community. His theory, especially the aspects of family structure, parent-child interaction and
educational outcomes, gained prominence among scholars, particularly in the field of education,
after the publication of the Coleman report in 1966. Although numerous researchers utilized
Coleman’s concept of social capital, Dika and Singh (2002) asserted that not many not critically
analyzed his concept.
Social capital, according to Coleman, is “intangible.” Therefore, he did not clearly state
how individuals could obtain resources from the social structure. Specifically, his study focused
on how developing effective family norms promotes pro-educational behaviors rather on ways in
which individuals gain institutional resources from relationships and networks. Coleman asserted
there are three primary forms of social capital: level of trust, information channels, and norms
and sanctions that promote common goods (p. 33). He asserted social capital is inherent in the
structure of relationships between and among individuals and further defined by its function. In
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 116

addition, social capital consists not of single entity but of different and unique entities that
facilitate the action of individuals (Coleman, 1988).
Research trends between 1990 and 1995, primarily focused on traditional attainment and
achievement measures like GPA and achievement scores. However, in the latter part of 1990s to
the early 2000s, researchers shifted focus towards educational aspirations, school engagement,
and motivation. More recent studies placed emphasis on non-traditional student populations such
as minority populations, immigrants, low-income whites, and rural populations. Although the
existing body of research that referenced Coleman’s study provide positive links between social
capital and educational outcomes, critical analysis provided by Dika and Singh (2002) illustrated
that these researches still lack empirical support to validate their hypothesis. Dika and Singh
attributed difficulty in determining actual influence of social capital to “vague and metaphorical”
nature of Coleman’s theory. Therefore, the authors concluded that studies that referenced
Coleman’s theory were also susceptible to criticism such as difficulty in distinguishing sources
(relationship) of social capital from its benefits (resources) and determining whether the
desirable outcomes were due to individuals’ ability to access or activate social capital.
In addition to conceptualization issues, Dika and Singh (2002) also addressed some of the
methodological issues. First, measurements (i.e., number of parents, number of sibling, and
house hold size) used to assess the influence of social capital on educational outcomes were
rudimentary and arbitrary. Second, the above variables, which Coleman asserted were crucial
factors in educational outcomes, did not produce expected outcomes. Third, some of the above
variables were unreliable and did not provide detailed information regarding quality of resources
or how these variables influenced educational outcomes. Fourth, construct validity (agreement
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 117

between the concept and a specific measurement) was absent from large portion of the existing
study.
Dika and Singh (2002) introduce two major conceptual frameworks, which provided the
groundwork for research in social capital among educational researchers. Simultaneously, the
article addressed limitations of this widely referenced concept of social capital by providing
empirical studies. Analysis by Dika and Singh concluded that, although there was an increase in
references to the concept of improving schools and educational outcomes, very little provides
sufficient empirical support for a positive correlation between social capital and educational
outcomes. In addition, Dika and Singh stated that usage of the theory had become widely
accepted as a solution to persistent educational and sociological issues, yet it was “only partially
understood” (p.32) by those who used it. Although Coleman and Bourdieu’s attempt to examine
persistent educational issues should be lauded, educational researchers should be aware of its
limitations.
Network Analytic Model and Process of the Socialization and School Experiences of
Minority Students
Stanton-Salazar (1997) sought to understand the process of socialization and school
experiences of minority working-class students by referencing the concept of social capital and
institutional support. He also sought to examine issues or barriers that prevent working-class
minority children from gaining access to social capital and institutional support, which he
asserted were key aspects for school success and future socioeconomic mobility. In addition, he
explored plausible facets or measures by which minority students may overcome these deterrents
and be successful within mainstream institutions.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 118

Stanton-Salazar referenced (1997) the work of scholars such as Bourdieu (1977), Boykin
(1986), and Phelan (1993) in order to frame the concept and “advance” his network-analytic
model. He hypothesized that the persistent underperformance of minority students lies in the
existing mechanism (structural and cultural) that oppresses minorities and further “monopolizes”
institutional resources. Stanton-Salazar conducted this empirical research as a response to
dissatisfaction concerning existing theory of inequity within the area of sociology of education.
Particularly, he had reservations regarding the current social capital model that places heavy
emphasis on the role of parents, peers, and teachers in providing moral support and
encouragement as well as heightening the individuals’ motivation, aspirations, and goals.
Stanton-Salazar believed the current model could potentially victimize individuals since it placed
significant emphasis on individual effort and merit in achieving success without scrutinizing
plausible underlying structural barriers and exclusionary forces within institutions. In this study,
Stanton-Salazar primarily, focused on two aspects: systematic analysis of interpersonal networks
and development of networks based on exclusionary practice.
First, Stanton-Salazar (1997) discussed the unequal distribution of social networks. He
stated that, for lower status groups, forming relationships with institutional agents (gatekeeper
for providing access to information for obtaining various resources) requires strenuous effort as
compared to middle-class groups since networks within the mainstream sphere are constructed
based on the cultural norms of the middle class. Therefore, he described the process of forming
networks as differing vastly across social class. For the middle-class, networks serve as social
freeways, pathways to accessing various resources and to further maximizing socioeconomic
mobility, whereas for others (i.e., those in the lower class and minorities) the process of
networking within the mainstream is based on scarcity and conservation. In terms of education,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 119

Stanton-Salazar posited that dominant pedagogy was oriented toward expanding social support
networks for individuals, yet working-class schools historically had not been oriented toward
equipping children with knowledge or strategies for developing networks.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) defined institutional agents as those who can provide institutional
resources and opportunities. These individuals are generally teachers, counselors, peers, and
community leaders. Resources can be considered tangible in terms of gaining access to
information about programs at school, like mentoring programs, and about obtaining assistance
from counselors regarding college enrollment. Also, he posited that through individuals’ effort in
developing relationship with institutional agents, a group as a whole gains the resources,
privileges, and support required to maintain economic and political position. As noted earlier,
Stanton-Salazar asserted that “mobility related resources” are often vested within social capital
of middle-class. He described social capital as “instrumental or supportive relationship with
institutional agents” (p. 7). Specifically, he stated relationships and networks that allow access to
tangible institutional resources and opportunities. Stanton-Salazar asserted that various aspects of
children’s life (i.e., school success, well-being, and social integration) are heavily influenced by
opportunities to develop instrumental relationships with institutional agents throughout society.
Unfortunately, as with the distribution of social networks, for low-status children, forging
instrumental relationships outside of family is problematic.
Stanton-Salazar noted that, in order to exercise greater control over one’s life and attain
greater socioeconomic mobility, one must be able to effectively participate in the mainstream
sphere where the necessary resources are located. To acquire these resources, one must obtain
aid, which he described as “institutional support.” Institutional support can provide “various
funds of knowledge,” such as how to gain access to particular networks, which allows for
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 120

exploring various opportunities, role models, and the provision of social and emotional support
and advocacy. As noted earlier, for both middle-class and working-class children, institutional
agents play a crucial role in obtaining social capital since they act as gatekeepers who select who
should or should not have access to resource-rich networks. In addition, institutional agents are
crucial in transmitting to children secondary discourse, the socially accepted manner of using
language and proper mannerism in formal contexts that could link to “social goods” (i.e., money,
prestige, status and credentials). This discourse is built upon the culture and norms of middle-
class white community. Therefore, Stanton-Salazar asserted that scholastic ability is equivalent
to acquiring and displaying dominant social discourse rather than the display of actual
intellectual ability. This adherence to the rules of the dominant group is especially significant
because it allows individuals to exchange with institutional agents whom can provide academic
knowledge and the institutional support necessary to succeed in school. Working-class minorities,
as Stanton-Salazar posited, are disadvantaged when compare to their white middle-class
counterparts, since school rarely equips them with knowledge that activates exchanges with
institutional agents.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) asserted that, due to exclusionary mechanisms, within society, it
working-class have less success in interacting with institutional agents. He argued that barriers
are rooted in institutional settings and that at the core of the relationship between children and
institutional agents is interpersonal trust, which is built upon “ambivalence to institutional
orders”. Stanton-Salazar asserted that the root cause of minority students’ disengagement stems
from this hierarchical relationship and ambivalence to this existing order. Second, for minority
students, parental support and mentorship at times relies on institutional agents; however, the
policies and rules of an institution often take precedence over their needs. Third, due to
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 121

instructional methods deeply rooted in the social capital of a dominant culture that focuses on
higher-performing students, the intellectual talents of lower-status children are often overlooked.
Fourth, as briefly noted before, a trusting relationship between children and institutional agents is
crucial for in academic success, yet, due to policy and the institutional order by which teachers
must abide, it is difficult to forge supportive ties with teachers. Fifth, the fact that students and
institutional agents are supposedly sheltered from “rationalistic market-like” relationships that
exist in general society may impede them from forging “solidarity and mutual support.” Lastly,
similar to a previous point, due to longstanding discrimination and historical exclusionary
practices by dominant whites, minority groups often perceive institutional agents as representing
the interests of the dominant group, which is also evident from tension between underrepresented
ethnic minority communities and the dominant group.
Next, Stanton-Salazar (1997) focused on challenges for minority children, particularly on
borders and barriers. A border, as he described, is not inherently obstructive, as its primarily
function is to notify people regarding rules and requirements (i.e., acquiring a socially-accepted
manner of using language and proper mannerisms) in order to participate within a social setting.
Stanton-Salazar asserted that, for minority children, borders are often stressful and obstructive.
He used the conceptual framework of Boykin (1985, 1986) to illustrate various existing borders
(mainstream, minority, and the Black cultural experience) for minority children, particularly
African Americans. According to Boykin, each world has distinctive rules for socialization.
Therefore, decoding skills appropriate for one world does not translate to other worlds. Stanton-
Salazar stated Boykin’s concept is similar to that of Ogbu’s secondary cultural difference (1986,
1987), variance that emerges after two populations come in contact. Within the context of
mainstream institutional settings, where it impedes access to social capital for low-status students,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 122

a border can be problematic. Barriers, which Stanton-Salazar defined by using the conceptual
model of Phelan and associates (1993), can hinder minority students’ academic performance as
well as complicate social development, in particular the ability to establish supportive
relationship with institutional agents. Phelan et al. postulated that, due to socioeconomic,
linguistic, and structural barriers, working-class minority children struggle with full integration
into mainstream social settings. Both borders and barriers (Boykin, 1993; Phelan, 1993) provide
an explanation as to why minority students do not perform well at school as well as ways in
which they are marginalized in this context.
Although working-class minority students face borders and barriers, Stanton-Salazar
(1997) stated that they are not deterministic. Minority students, by means of effective
socialization and successful coping, can overcome these impediments through bicultural network
orientation. He asserted that possessing bicultural network orientation allows for crossing
borders and overcoming institutional barriers to gain entry into institutional settings where
minority students may generate social capital such as institutional support and funds of
knowledge. Furthermore, it allows minorities to tolerate institutional practices that place them in
subordinate positions as well as encouraging institutional agents to not act in discriminatory or
exclusionary manners. Along with bicultural network orientation, through successful coping
strategies, according to Stanton-Salazar, minority students can overcome various barriers and
obtain the resources necessary to accomplish developmental as well as educational goals. In
other words, effective utilization of coping strategies allows for participation in a mainstream
sphere governed by exclusionary processes and for minority students to obtain empowering
developmental and educational experiences.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 123

The social character of upper- and middle-class America, individualism, also influenced
the social development of minority students profoundly. Individualism, as Stanton-Salazar
(1997) explained, detailed the pervasive modern western ideology among industrial nations that
individuals’ life conditions, social status, and accumulation material wealth is solely dependent
upon their effort and is not a result of a “social structural process.” Problems can occur with the
concept of individualism since the dominant group asserts its values and beliefs into various
institutions without a clear definition of the highest level “human functioning.” The concept of
individualism derives from competition and the pursuit of self-interest, and is presumed to be the
highest form of human functioning and is perceived as beneficial for society. Particularly for
minority students, individualism can be problematic. Therefore, those who grew up not having
individualism as their moral foundation were more likely to be perceived as “exotic and inferior.”
Another issue pertaining to the concept of individualism is that everyone has the capacity to
make “right choices.” Thus, individuals also carry responsibility for making wrong choices.
Furthermore, it cloaks the fact that the mechanism is engineered to promote the success of the
privileged and undermine that of others. Consequently, by advocating the individualism principle
within institutional settings like schools, working-class minorities would be left without
sufficient social capital to sustain their success.
Through network-analysis, Stanton-Salazar (1997) examined the concept of social capital
and analyzed the existing mechanism responsible for minorities’ academic failure. He asserted
the dominant group controls the mechanism in a tacit manner in order to “monopolize” the
institutional resources necessary to succeed within mainstream institutions. As noted earlier, he
asserted that successful socialization for minority children is dependent upon learning or rather
“decoding the system” (p. 33). Minority children must also learn appropriate language and
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 124

mannerisms in order to activate exchanges with institutional agents. Stanton-Salazar also
illustrated that, for minority children possessing bicultural network orientation is crucial for
crossing borders and overcoming institutional barriers.
Different from Coleman’s approach, as illustrated by Dika and Singh (2002), Stanton-
Salazar (1997) emphasized the role of institutional agents and measure access gained from
agents, rather than from family structure, parent-child interaction, or type of community.
Stanton-Salazar’s approach provides specific measurement of access to resource-rich.
Furthermore, he examined the existing mechanisms that constrain minorities.
Influence on Immigrant Students
Kao (2004) and Noguera (2004) examine the influence of social capital on the
educational outcomes of immigrant children. Noguera addressed the ways in which researches
concerning minority and immigrant students have evolved from categorization or generalization
of attributes to careful analysis of schooling practices. Commentary by Kao on the other hand,
addressed three key components of Coleman’s social capital theory and suggested its relevance
to minority and immigrant students.
As with Dika and Singh (2002), Noguera (2004) also noted that the last few decades saw
a rapid increase in immigrant population, which coincided with the growing amount of research
concerning immigrant students. With increasingly diversified student demographics within U.S.
educational institutions, researchers were required to reevaluate the dominant pedagogical model
founded on the cognitive and psychological development of students of European ancestry. As
immigrant students with diverse cultures, languages, religions, and academic performance
entered U.S. educational institutions, researchers began to abandon broad generalizations
regarding the educational experiences of immigrants. In addition, researchers reevaluated the
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 125

perspective concerning a positive correlation between level of assimilation and social mobility,
which was previously accepted in terms of attaining social.
Due to the ever diversifying student body within U.S. Institutions, topics concerning race
gained significant prominence among researchers during the 1970s. Noguera (2004) asserted that
one of the most notable contemporaries to seek to explain the plausible relationship between race
and educational experience was John Ogbu (1986, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1988). Ogbu
attempted to categorize immigrants based on manner in which groups were incorporated to
explicate the variability in perception and behavior towards education and subsequent outlook. In
the 1980s, researches shifted their focus away from categorization of immigrants to address how
social and economic factors influence their adaptation. During this period, researchers were more
aware of the diversity within immigrant populations (i.e., transnational and panethnic identity)
and began criticizing previously held assumptions concerning the relationship between level of
assimilation and future social mobility for immigrants. However, another form of generalization
known as the model minority myth emerged due to Asians’ visible academic success. In
response to this generalization of outcomes based on race, yet another theory emerged to analyze
the relationship between schooling practices and academic performance. With emphasis on
participation in social networks with constituents such as students, teachers, and parents and on
the social experience of students, the concept of social capital emerged.
Noguera posited that new research, focused on mobility, socialization, and social
reproduction helped create links between the social sciences and other fields of disciplines and
further strengthened knowledge pertaining to immigrants’ educational experience and their
academic performance. Although he stated that variability in academic performance could not be
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 126

fully explicated by social capital theory alone, researchers utilize the theory in an attempt to
understand why some groups gain benefits from social capital and others do not.
Relevance of Social Capital upon Immigrant and Minority Population
Kao (2004) sought to explain the relevance of social capital to minority and immigrant
populations by referencing Coleman’s (1988) key concepts. Kao explained Coleman’s definition
of social capital as “a form of capital that exists in the relationship between people” (p.172),
which allows individuals to access various resources. Kao emphasized three key aspects of
Coleman’s social capital (obligations and expectations, information channels, and social norms)
to explain how these facilitate or hinder immigrants’ adaptation. Kao also discussed the
limitations of the concept.
First, obligation and expectations instill a sense of accountability, which provides instant
and continual access to a resource. Therefore, those who are alienated or have few friends have
less opportunity to exchange obligations or share expectations. Kao (2004) asserted that, as
compared to the native born, immigrants and minorities generally are more alienated from the
dominant society. Thus, they have a fewer opportunities to exchange obligations and
expectations, which translates to less access to resources. However, Kao assumed that, among
co-ethnic immigrants, a sense of obligation and expectation would be greater due to the shared
experiences of emigration and attachment towards their native country’s culture, language, and
religion.
Second, with regards to education, information channels like schools, teachers, and
information about college application processes were crucial for accumulating knowledge, which
subsequently influences students’ educational outcomes. Unlike for their native-born
counterparts, this information is not often readily available for immigrants. Therefore, Kao
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 127

(2004) assumed that, in the case of immigrant parents, those who know other parents with more
knowledge maneuvering through the educational system would significantly improve their
children’s educational outcome. Coleman (YEAR) argued that parents could provide social
capital when they promote activities that facilitate their children’s learning process. In other
words, Kao explained that parents could transfer their human capital, specific experiences and
knowledge that increase individual’s value in market place) to their children through parent-child
relationships. According to Kao, however, parents need to be effective agents in order to transmit
this capital. Kao described two types of social capital: potential social capital and actualized
social capital. Potential social capital is considered as capacity in transmitting social capital and
can be both negative and positive, whereas actualized social capital is instrumental or a
supportive relationship in itself. For example, Kao stated that highly educated immigrant parents
may possess potential social capital, but, if they are not fluent in either English or the social
norms of the mainstream, their social capital may not be useful in the United States.
Third Kao (2004) postulated that social capital could also be evidenced in the form of
social norms. Kao explained that social norms provide rewards as well as sanctions for behaviors.
For instance, through the effective use of social norms, community members can promote value
for pro-educational behaviors and sanctions for counterproductive behaviors. Therefore, Kao
asserted that, in conjunction with obligation and expectation, social norm could be powerful
method for controlling behaviors for individual group members. Further, Kao assumed that,
particularly among tight-knit immigrant communities, the influence of social norms would be
stronger. In addition, Kao asserted that social capital in the form of “ties” with each other would
strengthen with use and unlike other forms of social capital (i.e., monetary and human capital),
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 128

this particular form (i.e., obligations and expectations, information channels, and social norms) is
“less susceptible” to being exhausted by individuals.
As did Dika and Singh (2002), Kao (2004) noted that the realm of social science still
lacks empirical studies to precisely define the concept of social capital. As a result, there is
confusion among researchers regarding which factors or resources, such as parents’ educational
level, child-parent interaction, or teachers, are associated with educational outcomes. Another
issue associated with social capital is that a majority of researchers exclusively focus on positive
attributes and discussion of negative aspects of social capital is almost absent from existing
literature. Therefore, Kao addressed the need for researchers to focus on negative aspects of
social capital, specifically, variables that reduce children’s pro-educational behaviors and
orientation towards education.
Kao (2004) concluded that, although immigrants may have less access to social capital as
compared to native-born children, they reap greater benefits from relatively fewer resources
when. Furthermore, Kao addressed the necessity for researchers to investigate negative aspects
of social capital and simultaneously develop a more precise definition of the concept. Following
article by
Community as a Form of Social Capital
Also in terms of immigrants and social capital, Zhou and Bankston (1994) examined
ways in which this population utilizes its immigrant culture as social capital to help facilitate
pro-educational behaviors, motivation and engagement for their youth. By referencing
Coleman’s concept, Zhou and Bankston sought to examine the correlations among adherence to
family values, commitment to hard work, involvement in ethnic community, and educational
outcome and positive academic orientation. Unlike assimilationists, Zhou and Bankston asserted
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 129

that maintaining group membership and their original cultural patterns provides immigrants with
an adaptive advantage. Furthermore, this distinct form of social capital (ethnicity), directed by
their community, could serve as a resource for otherwise disadvantaged immigrants who, in turn,
provide younger generations with support and guidance needed for socioeconomic advancement.
The authors specifically examined how Vietnamese immigrants who settled into impoverish
community used their ethnic community as a resources to facilitate the adaptation process of
immigrant youths.
It must be noted that results of this study may not be generalizable, since unlike other
Asian immigrants, Vietnamese immigrants were refugees who came to the United States seeking
political asylum. Furthermore, unlike others, upon arrival they did not have a preexisting
community to provide social support. Although this study does not specifically look at the
second-generation Chinese population, it serves to illustrate how ethnic community can serve as
a resource or source of social capital for immigrants. In addition, it provides a perspective
different from that of assimilationists who assert that ethnic traits hinder the adaptation process
of immigrants.
First, Zhou and Bankston (1994) introduced assimilationists’ view to compare
researchers’ previously held notion regarding the value of ethnic culture and the adaptation
process through Coleman’s (1988) perspective. Classic assimilationists assert that immigrants
must dispose of their previous culture to be assimilated as a full member of host country.
Although complete acculturation does not guarantee full participation in the dominant culture
(Gordon, 1964), assimilationists perceive “original culture” hinders the adaption process and
negatively affects assimilation (Warner and Srole, 1945). Assimilationists generally believe the
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 130

traits of the original culture will disappear over the course of generations, which breaks down the
ethnic boundaries and allows for increased participation in society (Gordon, 1964.)
Zhou and Bankston (1994) also referenced the studies of Child (1943), who developed a
typology of immigrant youth’s cultural adaptation process to illustrate assimilationists’
perspective concerning the value of ethnic culture. Child categorized the behavioral patterns of
Italian immigrant youth based on the reaction to cultural conflict between their own ethnic
cultures and the dominant one. He classified those reactions into three patterns: rebellion, in-
group conformity, and apathy. Rebellion, as Child described, described those who abandoned
their affiliation with their ethnic group to attempt to gain membership in the dominant culture.
In-group conformity, the opposite of rebellion, applied to those who adhered to their own ethic
group in the community. Apathy described those who “gave-up” or attempted neither to gain
acceptance into the dominant culture nor to adhere to their own ethnic group. Child suggested
that rebels were the ones who would be most adjusted due to their inclination to accept a new
culture in place of their “original” ones.
Although assimilationist gained credibility on immigrants’ adaptational processes (Gans,
1979; Gordon, 1964; Warner and Srole, 1945), their subjects consisted mainly of student of
European ancestry. A growing body of research on immigrants’ adaptation process provides
compelling evidence that immigrants’ may serve them in providing resources for an adaptive
advantage. In other words, as with Kao (2004), Zhou and Bankston (1994) discerned that a
support system within the community and “positive cultural orientation” serves as a form of
social capital for an adaptive advantage. Zhou and Bankston (1994) also noted, by referencing
Coleman (1990), that stability and community’s social structure is crucial in growing social
capital. Furthermore, a community also provides support and restrictions, in the form of
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 131

obligations, informational channels, and social norms, that facilitate the adaptation process.
Therefore, Zhou and Bankston (1994) discerned that this unique form of social capital, serves as
a “cultural endowment” that provides adaptive advantage. Zhou and Bankston (1994) found that
this community-based form of social capital should be considered as a process rather than
“concrete object,” since it constantly adjusts to facilitate the adaptation process.
Zhou and Bankston (1994) examined Vietnamese immigrants who settled into an
impoverished community in New Orleans, Louisiana. They described the area as the “poorest
part of the poor area in a poor city” (p. 828). The population struggled economically, and
approximately one-fifth of households depended on public assistance. Immigrant parents in this
neighborhood had low levels of educational attainment, yet, surprisingly, compared to their
native counterparts, their youth’s high school dropout rates were much lower. Zhou and
Bankston (1994) noticed one of the salient characteristics of this community was their very high
regard for the welfare of the family. In other words, both parents and children believed that
affairs of family members must be considered prior to one’s own since they had an obligation to
one another. This mutual and collective obligation to family members and to extended families
was one of the key components in maintaining family congruity.
Also, Zhou and Bankston (1994) noticed an unusually high level of consensus over value
and behavior within the community. Interviews revealed that families do not function in isolation,
but, rather, families were interconnected through “social and kinship relations” (p. 830) similar
to what Ogbu described regarding fictive kinship (1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). Therefore,
immigrant children were not only supported by their families but also supported by the
community. According to Zhou and Bankston, these interconnected family networks serve to
reinforce norms, which include values and behavioral standards, as well as community goals. In
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 132

other words, the community acts as social agents to provide guidance for both individuals and
families to monitor, reinforce and reiterate the norm. For example, interviews revealed the main
goal of the Vietnamese community was successful integration of their youth into the mainstream
American middle-class and members believed that education was the primary means of
achieving that goal. Therefore, they adjusted their cultural patterns to aid their youth towards
educational attainment. In a sense, the community plays the role of the social agent for both
individual and the family by sanctioning deviant behaviors (i.e., dropping out of school) and
rewarding the achievement of community goals (i.e., achieving high academic performance or
receiving awards).
Interviews also revealed that family members were instilled with values of obedience,
industriousness, and of helping others, yet were discouraged from individualistic values, which
are commonly associated with dominant American society. Although they aspire to be integrated
into the mainstream American middle-class, interviews indicated that they do not necessarily
want to abandon their ethnic membership for “the sake of new affiliation.” In particular, parents
pressure children not to become “too American” (p831) by persuading them to avoid dating or
spending too much time with non-Vietnamese children. Therefore, family and community
provide value and behavioral standards for their youth, which imparts direction and guidance in
order to adapt to the core value of family and the community.
Along with a strong emphasis family importance, a high level of community involvement
was also found from the interviews. Along with high level of involvement in the Vietnamese
community, family members had “close ties” to the Catholic Church (Mary Queen of
Vietnamese Church). Interviews revealed that individual family members were integrated into
the community through the church, which not only served as a place of worship but also as a
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 133

“physical and social center” for conducting many nonreligious community activities, such as
community meetings and after-school classes for young immigrants. Civic organizations (i.e.,
Vietnamese Educational Associations, Vietnamese Parent-Teacher Association) also had close
ties to the church. These organizations used church facilities to pursue their nonreligious goals,
which provide the community with necessary resources. Zhou and Bankston (1994) concluded
that individuals and family members were interconnected to one other through the church, which
served as “focal point” for many of the community’s secular activities, and leaders of this
community accomplish their goals by working through the church. Furthermore, high degree of
consensus over value and behavior within the community was achieved through frequent
involvement in the ethnic community. Therefore, children’s strong ethnic identity, consensus
over values, and behavior standards are firmly ingrained in their ethnic culture of this community.
As noted earlier, family members were instilled with values of obedience, industriousness,
and helping others, interview of Vietnamese youth revealed that they do subscribe to these
notions as their core family value. In regards to individualistic value or one’s popularity, large
percent of students (40 percent) disregard these values as their family value. In terms of ethnic
involvement, majority of these children had friends who also belong to this community.
Furthermore, they identified themselves as Vietnamese rather than Vietnamese-American. In
addition, there was high literacy level (over 90 percent spoke Vietnamese and 55 read and write)
among these Vietnamese children. Zhou and Bankston (1994) discerned that these children
spend tremendous time and effort in acquiring these abilities since families and the community
perceive these abilities as significant and provide them with encouragement necessary to achieve
these abilities.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 134

Although the respondents settled in a poor neighborhood, often associated with low
educational attainment, high dropout rates, issues with drugs, and disciplinary problems, they
adapted well in school and outperformed other minority students who were native born. At
school, teachers perceived these children as hardworking, and, as a result, a “disproportionate”
number of children, as compared to their native minority counterparts, received academic awards.
Furthermore, data revealed that children who held strong family values, industriousness, and
community involvement, received As and Bs and planned to attend college. Therefore, Zhou and
Bankston (1994) discerned that this community promoted positive academic outcome for their
children and helped them avoid issues associated with living in poor neighborhood.
Zhou and Bankston (1994) sought to examine the correlations among adherence to family
values, commitment to hard work, involvement in ethnic community, educational outcomes, and
positive academic orientation. For these respondents, family networks and social and religious
organizations formed a source of social capital to provide resources necessary for them to adapt
into the host culture in a “Vietnamese way.” As for educational outcomes and positive academic
orientation, data revealed that immigrant youth who were involved in community and perceived
Vietnamese as their ethnic identity had better educational outcomes and outlook as opposed
those who were “over-adapted to American society.” Therefore, contrary to the hypothesis of
classical assimilationists, Zhou and Bankston found that those who retained their affiliation with
their own ethnic group had a more successful adaptation process. Zhou and Bankston noted that
immigrants with adequate financial as well as human capital may have an advantage in
assimilating into American middle-class culture, yet immigrants who lack these resources may
find ethnic resources are the only ones available to them.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 135

Summary of Literature Review
Cultural Ecological Theories and Factors that Affect Academic Achievement
This chapter examined issues faced by ethnic minorities in the U.S. educational system
by referencing cultural ecological theory, the model minority theory, the theory of stereotype
threat, and social capital theory. This chapter sought to underline the framework of four theories
and to utilize these theories as a guide to answer this study’s research questions regarding factors
that contribute to variation in academic achievement among second-generation Chinese
Americans.
In the first section, Ogbu’s (1987) cultural-ecological study was introduced to underscore
the conceptual background and theoretical framework of this research. Although Ogbu’ theory
did not specifically address the research questions, its implications concerning factors that
contribute to variability in academic performance, such as cultural and community influences,
and perception of opportunity structure was referenced to support the premise of the study. In
particular, Ogbu’s categorization of minority groups (voluntary and involuntary minorities) was
valuable in illustrating how both ecological factors (i.e., culture, context of contact situation) and
community forces influence perception (i.e., value on schooling and opportunity structure) and
behaviors (adaptive strategies) that facilitate or hinder academic performance (Fordham & Ogbu,
1986).
In general, Ogbu (1987) asserted that, when compared to voluntary minorities,
involuntary minorities have more issues with social adjustment and academic achievement. Ogbu
suggested the difference between involuntary and voluntary minorities lies in their response to
ecological factors as well as in the influence of their community which affects academic
achievement. Particularly, Ogbu focused on four key variables to differentiate between groups
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 136

and analyze academic performance: culture, collective identity, perception concerning folk
theory, and degree of trust in the public school.
Ogbu (1987) asserted that there are primarily two types of cultural differences in relation
to the dominant groups, primary cultural differences and secondary cultural differences. Primary
cultural differences exist before two population came in contact. Secondary cultural differences
are those that arise after two populations have been in contact for an extended period. Ogbu
suggested that aspects of secondary cultural difference appear to be especially problematic for
involuntary minorities in achieving academic success due to the development of oppositional
identity.
Another feature that differentiates between groups was the aspects of collective identity
and perception of their cultural difference in relation to white Americans. In general, voluntary
minorities perceive their social identity as fundamentally different from that of dominant group.
They retain their social identity or sense of “peoplehood” even after emigration. On the other
hand, involuntary minorities developed a new social identity in direct opposition to that of white
Americans in order to maintain boundaries and to combat discrimination.
Barriers to success appear to place less of a cognitive burden on voluntary minorities as
compared to involuntary minorities, since they believe they have option of returning to their
country of origin or emigrate to another country. On the other hand, involuntary minorities were
permanently incorporated into the society and do not have option of retuning to country of origin.
Furthermore, involuntary minorities see barriers to success as permanent. Both voluntary and
involuntary minorities generally believe in the folk theory of getting ahead or that education will
facilitate future success (Mickelson, 1990; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998), yet only
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 137

voluntary minorities truly believe that their academic effort will yield financial stability and
social mobility.
As with previous aspects, Ogbu asserted that trusting relationships substantially influence
students’ academic success. Voluntary minorities do not see discrimination as a collective effort
of white Americans or as permanent in nature. In contrast, involuntary minorities are less likely
to trust the public school controlled by whites. They believe that the public school will not equip
their children with a proper education or set of academic skills necessary to succeed.
Most of all, Ogbu asserted a significant difference between groups are due to the content
of the relationship with the dominant group and the existence of the oppositional quality.
Voluntary minorities overcome initial difficulty adjusting to the culture and pedagogy of the
United States and academically (Ogbu, 1987). Involuntary minorities are far less successful in
overcoming these difficulties, which thwarts their social adjustment and academic success.
Furthermore, involuntary minorities perceive academia as a prerogative of whites, so succeeding
in school or adapting standard practices of schooling is deemed as “acting-white” and is
disparaged by the group.
Although not without any flaws (Spencer & Harpalani, 2006), Ogbu’s cultural ecological
theory provided insight into the relationship between group’s perception towards education and
students’ educational outcome. In particular, the theory was useful in illustrating how the above
variables interact to influence academic performance of voluntary and involuntary minorities.
The latter part of the cultural ecological section examined how cultural ecological theory may
influence voluntary minorities’ perception and behavior towards education (Goto, 1997; Louie,
2006; Matute-Bianchi, 1986). The last three studies in the cultural ecological section were useful
in illustrating how cultural factors facilitate Asian Americans’ academic efforts and lend a hand
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 138

to affirmation of the folk theory of achieving socioeconomic mobility. Furthermore, these
articles were important in illustrating academic struggles for Asian’s at school (Goto, 1997) and
the struggles of maintaining traditional values concerning education (Louie, 2006). For example,
Goto’s study illustrated that, in some cases, to avoid conflict and ridicule for being associated
with academic superiority, Asians necessitated strategies (i.e., slacking off) to camouflage their
effort for academic stride. With regard to acculturation, some studies have illustrated that,
although later generation immigrants appear to maintain their ethnic identity, as immigrants
acculturate more into the mainstream culture their cultural orientation becomes less ethnic and
become increasingly more American oriented (Louie, 2006; Matute-Bianchi, 1986).
Characteristics of First-Generation and Later Generation Immigrants
Interestingly, in some instances, Asian Americans, are not optimistic regarding their
educational attainment and social mobility (Louie, 2006). Louie’s study discussed Asian
Americans’ perceived academic success and achievement. The model minority stereotype
section explored relatively unfamiliar topics concerning Asian Americans (i.e., varying degree of
academic achievement, psychological issues, varying degree of attitude concerning relationship
between educational attainment and future success). The literature illustrated distinct
characteristics of Asians as well as the misconception that society in general has regarding them.
Although there is a generational difference, Asians mostly hold both individualistic and
collectivistic values (Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997). Those more acculturated into the American
culture tend to subscribe to individual orientation while maintaining collectivistic cultural
orientation. Therefore, later generation immigrants perceive their group membership in positive a
light and define their identity through their group membership, while concurrently focusing on
their individualistic goals. Data revealed that individualistic cultural orientation correlated with
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 139

positive valuation of one’s group membership but not with ethnic identity. Furthermore,
individualistic cultural orientation was related with public self-esteem and connectedness.
Collective self-esteem or positive valuation associated with one’s membership was related to
both collective and individualistic cultural orientations. Overall, the study revealed that those
who perceived the stereotype label positively perceived sense of connectedness to the first-
generation immigrants who worked hard and strived towards achievement, which, in a sense,
created the image of stereotype. Those who regard the model minority stereotype as negative
focused on non-academic issues, such lacking social competence and interpersonal generosity.
As noted in Ogbu’s articles (Fordham & Ogbu, 1976; Ogbu, 1987), immigrants or
voluntary minorities believe the United States offers them and their children better opportunities
(Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987). Ogbu asserted that descendants (i.e., second, third, or
fourth-generations) are also considered voluntary minorities, since the community forces of first-
generation immigrants influence their perception of opportunity structure and value of education
(Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). Voluntary minorities appear have a positive outlook on their
prospects for socioeconomic mobility. However, a more detailed examination revealed that
immigrant parents held firm beliefs that immigration would offer better opportunities for their
children, yet they understood that it may not necessarily offer same advantages for themselves
(Louie, 2004).
Louie’s study (2004, 2006) illustrated that second-generation Chinese Americans
identified themselves as Chinese American, but they also possessed panethnic identity. Louie’s
respondents were familiar with rituals, customs and traditions associated with Chinese culture,
although a majority of them did not fully comprehend the significance or meanings associated
with these customs. Louie suggested that, rather than identifying with their parents’ culture,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 140

second-generation Chinese developed their distinct culture. In addition, most respondents
reported that Chinese fluency came not from their parents but from media and peers. Therefore,
participants showed low levels of bilingualism in terms of speaking, reading, and writing. Louie
asserted that, due to lack of language fluency and interest in their ethnic culture, there was gap
between first and second generation in terms of appreciation and valuation towards their culture
and heritage.
With regard to their success (i.e., educational attainment and social mobility), Louie’s
study revealed that second-generation Chinese Americans used panethnic frame of reference to
compare themselves to other coethnics. Respondents acknowledged that others perceive them as
academically successful and financially stable, and these expectations place an extra burden
upon them. Louie’s study (2004) revealed that growing up in transnational culture does not
necessarily guarantee that children will develop transitional frame of reference. In addition, the
study illustrated the significant influence of ethnicity upon second generations’ perception
concerning their educational outcomes and social mobility. Louie concluded that, when
examining perception of education and mobility, multiple frames of reference must be taken into
consideration.
Views on Education
Voluntary minorities are more prone to believe in folk theory or meritocratic means of
achieving socioeconomic mobility (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987). Although research
suggested that some later generation immigrants do not necessarily believe that academic
achievement guarantees their social mobility or financial security (Lee, 1994; Louie, 2004, 2006),
generally, second-generation Asians also subscribed to traditional cultural values held by first-
generation immigrants (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Goto, 1997; Li, 2003; Matute-Bianchi, 1986;
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 141

McGowan & Lindgren, 2003; Museus & Kiang, 2009; Ogbu, 1987; Oyserman & Sakamoto,
1997). Studies revealed that later generation Asians endorsed these cultural values due to the
community forces of first-generation immigrants (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). Furthermore, their
belief in the importance of education was evidenced by their desire to attain postsecondary
education (Goto, 1997). In addition, research indicated that both first-generation immigrant
parents and their children, with exception of Pacific islanders, had higher educational aspiration
than did their white counterparts (Kao, 1995). Therefore, higher educational aspirations motivate
Asians to achieve higher grades, and higher grades reinforce educational aspirations.
Research pointed out that parental behavior towards education is culturally distinct from
other ethnic groups (Kao, 1995). Data suggested that Asian families invest significantly more on
children’s educational endeavors when comparing to white counterparts. Children also endorse
the value of hard work and strive for higher academic achievement. Data revealed that Asian
parents reward solely academic success (Kao, 1995). Asian parents expressed little interest in
children’s school experience, yet expected their children to achieve exceptionally high academic
success.
Research revealed that, through observing parents’ adversity and struggle upon
immigration, students came to believe that education was a means to circumvent struggles and
obstacles their parents faced. Further, research suggested that respondents’ sense of filial
obligation and striving for academic success were driven by their attempt to recompense for their
parents’ loss (Goto, 1995, Lee; 1994; Louie, 2004).
With regard to choice of major, studies (Kao, 1995; Louie, 2004) revealed that parents
have significant influence in in their children’s choice of major, and children reciprocate by
placing more effort towards succeeding in certain subject areas. Also, research revealed that
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 142

Asian Americans excel in quantitative fields not due to innate ability but through hard work.
Respondents also shared their parents’ sentiment concerning choosing majors and articulated a
general belief that a degree in those fields would yield higher financial rewards. Further research
revealed that for most part, respondents perceived education as a means to and ends (Louie,
2004).
There was a slight dissimilarity in parents’ perceptions concerning their children’s career
choices along social class. Louie’s study (2004) revealed that parents who resided in suburban
area, which tend to be upper/middle class, expected their children to pursue the professional
career of their parents. On the other hand, working class parents perceived that some career are
unattainable for their children, so they steered their children to fields deemed to be the next best
choice. Available family resources also appeared to significantly affect children’s career choices.
In some cases, however, parents’ perception towards their children’s career choices did not
reflect their socioeconomic class or available financial resources, but the parent’s own career
aspirations. Regarding the gender of their children, the study revealed a difference in parents’
philosophy along class lines. Working class Asian parents preferred their female children pursue
a “traditional female field.” On the contrary, upper/middle class parents encouraged their
children of both genders to have high aspirations for professional careers. However, females
were expected to also carry out family duties (Louie, 2004).
Myth of Model Minority Stereotype
Although Ogbu (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998)
provided important insight into the relationship between groups’ perception towards the value of
education and degree of educational attainment, the process of categorization inadvertently
portrays voluntary minorities in a stereotypical light (i.e., high achievers and financially
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 143

successful). Another issue with Ogbu’s cultural ecological analysis is that voluntary minorities
were described as homogenous groups who share similar social identity, value on education, and
perception on opportunity. Furthermore, categorization unwittingly portrays two groups in a
dichotomous light, highlighting academic success of voluntary minorities while underscoring
academic failure and social adjustment issues of involuntary minorities. In addition, the process
of categorization portrays voluntary minorities as not facing issues concerning academic
achievement and social adjustment.
Although aggregated data appear to show Asians have high educational attainment and
high income level (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987), desegregated data revealed otherwise.
Research revealed that Asian Americans are heterogeneous population with different income
levels (Kao, 1995), educational levels (Kao, 1995), and educational achievement (Kao, 1995;
Lee, 1994; Li, 2005; Louie, 2004, 2006; Museus & Kiang, 2009). Although aggregated data
suggest Asian Americans in general are faring well compared to other minorities, only a
subgroup of Asians meets the criteria for the model minority stereotype.
Discussion concerning the model minority stereotype revealed that it seems to portray
Asian Americans in a positive light, yet it does more harm than good (Li, 2005; McGowan &
Linden, 2003; Museus & Kiang, 2009). Critical scholars (McGowan & Linden, 2003) argued
that positive stereotypes conceal negative views about Asians. In general, many critical scholars
are skeptical of the manner in which Asian Americans’ success is portrayed in the media and
scholarly journals, since they believe the success story was mainly used to further the agenda of
whites and to establish their political and cultural hegemony (McGowan & Linden, 2003).
Research presented regarding the model minority stereotype pointed out several
deleterious consequences (Li, 2005; Louie, 2004, 2006; McGowan & Linden, 2003; Museus &
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 144

Kiang, 2009). First, the stereotype distorts the truth and conceals Asian Americans’ need for
assistance or government programs (Li, 2005; McGowan & Linden, 2003; Museus & Kiang,
2009). Second, the stereotypical image of the successful Asian also distracts recognizing the
pervasive and mordant nature of discrimination against Asian Americans (McGowan & Linden,
2003; Museus & Kiang, 2009). Third, it reinforces the idea that anyone can attain success
regardless of race or ethnic background (McGowan & Linden, 2003; Museus & Kiang, 2009).
Fourth, the stereotype instills the mindset that those who failing to achieve success put forth
insufficient effort or inherently lack ability to succeed (Li, 2005; McGowan & Linden, 2003;
Museus & Kiang, 2009). Furthermore, it is used as argument against the need for providing
special support or government programs for African Americans and Latinos. The stereotypes,
then, create tensions between Asians, and African Americans and Latinos (Li, 2005; McGowan
& Linden, 2003; Museus & Kiang, 2009). Fifth, the stereotype conveys the image of Asian
American as perpetual foreigner (McGowan & Linden, 2003).
Overall, researchers suggested that the label of model minority is harmful to Asian
Americans, and particularly damaging to low-achieving Asian students. Noted in Li’s study
(2005), the stereotype influenced the development of intellectual identity and expected
performance. Those who do not fit the image may develop psychological and emotional issues.
Furthermore, perception and belief of Asians as high achievers and socially well-adjusted means
they do not seek or request resources or support (Museus & Kiang, 2009). Studies revealed that
Asian American, as a group, seek counseling services less frequently than other groups (Museus
& Kiang, 2009). Asian Americans who perceive the label of model minority positively have a
tendency to interpret academic failure as sign of dishonor to them and, most importantly, to their
family (Lee, 1994; Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997). Although, culturally, Asians prefer to use
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 145

avoidance strategies in dealing personal challenges and difficulties, they may still require or
necessitate services on campus.
With regard to folk theory or meritocratic beliefs of attaining success, research regarding
the model minority stereotype revealed that level of educational attainment does not always
predict future socioeconomic mobility for Asian Americans (Kao, 1995; McGowan & Kiang,
2003). Some studies have shown that, in spite of Asian Americans’ high educational
achievement, they do not necessarily receive the remuneration that corresponds with this
attainment (Kao, 1995; McGowan, 2003). In addition, American whites who believe the
stereotype of Asian Americans also believe they are not discriminated against at work
(McGowan & Linden, 2003). However, research revealed that Asians were, in fact,
discriminated against at work and experienced job ceiling (Kao, 1995; Louie, 2004). Asians
appeared to be successful in academic field, yet they believe in limitations to how far they can
move up the corporate hierarchy (Kao, 1995).
In terms of prospects for their educational career as well as future occupations, research
revealed that, in most cases, Asian Americans did not experience anxiety concerning their
educational career, yet a large percentage noted that prospects of working at corporate settings
upon graduation provoked anxiety (Louie, 2004). Furthermore, research revealed that anxiety
was not associated with working but with recognizing that corporate America was not “race
neutral” when it comes to mobility (Kao, 1995; McGowan & Linden, 2003; Museus & Kiang,
2009). In most cases, anxiety derived from stories they heard regarding their parents and peer’s
experience of racial discrimination at workplace (Louie, 2004). Furthermore, their experience
and observation of discrimination at school reinforced the notion that academic success does not
always have direct correlation with promotion at the workplace. Although many Asian
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 146

Americans believe that obtaining higher education and embracing and mainstream culture would
help circumvent hindrances and struggles that their parents faced, they also recognized that
obtaining degrees from college would not necessarily protect them against possible racial
discrimination in the future.
Although Asian Americans do not face struggles with social and academic achievement
(Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987), they have difficulty with social adjustment due to the
stereotype and possible conflict with out-group members (Goto, 1997; Lee, 1994; Oyserman &
Sakamoto, 1997). Studies suggested that, in most cases, Asian Americans placed a premium on
succeeding in the domain of academia, at times, Asians also highly value maintaining
harmonious relationships with other group members in order to not draw unnecessary attention
to themselves for being high achievers (Goto, 1997; Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997). As studies
have suggested, Asians generally have strategies to avoid being perceived stereotypically (i.e.,
Asian as high achievers) (Goto, 1997; Lee, 1994; Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997). Careful
examination also revealed a difference in strategies in terms of dealing with the label of model
minority stereotype (Goto, 1997). Furthermore, studies revealed signs of affective dissonance
among these individuals. In other words, students who display noncompliant behavior have
adapted oppositional qualities, similar to what Ogbu described regarding African American’s
maladaptive behaviors (Goto, 1997).
One other deleterious effects of the model minority stereotype is that it instills the
mindset are inherently lacking in effort or ability, which allows the dominant group to blame
other minority groups for their failure (Li, 2005; McGowan & Linden, 2003; Museus & Kiang,
2009). In addition, studies illustrated that the stereotype is likely to induce and heighten parents’
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 147

educational fever: high expectation and aspiration for children’s educational achievement (Li,
2005). Studies also revealed that low-achieving students were especially art risk.
Effect of Stereotype Threat upon Academic Performance
The section regarding stereotype threat focused on the relationship between awareness of
societal stereotype concerning one’s group and decreased academic performance in a particular
domain (Steele, 1997). Research revealed that unlike effect of model minority stereotype effect
was temporal in nature. This section further explored implication of negative stereotype upon
Asian American’s test performance.
First, articles in this section revealed a significant relationship between domain of
relevance and academic success. For example, if individuals perceive academic achievement and
school success as important and this becomes part of their self-identity, these individuals are
most likely to invest effort in excelling at this particular domain. However, it becomes
problematic when individuals perceive these self-identified domains to be threatened. Although
stereotype threat is situational in nature, individuals who identify with the stereotyped domain
are likely to disidentify with that domain in an attempt to remove self relevancy of the domain
and protect self-confidence. This threat becomes problematic when individuals disidentify with
the domain of school. Furthermore, research suggested that the threat may also hamper
intellectual identity and future career choices (Steele, 1997).
Second, research revealed that the threat is a culturally-bound phenomenon (Shih, et al.,
1999). In addition, individuals carry multiple dimensions of social identity and implicit
activation of different dimension of identities could either impede or enhance test performance.
Therefore, it is possible that implicit activation of negative social identity can be mitigated by
activation of positive identity (Shih et al., 1999).
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 148

Third, when individuals are made aware of public perception concerning their ethnic
identity and expectations of their group performance, they had difficulty concentrating on the
task at hand, which consequence hindered their academic performance. Therefore, there was a
significant reduction in performance when participants became aware of public perceptions
concerning their ethnic identity and expectation of their group performance but performance was
improved when the positive identity associated with stereotype was privately held (Cheryan et al.,
2000). In addition, studies suggested the possibility that public expectations of positive
performance or anticipated academic excellence by parents evoke anxiety and place an additional
burden on students. The study concluded worrisome prospects that Asian women may be subject
to both positive and negative stereotype.
Social Capital and Its Relevance for Immigrant Students
Literature in this section provides conceptual frameworks of social capital as well as the
limitations of the concept. The concept provides useful insight into the adaptation process of
minority immigrants.
Dika and Singh (2002) introduced two major conceptual frameworks, which provided the
groundwork for research in social capital among educational researchers. Simultaneously, the
article addressed limitations of this widely referenced concept. Dika and Singh concluded that,
although there was an increase in educational literature referencing the concept to improve
schools and educational outcomes of students during recent years, only a few studies provided
sufficient empirical support for a positive correlation between social capital and educational
outcomes. Therefore, Coleman and Bourdieu’s attempt to examine persistent educational issues
should be lauded, but educational researchers should be aware of its limitations.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 149

Stanton-Salazar, through network-analysis, examined the concept of social capital and
analyzed the existing mechanisms responsible for minorities’ academic failure. He asserted that
dominant group controls the mechanism in tacit manner in order to “monopolize” institutional
resources necessary to succeed within mainstream institution. As noted earlier he asserted that
successful socialization for minority children is dependent upon learning “decoding the system”
(p33) and being able to participate within mainstream sphere in order to gain access to resource
rich networks. Stanton-Salazar also illustrated it is crucial for minority children to possess
bicultural network orientation to cross borders and overcome institutional barriers, since it keeps
them from completely detaching themselves from their community and assimilating into
mainstream social world, which can have detrimental cognitive and psychological consequences.
Stanton-Salazar emphasized the role of the institutional agents as measured in gaining access to
needed resources. Therefore, Stanton-Salazar’s approach is different from Coleman’s in that he
provides specific measure in gaining access to resource-rich networks. Furthermore, he
examined the existing mechanisms that place constrains for minorities in gaining those resources.
Kao (2004) and Noguera (2004) segue into the influence of social capital and the
education outcomes of immigrant children. Noguera posited that new research, which focused on
mobility, socialization, and social reproduction helped create links between social science and
other field of disciplines and further strengthened knowledge pertaining to immigrants’
educational experience and their academic performance. Although variability in academic
performance cannot be fully explicated by social capital theory alone, researchers use the theory
to understand why some groups benefit and others do not. Kao concluded that, although
immigrants may have less access to social capital, they reap greater benefits. Furthermore, Kao
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 150

addressed the need for researchers to investigate the negative aspects of social capital and
develop a more precise definition of the concept.
Zhou and Bankston (1994) sought to examine the correlation among adherence to family
values, commitment to hard work, and involvement in ethnic community, and educational
outcome and positive academic orientation. For the Vietnamese respondents, family networks,
social and religious organization provided the resources necessary to adapt into the host culture
in a “Vietnamese way.” Data revealed that immigrant youth who were involved in the
community and perceived Vietnamese as their ethnic identity had better educational outcomes
and outlook. Therefore, immigrants who retained their affiliation with their ethnic group were
more successful adaptation processes.
Conclusion
Chapter two provided the theoretical background and empirical research relevant to this
study. This section was arranged chronologically to examine the progression of the three main
theory referenced in this chapter. Cultural ecological theory addressed importance of
environment and community forces in terms of students’ behavior and perception towards
education. This theory was useful in framing the issues pertaining to academic underachievement
of minorities and plausible key factors that affect their performance. The model minority theory
addressed issues particular to Asian Americans regarding how a seemingly positive stereotype
can have adverse effects on students’ ethnic, intellectual, and psychological development. The
theory of model minority is useful in illustrating pervasiveness of the stereotype concerning
Asian Americans and issues that often largely omitted in the academia. The theory of stereotype
threat was utilized to discern the effect of negative stereotype on a particular domain in which
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 151

individuals identify as self-relevant. This theory was important in addressing the relationship
between sustained academic success and domain of self-relevance in school.
This chapter was also meant to frame the research questions and to provide rationale for
selecting the methodology discussed in the subsequent chapter. The next chapter discusses
methodology for addressing the research questions posed in the previous chapter.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 152

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter outlines the methodology that was utilized to discern variables that
differentiated high performing and average performing Chinese heritage students at a four-year
university (Miramar University) and community a community college (Montevista Community
College). This qualitative research sought to examine the difference in how high and average
achievers’ for the following research questions (see appendix A): 1) response and perception to
the treatment by the dominant society; 2) perception of model minority ideology and its impact;
and 3) perception of their caretakers (i.e., institutional agents). Underlying assumption of this
research is that generally Chinese-Americans attending the University would have higher
academic performance (GPA and SAT scores) and students attending the community college
would have average academic performance or lesser compare to counterparts. Qualitative
method, retrospective interview concerning their high school experience, were used to compare
and analyze against four-theoretical frame (cultural ecological theory, model minority theory,
theory of stereotype threat, and social capital theory) introduced in chapter two. The overall aim
of this study was to examine implications of exaggerated academic excellence portrayed by the
stereotype upon students’ academic performance and their career plans. Also, the study
examined significant factors that facilitated or hindered their academic performance while
attending high school.
For my first research question, which is the association between the role of the dominant
society in shaping education policy for minority, remuneration for their academic degrees, and
perception for folk theory, and response to their treatment in broad society and in school, Ogbu’s
cultural ecological theory (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) was
referenced. Although Ogbu’ theory did not specifically address the research questions, its
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 153

implication concerning factors that attribute to variability in academic performance, such as
perception of structural opportunity, formation of collective identity, oppositional identity,
oppositional cultural frame of reference, was referenced in attempt to answer the first question.
For my second research question, the theory of model minority stereotype is explored in
conjunction with previous theory to ascertain feasible explanation for variability in academic
performance among Chinese heritage students. Unlike previous section, articles compiled in this
section involved discussion regarding subjects matters which are particular, but not exclusive, to
Asian American. The model minority theory and stereotype threat theory was referenced in
attempt to answer second research question, which is how the stereotype of Asian’s academic
prowess would affect high and low achieving Chinese heritage students.
For the third research question, model minority theory and theory of social capital was
referenced in attempt to answer, how educational caretakers treat high performing and average
performing Chinese heritage students. Here I focused on the role of institutional agents (teachers,
counselors, and administrators) and the importance of their support. The third research question
investigated how the stereotype of Asian influences perception and behavior of caretakers, which
in turn influence high and low performing Chinese heritage students.
All three theories were referenced in order to discern ways in which students’ responses
to all previous factors affected postsecondary educational plans and career plans. I referenced
these four conceptual frameworks as guides to the analysis of qualitative data.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 154

Sample and Population
Miramar University
The Miramar University is a private non-profit research university that is located near a
major metropolitan area. The university has high-level research activities and receives various
grants. It is the oldest private research university in the State (established 1880) and hosts the
largest number of international students (7115) in any universities in the United States. The
university enrolls 36,896 students (17,380 undergraduate and 19,516 graduate and professional
students). The male-female ratio at the university was reported to be approximately one-to-one.
Student demography consists of 22.6% Asian, 13.9% Hispanic/Latino/Chicano, 4.6% African
American, and 40.9 Caucasian. Students are generally selected from 31.2% from vicinity of
metropolitan area, 20.9% from other places within the state, 39.5% from the nationwide, and
8.9% from overseas (Factsheets),
Montevista Community College
The Montevista Community College is a public community college and has one of the
highest student enrollments in the nation. The college is located in nearby large metropolitan
area and home to another prestigious university known for science, seminary school and
museums. The college prides itself of one of the highest student transfer rates to four-year
universities. The male students made up 53.8% and female students 46.2% of the population.
The demographic of student consist of 32.9% Asian/ Pacific Islanders, 35.9% Hispanic, 6.5%
and African American. The College attracts students from several nearby cities (Factsheets.)
Both Miracosta University and Montevista Community College were chosen for three
reasons: 1) host large Asian students (22.6% and 32.9% respectively); 2), close proximity to one
of the large Chinese enclave; and 3) is a diverse learning environment near major metropolitan
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 155

area. Name of the participants and collaborators remained anonymous to assure privacy.
Participants consisted of two female and male students from Miracosta University and two
female and male students from Montevista Community College.
Participants consisted of Chinese-heritage students who attended at least three years of
high school in the US. Students and those who did not have a reasonable command of English
were excluded from the research since English proficiency and how it shaped postsecondary
opportunity was beyond this study’s scope. The study also required participants to reside in close
proximity to the Chinese community enclave. Participants were classified into four distinct
groups for this study. First and second group comprised two male and two female students
enrolled in Miracosta University who received cumulative high school GPA of 3.0 or higher.
These groups were referred to as High-performing groups. The third and fourth groups were
comprised of two male and two female students currently enrolled at Montevista Community
College who received cumulative high school GPA of 2.5 to 3.0. These groups were referred as
Average-performing group.
Table 1
Operational definitions and four comparison groups
High and Average groups High-performing group
(Earned high school GPA
higher than 3.0; currently
attending Miracosta
University)
Average-performing group
(Earned high school GPA
between 2.5 to 3.0 GPA;
currently attending
Montevista Community
College)
Male students Two Chinese-heritage male
high-performing students
from Miracosta
Two Chinese-heritage male
average- performing
students from Montevista
Female students Two Chinese-heritage
female high-performing
students from Miracosta
Two Chinese-heritage
female average-performing
students from Montevista

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 156

Instrumentation
I first identified students that meet above sample criterions and then obtained written
consent for me to interview them and allow me to record interview sessions for later data
analysis. Having these four comparison groups allowed me to examine intra- and inter-group
differences in accordance with the proposed research. Equal number of male and female students
(2 each groups) were chosen for the purpose of research. Ethnographical interview were used to
interview students in each group (Appendix C). The results of these interviews were analyzed
and coded for addressing each research questions for each groups. Each set of interview
questions reflected the four-theoretical models that were introduced in chapter three; however
some of the questions overlapped with one of more theoretical models. Those questions that
overlapped were indicated with asterisks.
First, research subjects were asked background information (Appendix B). Their
responses helped me to hone a brief biographical sketch of each participant to situate them
within the context of their experiences and responses. After interviewing basic background
information I conducted approximately forty to fifty minutes interview based on four theoretical
paradigms introduced in chapter three. There were subcategories within questions and they were
indicated with alphabets (a, b, c, etc.) after the number. Questions would not be asked in
sequential order and, when it did not apply, not all questions were asked during each interview
sessions. Questions one to seventeen were asked to examine school culture at participants’ high
school (cultural-ecological theory). Questions eighteen to forty sought to examine question
regarding their academic experience and their ethnic identities (model minority and stereotype
threat). And forty-one to fifty-two examined participants’ culture and their perception of future
success (social capital theory) (Appendix C).
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 157

Data Collection
I completed the IRB process in in the middle of September and upon completion and
approval from the office of IRB I contacted the Asian Pacific American Student Services Center
located on Miracosta University main campus to select potential candidates for this study. For
Montevista Community College participants, I contacted their student affairs office and a
professor was contacted for inquiry regarding the target population. The first interviews were
carried out from the beginning of October 2013. All interviews were conducted early in the
academic year to avoid disruption to the students’ academic program and the school day.
Data Analysis
For the data analysis and interpretation I employed Creswell’s’ six step analysis. First, I
transcribed recorded interviews and organize according to four categories. Second, based on the
data collected for each group I attempted to obtain theme and common characteristics of
participants. Also each group was compared with other to ascertain general sense of information
obtained through the interviews. Third, I began coding process with data (Appendix D). The
process involved with collected data into categories with terms based on the language that was
actually used by participants. Fourth, from the previous process I generated emerging theme for
analysis using the four theoretical frames. Fifth, I described emerging theme and data into
qualitative narrative to convey the findings of the analysis. Sixth, I interpreted the meaning of the
data and also addressed congruency/incongruency between the four theoretical models.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 158

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter the results of compiled data (interview results) are analyzed and presented.
As noted in previous sections, the data were collected by utilizing interview schedules which
were based on theoretical frames presented in chapter three, and then processed in response to
the problem posed in chapter one of the dissertation. While the results may not be generalizable
due to the limited scope and number of participants, the goal of this study is to illustrate
educational experiences of two groups of Chinese heritage Americans, both high- and average-
achieving students in a similar school and social context to examine social and educational needs
of these cohorts.
To better illustrate participants’ educational experience and how it contributed to
development of students’ ethnic and intellectual identities as well as their perception of their
future, this chapter will at first, present brief vignettes of each students from the four-year
university and the community college. To protect their anonymity, which includes personal
names and school names, participants were given a pseudonym.
Four out of five high achieving samples from Miracosta University were gathered from
using contacts from Asian Pacific American Student Services (APASS) by means of referral. As
for the participants from Montevista Community College, a professor from the history
department was contacted and again by referral students were selected for the interviews. The
interviewees were also referred through social networks of past interviewees who met the criteria
(Chinese heritage students who attended high school for at least four years).

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 159

Background Information of Participants
High Achievers
Daisy Lee is a high-archiving student who identifies as Chinese American. She described
her ethnic identity as “in between Chinese and American.” She is an only child, born in
Monterey Park California from parents who emigrated from mainland China while in their
twenties. She stated that approximately half of her relatives live in the United States, mostly
California and some in New York, and in China. She stated that her parents have some college
education.
Daisy took Advanced Placement and Honors classes and earned almost straight A’s.
Daisy described her grade point average as almost A’s and participated in various extracurricular
activities (National Honors Societies, social clubs). Although she was accepted to another
prestigious four-year universities, she decided to enter Miracosta University since they have
offered full scholarship whereas other colleges were not offering attractive financial packages as
compare to Miracosta University. She hinted a slight disappointment for not able to attend
another prestigious university in the same city, but she stated that she does not regret her
decision to attend Miracosta University. Currently she is volunteering and working at a law firm
and strives to be an attorney.
Linda Wang is also a high achieving student who identifies herself as Asian American as
her primarily ethnicity and secondly as Chinese American. Although there are various ethnicities
within Asian cultures, Linda believed that Asians who grew up in America shares similar
experiences, characteristics, and bonds. Prior to enrolling in this college she contacted Asian
Pacific American Student Services (APASS), which provides programs and services for students
of Asian descent and educational opportunities for the entire campus. Currently she serves as an
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 160

information specialist at APASS to inform others regarding programs that they offer. Linda also
stated that she would like to pursue her graduate study in psychology that places special
emphasis on issues regarding Asians population.
Linda stated she has been always been a straight A student since primary school. She
believed that her workload was not much and that any students who put effort generally received
A’s. However, the private high school she attended was in some ways more rigorous than some
of the college courses. She believes in the value of hard work yet also believes that one needs to
maintain balance between school and social life. She stated “most important thing is having good
time in college. So being social enough but also do well in classes so that I would be able to get
grades that I want for graduate school.”
Kimberly Lim, unlike the previous students, was born outside of the United States and
her family migrated while she was in middle school. However, she identified herself as Asian
American since many of her friends are Asian Americans. Also as with Linda, Kimberly
believed Asians in America share common experiences and culture. Although Kimberly
identifies herself as Asian American, she commented that she adopted some of the values of her
parents, such as work ethics and diligence, partially due to close ties that she shares with her
parents.
Kimberly attended one of the nine specialized public high school in New York City,
which was established by New York City Department of Education to serve the needs of
academically talented students. Potential candidate had to have high scores on the entrance exam.
Although, Kimberly stated that not being a native English speaker she struggled with writing
classes; but she managed to be placed in to the top two percent of her class. She stated that her
parents encourage her to pursue pharmacy for financial stability and currently she is in the pre-
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 161

pharmacy program at Miracosta University. She believes that one of the main reasons for
pursuing higher education is to gain better opportunities for obtaining a financially sound and
stable career.
Steven Wu was born in Hong Kong and migrated into United States when he was seven
years old. He attended international school where the core curriculum was taught both in English
and Chinese; therefore he was able to converse in Chinese colloquially. He had expressed
ambivalence toward his ethnicity. Steven had indicated that his ethnicity as “somewhat of limbo”
between Asian American and Asian since he is immigrant himself. He also indicated that he
“connects” better with Asian Americans since he had many friends who had an Asian heritage.
However, he stated that his ethnicity depends on the context or rather whom he surrounds
himself with. He added that he respects and has appreciation for the core values of the first
generation especially regard to education and hard work; yet he may not agree with “ordinary
things” which he attributed to a disparity in cultural experience that occurred as a result of
differences in historical context in which he spent his formative years.
He attended a highly competitive private school which he described as dominantly white;
yet there was a strong presence of minorities on campus. He took honors courses, which were
equivalent to AP courses in science and math and did well in those courses during junior and
senior years. Steven stated that he always had aspirations to be a physician in spite of his parents’
reservation. He stated that choice of career was not particularly influenced by social factors
(parents, relatives, or peers) but that he always had respect and admiration for physicians. He
added if the goal were to obtain a lucrative job with financial security, he would not pursue the
career that takes the longest amount of schooling, which requires large sum of resources.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 162

Keith Zhao was born in New York but move to Hawaii when he was six-years old. Keith
is a younger sibling of two born from Taiwanese immigrants. He attended a private religious
affiliated high school. He described Hawaii is a good place to grow up; however he felt as
though they did not offer postsecondary education that was necessary for him to succeed in life.
He stated, “Hawaii was ranked the worst state for public education; so most of the high
achieving students go to private schools. Some make it from public school to great schools
(postsecondary institutions) but very few.” He described the religiously affiliated private high
school he attended as not being known for academics but placed more emphasis on a nurturing
environment, “family oriented teachings and treat others like family”, a theme that is prominent
in Christian teaching. Although he described his parents as “Americanized”, Keith identifies with
his parents’ principle value, “doing well in life and family first.” He described his ethnic identity
as Taiwanese not as Asian American. Currently he is pursuing a career in business
administration.
Although Keith is a high achiever, 4.2 accumulative GPA in AP and honors classes and
second in line with the valedictorian of his class, unlike other interviewees, he described himself
as not as focused on academic matter but more on social aspects such as networking. He
perceived that the environment and peers have the biggest impact on his life. He described
himself as a “trouble maker” and got into fights a lot when he was attending public middle
school. He explained that is the reason he was pulled out of public school and send to private
school. He believes that public setting shaped him to be aggressive and violent.
Average Achievers
Mike Shin is twenty-three years old and was born in China and came to the United States
when he was nine years old. At age of thirteen he was naturalized. His mother married a
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 163

Caucasian person and adopted his cousin so that he could attend high school with him in the
United States. He noted that his mother enjoys socializing with Caucasians rather than Chinese.
However, marriage, according to Mike did not last too long due to his substance abuse and
domestic violence. Upon divorcing her husband she decided to live near her sister in California.
Mike identified himself as Chinese American yet perceived his ethnic identity as Chinese.
He commented that most of his families and relatives still reside in China. His first impression of
California when he visited was “like heaven” compare to China where cities were heavily
polluted and there is a scarcity of materials. He grew up in Oklahoma with his mother and his
stepfather until the sophomore year of high school and then transferred to a public school in
Alhambra where he completed his secondary education. During the interview he had stated that
he does not really know much about his family but commented that his dad had some college
education.
He stated his accumulative GPA was about 3.0. When he was attending high school in
Oklahoma, where there is a dominant presence of Caucasians, he was the only Chinese student
among approximately two percent of Asian population that made up the student body. High
school that he attended in Oklahoma mainly consisted of students from affluent background; in
fact he stated that the high school that he had attended was located in one of the wealthiest area
in the community. He noted that there were racial tensions mainly between Caucasians and
African American students. He described that the student population of high school that he
attended in California drastically differed from previous his high school since the majority
consisted of Asian and other half were Latino student. However, he stated that there were almost
no racial tensions or hostilities between groups. He stated that he was “not really into education”
and “slacked off ” until recent years when he started attending community college.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 164

Initially Kathy Chiu, nineteen-years old, was contacted for this interview. However, her
two sisters, Lucy, eighteen-years old, and her older sister Jenny, twenty years old, also
participated with this interview. The sisters were born in the city of Monterey Park and attended
local public high school for all four-years. They became aware of their father’s ethnicity during
their formative years when they realized they had Chinese heritage. They stated that both parents
are refugees due to Khmer Rouge where they imparted their beliefs of agrarian socialism in a
forceful manner and attempt to control the behavior of Cambodian people. This enforcement of
social engineering ignored many human rights and freedoms leading to the genocide of
approximately two million Cambodian people including intellectuals, minorities, and soldiers
who were perceived to be traitors. They stated that their parents met in the United Stated upon
fleeing their country. The sisters stated that their parents did not complete primary education in
their country, but have taken English classes at adult school to learn English.
Kathy and Jenny, who are currently attending Montevista community college, recalled
their accumulative GPA was to be about 3.2 but her youngest sister who is currently attending a
state college received 3.86. Lucy was the only one that took Advanced Placement classes during
high school. All three sisters stated that the workloads in high school were not laborious. Lucy
even stated that “school was holding her back. It was not challenging.” They have illustrated
their dedication and commitment towards each other by stating “we always come in a pack, we
do things together.” The two younger sisters appeared to rely more on the older sister whom they
described as “responsible one” if problems should arise. The two older sisters appeared to be
reserved as compare to the youngest one since Lucy was the one who was most actively engaged
and responded during the interview and the other two chimed in when they agree or disagree
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 165

with statement made by Lucy. Lucy stated that she aspires to be an actress and other two older
sisters were pursuing a career in script writing.
Madeline Lam, twenty-years old, was also born in Monterey Park, California, and is the
oldest daughter of three children from Chinese immigrants. She noted that she does not know
much about where her parents came from since they did not discuss information pertaining to
their parents’ origin; yet she stated that she would someday find out her roots. Mini was
uncertain regarding her parents’ educational attainment yet estimated that they would have
received something equivalent to secondary education in China. From her parents’ picture of
many places that they have taken prior to giving birth to her, she estimated that they might have
come to the United States in their middle to late twenties.
While in high school she was involved in Yearbook and choir. She admitted that she
often procrastinates or postpones things that she dislikes, such as home works or projects, until
the last minutes. She stated her goal was to graduate high school. She briefly stated her desire to
go to college; however she commented that she did not have adequate information to prepare
herself for college because according to her that information was not readily available. Therefore
she was not able to attend a four-year college. During the interview she had repeatedly stated she
was not able to acquire information regarding college even though there were fairs regarding
college advice or counselors who could advise her regarding college. Her accumulative GPA at
the time was barely 2.0 due to failing a few courses; however, she is currently receiving A’s in
her least favorite subject that she failed in high school, math. She attributed her indifference to
her education and failing out of her math class to lack of resources or social capital and was
regretting that she did not acquire information regarding college sooner. Furthermore she did not
seek assistance due to the belief that she is self-sufficient. As a result she had failed two classes
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 166

and had to take summer school after graduation to get her high school diploma. She is still
undecided on what she wants to do in the future but currently she appeared to show interest in
the field of psychology or politics and was in one of the lobbying committees at the college. As a
lobbyist, she conversed with legislators regarding educational policies in Washington D.C.
Brendan Wang, twenty-years old, born in China along with his older sister. He stated that
his relatives mostly live in China. He did not specify when he came to the United States. He
attended same local high school for all four years, similar to the other three participants in the
average achiever group. As a high school student, he participated in the volunteer club as a part
of his extracurricular activities and simultaneously was able to balance his academic duties. Even
to this day he kept his spirit of volunteering alongside his father to deliver groceries when they
have a surplus to give to someone who may need it and fixes his neighbors refrigerators.
He stated that while he was freshman he was not as focused on academics; yet in his
sophomore year, which he attributes to his peers, he had an “epiphany” and since then he placed
more effort on academic achievements. He stated his accumulative GPA was 3.2. Although he
had stated he was not confident enough to take AP classes, he challenged himself to take honors
classes and was able to achieve adequate grades. He had the intention of attending college, but he
did not have specific plans or college in mind at first. Upon deciding which college to he would
like to attend, he tried to put a financial package together. He aspired to be an engineer, more
specifically a computer programmer and intends to attend graduate school since he believes most
jobs require a masters’ degree just to be hired at entry-level position. Although he does not
believe that higher education would guarantee securing a high-paying job, with regard to job
applications, he is convinced that employers would be more inclined to select applicants with
higher educational degree than those with a high school diploma or a baccalaureate degree.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 167

Results for Research Question One
Research Question One asked: How have high performing and average performing
Chinese heritage students responded to their treatment by the dominant society and what folk
theory of making it have they constructed? Ogbu’s cultural-ecological study is referenced to
underlie the conceptual background and theoretical frame of this research. Although Ogbu’s
theory does not specifically address the target population, its implication concerning factors that
attribute variability in academic performance, such as perception of structural opportunity (folk
theory of making it) and collective identity, will be referenced in attempt to answer the first
research question.
Interviews suggested that higher achievers and average achievers had slight variations
along perceptions in terms of ethnicity, language proficiency, cultural values in terms of how
they perceived as difference between them and their parents, types of school attended,
motivation to sustain academic success, educational values in terms of future success, and
discrimination. Findings on the first research question will be presented based on themes that
emerged as a result of the interview between high and average achieving students.
Perception of Ethnicity
Perception of ethnicity entails how each student comes to view and identify themselves in
terms of ethnic identities. In other words, perception of identity explored how environment, such
as upbringing, peers, and mainstream culture, have come to influence their identity development.
Ogbu (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) asserted in his research
that these later generation immigrants still hold visitor-like attitudes and that they are less likely
to exert effort in learning the culture of the host country or perceived them as more oriented
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 168

towards mainstream culture. Furthermore he asserted that the identity development of later
immigrants implicates the degree of cultural influence of first generation immigrants.
As noted earlier in the vignettes, three out of five high achievers perceived themselves as
Asian Americans and held panethnic identity. When they were asked regarding within group
difference between Asians (mostly referring to Korean, Japanese, and Chinese) three out of five
high achievers assumed that they all share similar experiences of being Asian in the United
States, which appeared to be an ethnic version of transnational culture. In fact most of the high
achievers showed interested in ethnic versions of transnational culture, such as ethnic food, pop
music, and soap operas (Louie, 2006). As suggested by Louie, therefore higher achievers did not
identify with their parents’ culture but they appeared to have developed their distinct culture.
Daisy stated, “I perceive my personality…I think I am Chinese American. I just have
habits. I do love dim sum…like I really have Asian habits. But at the same time I am very
liberal very Americanized so I guess I am a happy medium Chinese American.”
Linda explained:
I feel Asian American because I am into other culture too. I am not just into Chinese
culture but also into others. So I consider myself as Asian American... If I would have to
pick my second choice I would take Chinese American. But the first choice would be
Asian American. I just generally see a lot of similarities that we have. Like Korean
Americans or Chinese Americans or Japanese Americans we share a lot of similarities
since we were born in there and spend a lot of time here versus Asia where I think
differences are more evident. In here, we are Americans and we have this bond…bur
some have no interest. I think the big part of racial identity is interest. Interested in Asian
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 169

culture or other cultures. Do you talk about cultural identities or not or do you hide it? I
think those two things are really important.
Kimberly expressed similar sentiment with other students, “I would say Asian American
because all my friends so I don't hang out from people from Asia. So I would identify
myself with Asian American but obviously I was born in Asia so I guess depends on the
situation too.” She was asked to comment whether she identify herself as Chinese
American, she stated, “I feel like there is big commonality within the Asian population so
I just generalize myself with Asian American instead of Chinese or just American.”
Different with other high achievers, Steve explained that he does not feel as though he
belongs to either Chinese or Chinese American in terms of race or ethnicity, he stated, “I
feel like I am in limbo because I am not American as white American but I am not Asian
where I just got from Asia. So it's the weird limbo…I feel like different thing for myself.
I do introduce myself as Asian American because I do feel like having grown up with the
experiences in America but being of Chinese descent even though I spent good half of
my life back in HK…. So I definitely consider myself as Asian American I connect with
Asian American rather than Americans… But if you ask me “do you think you are Asian,
yes.” “Do you think I am Chinese, yes” if you asked me specifically. But in general I
classify myself as Asian.
Keith unlike other participants was the only student that identified as belonging to a
specific ethnic group and differentiated himself from Asian American or Chinese
American, “I say Taiwanese. In US if anyone asks me then I would say Taiwanese. But if
I were in a different setting, like Europe I would say American or I say I am from US or
Hawaii. I wouldn't say Asian American. When he was asked to respond the difference
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 170

between Chinese and Taiwanese he described Taiwanese as having more sociable quality,
“I guess Taiwanese culture as being known as laid back, like mainland China are more…
Taiwanese people are friendlier. So that is what rubbed off on me… I guess I am very
approachable in that way. I am always going to do things with other people and
welcoming… and polite I guess. I don't know what specifically Taiwanese.”
Interestingly, two out of the five high achievers noted that how one defines self depends on the
context. Furthermore, these students do not hold a transnational stance due to the fact that a
majority of students do not have sufficient mastery of language in Chinese and do not maintain
meaningful ties with societies of parent’s homeland. The results further suggest that second-
generation immigrants develop ethnic orientation, recognizing shared sense of belonging, culture,
and history to a particular ethnic group, rather than a transitional orientation.
For average achieving students, half of the participants stated that they perceived their
ethnic identity as Asian American and another two identified either as Chinese or Chinese
American depending on the situation. However, unlike high achievers, those two average
achievers who identified as Asian American was not due to the fact that they were more familiar
with ethnic version of transitional culture or that they felt as though they share similar
experiences of being Asian in the United States; rather. they were not familiar with their own
ethnic heritage and did not have any other categories that described their ethnicity.
Mike was unable to define or categorize himself into a certain group when he was asked
to identify his ethnicity, such as American, Chinese, Chinese American, or Asian. He
stated, “That is a hard question. I am of Chinese heritage. I learned the way of American
culture. I am a citizen since thirteen. I see myself as Chinese American. If you really
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 171

wanted me to say…but my ethnic identity is Chinese depends on how they ask me
question.
Kathy Lucy and Jenny identified themselves as Asian American not because they
identified with panethnic culture of Asian but they commented that they did not know
any other cultures to categorize themselves. “Asian American (all). I don't really know
about other cultures… (Kathy). But we do cerebrate Asian holidays. Chinese New Year,
Full Moon Festival (Jenny)… That is like only thing we do. We have not been to china or
we don't speak Chinese either (Kathy, Jenny)… I never really thought of myself as Asian.
It’s like who am I? I am Lucy. That’s it!”
Madeline expressed the sentiment that she would like to gain further knowledge
regarding her ethnic heritage in the future since their parents overlooked the importance
of imparting the knowledge regarding their culture. “I have asked this before …Asian
Americans. Well…I would like to be going up to Chinese American status. But right now
I am just Asian American status because uhm… I don't really know about Cantonese and
my parents speaks dialect called Toisan which is more informal and I think it would be
more like lower village status because I notice that my family, they don't really use
Toisan dialect but speak Cantonese dialect. Sound richer [in terms of social economic
status]…”
Brendan is the only average student that identified with importance of connecting with
community members and identified himself as having specific ethnic heritage. “I mainly
perceive myself as Chinese. I mean I don't really understand the difference between
Chinese and Chinese American beside the fact that where they lived for how long. I mean
Chinese people are just Chinese people basically that is what I think…as a person it
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 172

[having Chinese heritage] has some importance to me. I mean if you don't have an
identity then you can’t really connect with others that have similar values. I think it is
important for me that I have a group that I belong so that it is comforting and more
motivating.” At first he identified as Chinese not as Chinese American however, when he
was asked to respond the difference between first generation Chinese immigrants and
himself, who was born in America, he retracted his first statement regarding his ethnicity.
“If you say in the depth like then I would have to say Chinese American. I would
generally say Chinese” Furthermore, he commented that defining his ethnicity depends
on the context.
Overall, similar to high achiever, average achievers in this study did not appear to have sufficient
mastery of the language of their parents homeland and do not maintain meaningful ties with their
parent’s homeland. Half of the average achieving students stated that they have visited their
parents’ homeland and only one of those students made specific comment regarding inquiring
about their parents ethnic heritage.
Cultural Values of First and Later Generations
As previous research suggested, barriers to achieving success appear to have lesser
cognitive burden upon voluntary minorities as compare to involuntary minorities (Ogbu, 1987;
Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). Unlike Ogbu asserted, interviews suggested that both high and average
achievers (mostly second generation immigrants) do not hold the mindset that they are foreigner
in the country and that they have the option of returning to their country of origin or immigrate to
country that offers more opportunities and prospects of economic success.
Most high achiever perceived the US as their country of origin and they appeared to have
differentiated themselves from their parents’ ethnic origin. As noted earlier, in general higher
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 173

achievers perceived education as a vital part of success in the future; yet they have formed their
distinct cultural values that are different from their parents; yet, appeared to be mixture of
mainstream culture and some of the core value of their parents.
Linda commented that while she perceived education was important she noted that it is
important to balance aspect of academic success and social life, “I don't place importance
on education as much as they do. While they say you have to study all the time, but I
think you have to have at least a balance…with having a life.”
Kimberly explained:
I guess I have pretty good connection with my parents and I can communicate with them.
So I guess I do adapt some Asian values from my parents like studying habits and
cultural values. I do have those with me.
Steve explained:
I grew up respecting elder since they know many things. You should not disrespect them
so I did grow up with the same thing but I do believe the reason why and find truth in it...
But as a college students and growing up here I adapted new things…because I am more
in touch with my age population rather than my mom. She would not understand the
things that I do. It happens no matter if you are Asian or not. You don't agree with your
parents because you do not have same experience as they did…it is generation gap not
necessarily cultural gaps.
When students were asked regarding questions of being assimilated into the mainstream culture,
four out of five participants stated some negative aspects of mainstream culture, such as blind
pride, too much focus on wealth, independence, and losing one’s ethnic heritage. As the
interviews revealed, although they perceive education as important and shared similar sentiments
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 174

with their parents, they have developed different cultural values that are different from their
parents.
As with high achievers, most of average achiever perceived the United State as their
home. However, unlike high achievers, three out of four students did not have any significant
knowledge or awareness of their ethnic heritage; therefore, many of them were unable to
compare their parents’ value with their own. Although they may not have a lot of knowledge of
their parents’ cultural values, average-achieving students came to perceive hard work and the
value of education which is commonly believed as one of the core values of first-generation
immigrants and this belief was crucial for their future success either while they were attending
high school or upon graduation.
Mike identified that aspect of hard working and education as some of the core values of
the first generation immigrants. Mike explained, “She only graduated from high school.
So in terms of education, I would say, right now, definitely I am working harder than my
mother… But other than that I can’t say too much because I don't know too much about
my family. Most of my families are in china. But in compare to all my cousins and
relatives… I am one of the OK ones. I mean working hard in school…I agree with
hardworking aspect of it. Definitely tried to do much better.”
Furthermore, Mike perceived that each succeeding generation should be held accountable for
providing guidance and direction to following generations in order to avoid hardships and
afflictions that the current generation experienced.
Kathy and her sisters noted that parents, especially the father, encouraged their children
to be “American” or assimilate closer to the mainstream culture for their advantage. Although
three sisters stated they did not agree with some of the values of their parents, they did not want
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 175

their American born children to lose their ethnic heritage or identity since they perceived that
retaining their cultural of heritage is important.
The three sisters commented that they did not agree with some of the Asian culture, such
as respecting elder, yet they incorporated other values such as diligence and hard work into their
cultural identity:
I want to live, I want to work hard for what I have and I don't want things just given to
me (Lucy)… I don't think you should respect a person because older. [You should respect
a person] because they deserve it (Kathy)… that is where American side comes in. Just
because you are old we are going to bow down to you. That, I really hate (Lucy).”
When she was asked about the value of diligence of hard working, she expressed, “That
is good! I identify with that (Lucy)!” When they were asked regarding some of the aspects that
they enjoy as being Asian, Kathy and Lucy expressed that she did not want to be confined within
the category of race; she stated, “I never really thought about me being really Asian. It’s like
who am I? I am Lucy! That's it. I am being Lucy! (Lucy). I don't really see race or something
like that (Kathy).”
For Madeline, specific questions that compared her values with those of her parents were
not asked during the interview since her parents did not discuss their roots or experiences during
their formative years. Instead, questions were asked to determine if her values align with values
commonly associated with the first-generation, such as emphasis on work ethics and academic
pursuit (Kao, 1995). During the interview she noted that there is a commonly held notion among
later generation Chinese community that you should have at least some knowledge of one’s
ethnic heritage. She even stated that some pride themselves for having Chinese ancestry. She
attributed prevalence of such sentiment was due to the popularization of Asian culture by
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 176

dominant group through means of the media, which in turn gained wider acceptance among the
mainstream culture. Furthermore, when Madeline was asked to comment regarding the value of
diligence and hard work, she perceived that it is important. In addition she expressed a sense of
obligation towards their parents and stated that she does not want to disappoint her parents but
failure to meet her parents expectation would not necessary cause her to feel ashamed or
“dishonoring” her family name.
Brendan as with other average achievers commented importance of hard work, he stated,
“I identify with some of the values. It’s very old fashion like study hard, work hard don't
go out so much, don't go out until late. Learn to not to trust others so easily. Also learn
for yourself. Try to create your own skills. Tried to be on top…”
Brendan also recognized cultural gaps between first and later generations that were bound to take
place mainly due to the process of acculturation and stated that it is likely that later generations
would be more familiar with American culture rather than their ethnic culture. Furthermore, he
perceived that with each succeeding generation gaps between first generation and later would
further increase due to difference in historical and social contexts in which they live.
Brendan explained:
They will definitely suffer more damage because as you keep going third, fourth
generations are going to be more influenced by American ideal and ideas or what you see
on TV and each generation it will be less likely to learn the language of their family and
they will start being alienated from the first generations and second generations. They
will start leaning towards Americans and their friends’ ideas rather than first or second
generations ideas because they may see it as confining or too troublesome to do…but that
is a gap that you won’t be able to fix because first generation will not understand fifth
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 177

generation and vice versa…Because I mean another example. Someone from first
generation, they do a lot of hard manual labor in their lives in order for following
generations. But then fifth generation will having not doing as much manual labor or as
seems like they slack off would they say and the first generation will think that
generation is getting lazy.
Although these average students lived in one of the large Chinese enclave near the metropolitan
area, three out of four students appeared not to have a close association or tie with their ethnic
heritage. For example, when two of the students were asked question regarding some of the
aspects of their heritage that they liked, only one of student was able to articulate thought and
give specific examples.
Madeline explained:
“Food! Chinese New Year, money… food.” She was asked to comment whether she
knew significant of those festivities, she answered “Some yes… but I would not say my
family is white washed but they don't go into the tradition that much. We do moon cakes
but we don't really talk about… we just buy moon cakes…for Chinese New Year we
have the dinner and everything but sometime my grandfather is like ‘this symbolize this’
but they don't really believe in … but we do wear red clothes like small stuff like that but
we don't think out luck or anything will change …”
On the other hand, Brendan explained:
Well I wouldn't put food at first but I would put our tradition and heritage, our history.
Those are high ranked. Some of how we behave in public, some of it not all of it… our
sense of community. Because my father told me when he first arrived he did not really
know anyone. And he had to start talking and getting to know who were in the same
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 178

situation and start making small group of people who are in the same situation and bigger,
bigger and because of the second generation children knows others so. Some people are
more tightknit like that. We also look out for each other as well. I don't know if that apply
to everyone, if someone needs help they would call someone from the community whom
they know.
Although average-achieving students identified with the core values of the first generation, such
as aspect of hard work, diligence, and importance of the value of education, their cultural
orientation became more aligned with that of mainstream culture due to the influence of peers
and media. From the interview, it appeared as though parents of average achiever did not place
emphasis or impart their cultural values upon their children. Therefore many of the average
achievers struggled with balancing both cultures. When students were asked to define American
culture, most of them pointed out negative aspects, such as being overly conservative, patriotic
and less open-minded or receptive to other people and ideas, rather than positive aspects.
Language Proficiency
Although I was not able to evaluate students’ language proficiency, there appeared to be
difference between high and average achievers in terms of perception regarding their degree of
their bilingualism. As Louie (2004) asserted, that in order for immigrants to maintain bilateral
cultural and social relationship with their country of origin and their host country, individual
must maintain ‘meaningful’ ties with society of parent’s homeland. Therefore, for a later
generation immigrant to sustain transitional cultural stance they must be equipped with sufficient
mastery of both language. In other words, Louie asserted that lack of language proficiency would
likelycreate cultural gap between first and later generation immigrants. Furthermore, it can be
discerned that aspect of language along with previous (perception of ethnicity and cultural
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 179

values), affect the perception of the value of education and links between future success and
academic success.
During the interviews all of high achieving participants did not have difficulty answering
questions or articulating accounts of their experiences. However, Kimberly, who immigrated
later than other higher achieving participants, was the only ones who reported to have difficulty
articulating her thoughts and in academic writing. She attributed her insecurity in her mastery of
academic writing as not being native born. She recalled from her high school experience,
especially in her literature classes, she had to place extra effort. Therefore, it took her much
longer time to complete her writing assignment as compare to native peers.
In terms of language proficiency in Chinese (Mandolin or Cantonese) four out of five
participants had some formal education at a Chinese school or a high school and reported to have
had at least fundamental language skills. The majority of students rated their speaking skills to be
unexpectedly high (average seven out of ten); yet for reading and writing skills they rated their
skillset to be relatively low (below five)
Daisy described:
I can’t read it but I can speak it. I used to be able to read it then... I used to go to Chinese
school and learned how to read it and then I quit and I can barely read it now. Reading
and writing it probably impossible for me, but speaking is not bad. I would not be able to
carry myself let’s say a business conversation since I don’t have very specific Chinese,
like I can’t say legal terms and health terms. But you know I can converse, make small
talks.
Linda explained:
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 180

I speak Cantonese pretty fluently and I’ve learned Mandarin since high school…
Writing…like I can use dictionary and if I do not know the word I look at it on the
dictionary and I will fill it in. So five out of ten for writing. I know most of what I am
going to say and most of the patterns. I just don't know the words. I know the words
because I heard it and that’s most of words from but I don't know how to write it…
Conversationally I can’t understand professional language. For dramas I can maybe
understand fifty percent. I am more exposed to Cantonese than Mandarin.
Kimberly described her language ability as “Well, but I can’t express in thoughts in
Cantonese… I can do basic communication but if I wanted to express certain thoughts I cannot
do it. I took Mandarin in high school so I am good at writing. I would say I am at thigh school
level. So I can write and read. It would take more time for me to read newspapers.”
Steve described:
“I speak Cantonese and Mandarin… I have never learned how to read, I stopped in second
grade in Hong Kong. I also took Chinese classes here during high school…” He rated his
reading and writing skills as five out of ten, he stated that, “Whatever I can read I can write
but if I can read it I cannot write it.”
Keith described, “I speak mandarin but not fluent. Speaking wise seven, writing and
reading is like two. I am pretty good at conversation. I do understand seventy percent of it
[news]. If they speak complicated word then I cannot but I can understand context. I did
not go to Chinese school. My conversation is from grandma and mostly self-taught. I wish
I had gone to Chinese school…”
The interviews suggested, especially for writing, that even those who received formal education
student rated as the least efficient of their language skills. Reading and writing could possibly be
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 181

more difficult than speaking since they may not have many opportunities to practice or utilize
their writing skills. It could be discerned that it is difficult is to retain vast number of characters
necessary to write, which would require individual to practice using it quite frequently.
Furthermore, even though one may understand the meaning of every individual word in a
sentence, one must have knowledge of combining those words and able to apply them in
different contexts. For writing seemingly simple task, such as looking for the word in the
dictionary, would be considered extremely difficult for these students.
The results of interviews suggested that high achievers perceive their level of speaking to
be at a moderate level of bilingualism; yet for reading and writing they perceive to them to be
low compare to speaking skills. Therefore it may be that difference on cultural value between
high achievers and their parents may be partially attributed to their language skills.
As with high achieving students, all average achieving participants had no difficulty
answering questions or articulating accounts of their experiences. Two out of four students had
formal education either at high school or at Chinese school. All average achieving students
claimed to have fairly limited language proficiency in Chinese. All four students stated as having
very low conversational and comprehension level and even lesser with regard to reading and
writing.
Mike described that when he first immigrated he spoke Chinese at home, however
English became more prominent language as he became more acculturated. He stated that
only time he would speak Chinese now is when he is having conversation with his mom
and his uncles. Mike explained, “I came here in nine so I forgot how to read and write
majority… I am pretty poor at it… in terms or conversation casually I am ok. Because in
Oklahoma English is all I used. I only spoke Chines to my mom. So reading and writing
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 182

really limited… only the simple ones…speaking I am ok. I realized that more and more,
it is getting worse. 2 years ago I went back to China and I found it harder to communicate
with them [relatives]. So many word that I have to elaborate and ask my mom how to say
in Chinese. So I get little frustrated.”
For Kathy, Lucy, and Jenny proficiency regarding their mother’s language (Cambodian) and
their father’s native language (Chinese) were asked separately. Interestingly, Jenny the oldest
daughter was the only one who claimed to be able to speak Cambodian when she was younger.
As for other two younger sisters, they did not appear to exhibit any sign of regret that while they
did not learn Cambodian when they were younger. Jenny stated that their mother had once
attempted to teach Cambodian to the younger sisters; yet it was not successful. With regard to
Chinese (father’s native language) Kathy and Jenny have taken formal learning at school; yet
they stated that they were unsuccessful in their endeavor. As noted earlier, their attitude reflect
their fathers belief that English should be their primarily language.
Kathy and her sister described:
It’s like kind of growing up with the language. Like I understand it but I cannot speak it
(Lucy). I don't understand that much (Kathy). Yes, I don't understand much either (Lucy).”
When they were asked their language comprehension in Chinese they described, “Nada,
zero (Lucy)! …He [father] wanted to make sure that English is our first language and
best subject because we live in America (Lucy)… They [parents and relatives] speak to
us in Cambodian. We speak to then in English (all). We understand enough to respond.
You know you get the jist of it (Lucy)…
Madeline described:
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 183

“I don't write it at all. Speaking, three to four…my grandfather noticed that I was getting
into the politics so he talked to me about politics in Chinese but I could not understand
what he was talking about but kept trying to explain it. I don't really know… political
terms that he says. So that is one barrier, like we could say thing like foods or what to do,
actions but not like things like that deep…” She stated she would be able to understand
news on television if it was in Cantonese but not in Mandolin. She commented that her
father can speak Mandolin however her mother’s proficiency in Mandolin is lesser in
degree compare to her father.
Brendon described:
I speak not very well know dialect in Chinese. It’s called Chaozhou dialect…” When he
was asked to rate his speaking proficiency, he stated, “Four out of five. I can speak
enough to carry on conversation and to do general thing but it’s not at school level.
Things…I would say one out of ten for writing. I can read some but not if you were to
ask me sophisticated so for reading also I would say one out of ten. I remember how to
write things but sometimes I just forget the meaning because I have not used them in so
long. We mainly use English here. I don't have chance to practice Chinese too much… I
have only attended Chinese school for about a year because of my family’s financial
situation… also because I learned enough Chinese where I could go to China. As for
mandolin I am trying to pick it up again. Dialect and mandolin is different sound and
meaning. Something can sound the same, but in mandolin it can be different meaning.
That’s get worse with Cantonese. Cantonese is the hardest. But generally everyone
speaks Mandolin though. So that means I do have to learn. I can understand Mandolin but
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 184

I cannot speak it. When you live around Chinese people for a while you should at least
know some of it…
Although the average achievers expressed that their language proficiency is limited, most of
participants were able to carry on a daily conversation, which suggested that they have at least
minimal level of bilingualism. As with high achievers, they appeared to have more difficulties
with reading and writing. Although most average achievers stated that they were able to converse
with their parents colloquially and they perceived their language proficiency to be less than
sufficient. Again it can be discerned that limited language proficiency would more likely create
difference in cultural values between first and later generation.
Characteristics of School Attended: Private versus Public Secondary Institution
As with previous aspects, the type of institution attended would most likely affect the
academic success of students due to difference in availability of resources and social capital.
Among high achievers, three attended private high school, one attended specialized school for
academically talented, and one attended a local public high school. All high achieving
participants had high GPA (mostly A’s or were top two percent of the graduating class.) As
noted earlier, four out of five high achieving students from the four-year university were
gathered from using contacts from APASS who attended private high school. Interestingly, two
out of three students who attended private high school recognized that people in general were not
well informed about the availability of financial aids. Interviews revealed that overall students
who attended private high school had more resources readily available for them. As it was
expected, those who attended public high school stated that resources were scarce. Most notably,
the public school appeared to be understaffed and overcrowded; thus, in general teachers and
counselors were less likely to be able to provide individual attention to each student.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 185

Daisy described:
Too many students! I remember students not having a place to sit… so, probably 40
students. Very big classes and signing up for classes was problem because too many
people want to sign up… Too many students! I remember students not having a place to
sit… so, probably 40 students. Very big classes and signing up for classes was problem
because too many people want to sign up.
Kimberly commented:
We do have counselors but I would not say extremely supportive. They are just there and
do their jobs. They don't reach out to students. They don't make effort to reach out to
students…
As it can be illustrated from students’ accounts, when they needed assistance with regard to
academic or personal issues they had exert extra effort to seek out assistance. Furthermore, they
pointed out that many students were not aware of available resources and that the majority of
teachers, administrators, and counselors were there to provide assistance for those in need.
Although they reported that some teachers were “hard to approach and not relatable at all”, in
general, when they took a step to ask for help they were more than willing to provide assistance.
As for private school students in this study, in most cases support was more readily available and
they did not need to compete for resources.
Linda described:
Since the classes are so small maybe 20 people in each class you really get to know
teachers and teachers get to know you very well…. School is designed that way so we
have to meet with them individually for sometimes and if you keep meeting with them
you can.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 186

Steve recalled:
Teachers knew us pretty well since we had small classes so we had good relationships…
beginning of the freshman year we all get split into advising group. Every 12 students
have an advisor. Starting junior year you are assigned to college counselor so we are well
prepared for college process and academics. During lunchtime we had teachers that
dedicated their times to talk. We are really cared…

The interviews revealed that all high achieving students, even Daisy who attended public high
school with limited resources, were able to access resources necessary to further their academic
career. Resources that I refer here is accessing and utilizing assistance from gatekeepers
(teachers and counselors) to attain social capital necessary to advance their educational careers.
Interestingly, some of the students who attended private high school perceived that those
students, particularly high achieving students, attending public high school needed to be more
competitive due to large number of students with limited resources.
Linda explained:
Felt like there was competitive air among the Asians. Because for public schools,
generally Asian Americans… maybe Caucasians I am not sure… that put more effort in
school. Not saying that they are the only ones. Generally they did. At least friend group
that I was familiar with…”
Steve commented:
What I understand is that there was different type of competitiveness…in the public high
school there are limited resources because there is barrier that public schools had to
overcome, they don't have access to all the materials that we had… It is hard to cross
over the boundary from public high school to private because it is harder to keep up
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 187

because we go with more rigorous pace as compared to public school. So, public students
had to work a lot harder to earn or to be at the same place as we were. So they might be
competitively driven, they might be just as driven as us, but due to the lack of resources
that they have at their schools they had to work harder in order to overcome being in the
public schools. So they obviously had to work harder and it is competitive because
everyone wants to do better in order to standout in such a huge school. You had to be the
best. So, clubs that you join, activities that you join, classes that you take, grades that you
get. Those are things that really matter when you go to public schools. You have to
maintain all that. Whereas my school, we have name to our school or that is what I
understood. The name of high school holds certain prestige. College people would know
curriculum of our school and standards that we have so if they get applicants with same
grade, college prefer because private schools have higher curriculum and more rigorous
structures. So because of that public high schools had to boost themselves up to be
better…
The accounts of high achiever who attended public high school students illustrated the fact that
due to scarce resources, students needed extra effort in seeking out assistance for academic or
personal issues. As expected, high achievers who attended private school found that support was
readily available and they did not have to compete for resources to succeed. Those who attended
private high school perceived that their academic curriculum was more rigorous than the public
counterparts. The interviews suggested that regardless of private or public school, high achievers
were able to gain access to resources necessary to further their academic career. Furthermore, the
majority of high achievers had specific strategies to attend college while they were in high
school and most peers that they associated with had specific plan to attend college.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 188

All the average achieving students attended public school, with three having attended the
same high school. According to them, those two schools are located in low to middle income
neighborhoods. Furthermore, some of the average achievers stated that families with more
disposable income would likely send their children to private high school rather than send their
children to a nearby public high school. The average achieving participants had wide variation in
terms of academic achievement (between GPA of 2.0 to 3.8). Three of the average-achieving
students perceived that in general students were very “competitive” in terms of academic
achievement. Furthermore, it may be due to the large Asian student population, but three out of
these four students noted that Asians were higher achievers in their schools and excelling in
honors and AP classes.
It must be noted that due to the location of the Montevista Community College, which is
located near an enclave of a Chinese community, students attending the school would likely to
have attended surrounding public high schools with prominent Asian students. Interestingly,
average-achieving students reported that Hispanic student population was second largest next to
Asian population and there were few African American students but hardly any Caucasian
students in the high school they had attended. Although Asians make up the majority population,
these average achieving students reported that they did not recall an incident of racial tension
between Asians and other ethnic groups.
Mike, who started his high school career in Oklahoma, made comparison between his
high school in Oklahoma and California. Mike described, “There were hostilities and I
saw racial tensions [his school in Oklahoma]. There were average of two fights per day.
Not among Asians but mainly among whites and blacks…students were separated
socially... Asians sit with Asian, blacks sit with blacks.” He described his high school
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 189

experience in California as vastly different, he described “I didn’t know what to expect
but all of sudden I did not see white people or black people, but more Asians and
Hispanic people even in school. If would be even amazing to see one or two Caucasians
but rarely see Caucasians... and teachers are all… mostly Hispanic teachers and Asian
teachers. Demography in the classrooms are mostly Asians and Hispanics…
majority…basically we are all minority and it is really diversified here. I don't see any
fight. I never saw any fighting in school…in here everything is much easier. Not easier
but I mean easier in a social wise. Everything was normal there was not any racial
tensions or hostilities between social groups. Everything was normal…”
Lack of resources at the public high school can be demonstrated by an account of Kathy and her
sisters. Kathy and her sisters mentioned that they were not able to enroll in classes that they
desired due to lack of availability. Furthermore, Jenny noted that even during her senior year,
when she would supposedly have priority over lower classman, she was unable to enroll in
classes that she desired, since athletes and higher achievers with AP classes had precedence over
students due to limited availability of classes. When they were asked to identify who generally
were high achievers, they all stated that the valedictorian and the top ten of the academic
achievers were all Asians. However, there were some Asian students in some classes, especially
in math class, who showed lack of interest since they perceived math as irreverent in their future.
Furthermore they implicated those who did not try and were not planning to attend college;
rather, they had a plan to attend community college since they would not be able to afford tuition
for a four-year college. They recalled about half of their friends had plans to attend college upon
graduation.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 190

Madeline perceived her school as “academic” or placing a strong emphasis on academic
aspects; yet most of students were generally pleasant. She described,
“It was very academic base. We were known for our debate, science, math and
badminton. We were not known for sports particularly football since we have not won
since… so we get criticized for being too smart and no sports. But I actually think that it
was good environment for learning. Academic is going to help you further than sports…
and I think atmosphere was pretty accepting.”
Brendon stated that students could be categorized into two groups, those who placed
heavy emphasis on academic aspects and those who were concerned with social aspects.
Brendan described, “Some were competitive [academically] that is for sure but others or
quarter of them just want to enjoy high school while tried to get pass. So they can get to
college. Others were they just wanted to enjoy their social life more so they did not do
too well in class. And there were, may be thirty-percent of them who had everything
balanced they do academics and also a lot of social life so… they were mostly popular
because they knew how to balance both.”
Half of the average achieving students commented that being Chinese students had no significant
advantage since most of the student body consisted of Asian. However, the other half noted that
attending a predominantly Asian high school was comforting.
Mike commented, “A lot of immigrants that comes to California and so many Asians are
concentrated in here. So Chinese immigrants who to come here would not have too much
of cultural shock. So almost feels like somewhat home. Because the community is all
Asian!”
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 191

Brendan was asked to describe the situation where majority of student population of
consisted of none-Asian, he stated, “Yes, then I would be more socially withdrawn. I
would not be able to reach out and get more help. But then majority of Asian people at
my high school I felt that I could ask people more easily, I could talk to them more easily
and I could get along.”
Half of the average achieving students stated that most high achievers at their school, unlike
those portrayed by the stereotype who are intelligent but socially awkward, were socially
competent and versed in many aspects; therefore they were respected by other students for
balancing both academic and social aspects. On the other hand Kathy and her sister commented
that some higher achievers were “arrogant” and lacked respect toward fellow students as well as
teachers.
Madeline described:
Everyone was friendly. Whoever was popular they were friendly and smart. They were
involved in clubs and everything. But… it was not like in a movie like they became
popular by being mean.
Brendan was asked if higher achievers faced ridicule from peers, he stated, “No, actually
I believe that…although people didn't want to say it but we respected the smart people
because effort that they put into class. But, if they are really smart but no social life, then
most people would not tend to talk to them or …it’s just felt like invisible barriers that we
are not up to their standards and its seems like very awkward to try to make
conversation…someone who does not have social skills.”
Madeline was the only one who associated family income with academic success since she
assumed that families with higher income would have more resources and information regarding
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 192

attending college. Therefor it is more advantageous for students from higher SES than lower SES
in terms of preparing for college enrollment.
Madeline described:
It depends on…if you are affluent your and parents had [college] education here or not.
So of course, if your parents had [college] education you get more resources and
information regarding attending college from your parents than say me, whose parents
did not go to college, did not know any information about college. So you know if your
parents went college here and they are successful and affluent then they can tell you what
you should do to prepare for college
The interviews revealed, in general, that average achieving students were cognizant of limited
resources and also recognized that teachers and counselors were unable to attend to the needs of
many students. Unlike high achievers, all average achievers responded that they were planning to
attend a college upon graduation; they did not have specific plans to achieve their goals. Lack of
specific plans may be attributed to the fact that only half of average achiever’s’ friends peers
intended to go to college. Hence, this leads to fewer opportunities for discussing or exchanging
ideas regarding colleges, or that they were unfamiliar with the process of college application
since none of their family members or relatives have prior experience of attending college in the
US. As illustrated by accounts of both groups, the institutional environment had influence on
students’ future trajectory as well as their perception regarding value of education.
Motivation to Sustain Academic Success
There appeared to be an association between the perception regarding value of education
for the future and students’ academic stride. The interviews also suggested that parents’
educational background influence students’ perception of education.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 193

With regard to the higher achievers parents’ highest educational attainment, two earned
high school degree in their native country, three completed four-year college, and out of those
who obtained a college degree, one of the parents acquired a master’s degree in business. The
interviews indicated that most high achievers’ parents had acquired degrees from postsecondary
institutions, which could be an indication that these immigrants believe there is an association
between academic achievement and future opportunities. Although the parents’ of higher
achiever may not have explicitly expressed or imparted the idea of the link between academic
success and economic gain, high achievers in this study generally appear to embrace the idea as
their core value. There was only one student who expressed importance of social interaction,
more specifically significance of networking aspect over academic achievement.
Keith explained:

My academic was not as good as should be I really focused on network and social aspect
that would help me out in the long run a lot than my GPA would ever do for me. I feel
bad for those people who don't care about socializing. That is terrible, if you come to a
great school, it's a bubble of innovation and people that have purpose in life. You never
know who would do great things in the future.
One of the most prominent traits that emerged as a result of interviewing high achieving students
was that they were highly driven and exceptionally effective learners, which are evident from
their coursework (honors and Advanced Placement classes), accumulative GPA’s, and their class
standings. All but one hinted their parents were initial motivators for engaging in their academic
endeavor. However during or upon graduating high school all high achievers appeared to have
developed their own objectives or goals in their mind to sustain their motivation to continuously
achieve academic success.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 194

Daisy explained:
“Obviously my parents wanted me to do well. Parents always do, usually want their
children to do well but I don't think my parents always had a big influence…They did not
bother me much about school maybe because they were used to be me doing well in
school…so they did care but I don't think they really showed it.” When she was asked
regarding things that sustained her motivation, she commented, “I think it was self-pride.
Because…. I don't know I did very well and I was just used to it. Maybe it was not self-
pride but I was proud of my accomplishment. Maybe force of habit! I did so well and I
think it becomes cycle. You do well, you want to do better and you well again and you
want to do better. It’s kind of like on the track to doing proactive type kind of crazy. So I
always did well so I felt like I should continue to do well and knowing that it was
beneficial to my future.”
Linda explained:
It started with my parents and it became my own motivation when I see tons of kids
slacking off, tons of kids who use parents money and they don't think about their own
future. They think that they can keep spending and that they can have fun and not worry
about their own future. I see that and I shake my heads. It does not build character, it does
not good ethics, or it does not contribute to the world. It’s very individual thing it does
not help everyone… So when I see kids having fun and slacking off and doing things that
are completely useless and that is just waste of time… a lot of kids play now frankly but
who becomes bosses later? It just infuriates me. That's what drives my passion. Just not
seeing other person not working towards it and watching people struggle because they
couldn't do it, they didn't have the opportunities for school, their hardship, like my
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 195

parents, where people in my community, that fuels part of it. And other part is that who
do have the chance but they don't use it. Those are what it fuels me…
Kimberly explained whether motivation to achieve academic success stemmed from her
own or due to filial obligation, she commented, “it’s for me and my brother to get a good
education… My parents were unemployed for a while so they are hoping to depend on us
in the future and US provides us with more educational opportunities.”
Steven explained:
My mother was very future oriented so I got some of that from her. I had plans on what I
wanted to do. So it’s not like take it by a day but plans for future…but if you have
motivation to be successful then you will work hard. And you work hard to earn your
way up. If you did well in high school then it was pretty good indicator that you try hard
and you will reach your goal. For my high school specifically I would say that if you did
well in high school and if you continue to put in the effort then you will do pretty well.
Keith commented:
I could do whatever I want, do whenever I want. I really had zero pressure. But they
know that pressure that I give myself a lot. My mom always told me to stop giving so
much pressure. She understands that I have high expectation for myself that they don't
have to worry about me. It’s like self-motivation.
For most high achievers, their motivation to sustain academic excellence was not an attempt to
recompense their parents’ loss or driven by sense of fiduciary duty to their parents but their own
desire for academic excellence and continuing to prove to themselves that they can be successful.
With regard to parents’ highest educational attainment of average achievers, one attended
primary school but never completed, two received high school diploma, and one received a
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 196

college degree. The interviews indicated that, unlike high achievers’ parents, most of the average
achievers’ parents did not obtain higher degrees in their native country. Furthermore, from the
comment of average achievers, it appeared as though their parents did not appear to stress the
value of education as compare to high achievers.
Three out of four average achievers were not academically driven initially, either upon
graduation or while attending high school. They began placing more emphasis on education after
they solidified their future plans and what they wanted to accomplish.
Mike explained:
Personally my parents do not put too much pressure on me because they know I that am
doing well now… But in high school I always tried do so much to please them…if you
realize that you are not going to do well…you are not going to honor your home. For me
I am always in A average. I was never someone who works really hard…until my recent
years in college. But in high school I was one of those students who kind of slack of a
little bit. I was not too proud you know. But everything was pass [grade]. So B would be
ok, C… But somewhere in a middle of college I thought I could do better…
Kathy and her sisters commented whether motivation to sustain academic success was
due to aspirations to attend college in upon graduation, they commented, “No (all).
Because I like doing well (Lucy). Doing well…I was trained to study, I did not know
what else to do. If I don't study it is waste of time for me to go to class (Kathy). Yes, that
make sense too because I did not want to waste time going to school just fail it. Mind as
do well (Lucy). You stay there eight hours a day, so mind as do something out of it
(Jenny).” When they were asked their motivation was due to filial obligation, they stated
it was their desire to succeed. Furthermore, if it would be dishonorable to their family if
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 197

they fail to meet parents expectation, they stated, “I don't think it’s dishonorable. Not to
your parents. To yourself! (all). Disappointed! It’s like what are you doing? (Kathy) It’s
like you brought this onto yourself (Lucy).
Madeline was asked to comment whether a sense of filial obligation was motivation for
studying hard; she stated, “I think for everyone it comes down to your own choices. Because for
psychologists know clients can change unless they want to…that is the same thing with
motivation. Maybe someone can catapult you into motivate …so after I graduated from my high
school later than my friends because I had to retake some classes. I was sad…I was discouraged
that but my dad encouraged me to enroll in Montevista. He said don't give up yet.”
Brendan explained:
I do it for the expectation for my family and myself. But mostly for myself because I
know I can do better in what I do, but also as for expectation and my family because I
want them to be proud of me. I can be prosperous and help them out in their old age. But
then little bit is expectation from my friends. Because I think this apply to a lot of my
friends too. Because you are supposed to do well in school and better you do more you
will be known and more you are known more you will be popular…something like that.
So people may respect you more. We have expectation from everyone basically but that
expectation that affects us the most is what keep us going. If I had to put ranking, my
expectation first, my parents, and friend…Then my teachers and … if you know you can
do better, then you do better…
Different from high achievers, three of the four average-achieving students stated that they did
not place considerable effort in their academic endeavors during high school. However, as with
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 198

high achievers, average achievers appeared developed their objectives or own goals to sustain
their academic success.
Environmental Influence upon Education
The accounts of Daisy and Keith revealed that environmental factors, such as the
influence of peers, own experience, or experience of others plays a significant role in shaping
individuals’ attitudes and perspectives toward education.
Keith explained:
I don't know…I was terrible student in middle school. I really don't know why I start
working hard…I was pretty much trouble maker…I got into fights a lot… So I was with
wrong crowd I guess. That is why I was pulled out of school and into private school… I
feel there is huge factor in public setting shaped me to more aggressive and violent,
trouble maker and don't care about school…Just a people around you…For instance, at
Miracosta University I am really lazy person but I kind a feel bad, I kind of feel pressure
to study with my friends here. Definitely people around you make huge difference in
your life. If your friends are studious then you will be studious. It's a far-fetched
argument but your friends have biggest impact in your life.
Daisy explained:
Like, I saw many people around me not doing so well. And I felt like I did not want to go
down that track. And there were people I saw were older than me who didn't do well and
ended up in a place that did not want to be and foreseeing that you know I don't want to
be like that and try not to join this group instead of hard working people who ended up
going to really good colleges and universities…
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 199

The above statements by Keith gave the impression that he was indifferent toward education. A
careful examination of his accounts regarding the value of education reveals otherwise. Although
his apparent attitude and behavior resembled characteristics of those who had indifferent
attitudes towards schooling, as stated previously, this was due to “pressure that I give myself a
lot. My mom always told me to stop giving so much pressure…” he clearly places a significant
value on education and strives to achieve his goal. It can be considered that environment
influences have significantly impacted some individuals’ perspectives and behaviors. For
instance, when friends who prioritize their educational endeavor surrounded Keith, he placed
more effort in academic endeavor. As for Daisy, although, parents may have influence in shaping
her perspective toward the value of education, the accounts of peers who did not do well
academically also played a role in shaping her perspective towards the value of education.
The interviews also suggested that cultural values instilled by their parents (first
generation immigrants) could have a significant influence on the formation of the value of
education. Steve, for instance, who lived in Hong Kong until preschool years, noted that he was
‘ingrained’ with the importance of education and the notion of folk theory of success early on.
Therefore, although, he became acquainted with many peers who did not place a huge value on
education while he was attending public junior high school, the environment or his peers did not
affect his stance on the value of education and commitment toward academic success.
As for average achieving students, the influence of peers and the environment appeared
to have different impacts depending on individuals. Encouragement and expectation appeared to
facilitate academic stride only when individual was willing and determined to succeed
academically. Furthermore, motivation appeared to have a positive association with establishing
goals or determining a specific goal.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 200

Madeline admitted that she had issues of postponing homework or class assignment that
she disliked. Instead, she focused on projects that she enjoys first, such as engaging in yearbook
projects or practicing songs for choir. In retrospect, she admitted that she had neglected academic
tasks even to the point of jeopardizing her goals at the time, which was to graduate high school
with classmates. Although it appeared that she had a vague idea of attending a post-secondary
institution during high school, Madeline repeatedly mentioned that she lacked resources and
information to plan for college. Madeline also had implicated that if she had been able to acquire
sufficient information regarding post-secondary academic career that she might have been more
motivated to learn.
Madeline was asked to comment whether aspiration to go to college motivated her to
study hard, she stated, “I think so…of course those who already planned out how to get to
college versus people like me who just wanted to graduate and had no path…I did want
to go to college but I did not really planned anything…and during senior years when
everyone is planning I was not doing good so I didn’t plan so. I would say if you know
what college or like what qualification you have to fulfill then of course you are going to
do better because you are planning versus someone who is not planning who has no idea
about college. Like, my friends are mixture; some did not plan like me, some did plan but
like …one of my friend who has gone to a University, his parents are both educators so of
course he has more advantages… She was then asked to comment were there any person
that she knew that could provide her with information regarding college, she stated, “Not
really…I mean I could have looked up for myself on the Internet. Like my goal was just
to graduate…I did not really look further than that…which is some of my friends did too.”
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 201

Even when Madeline was aware of the fact that she may not able to attain her immediate
objective, she did not attempt to solicit assistance from teachers, counselors or friends. She
perceived herself as more than capable of dealing with imminent issues, which in turn may have
clouded her ability to accurately assess the situation or that she was utilizing a defensive
mechanism of self-denial in order to preserve sense of self. In either case, for Madeline
encouragements from others were not effective in motivating her academic stride. She even
perceived encouragement from her friend as a nuisance since she was unmotivated and unwilling
to engage in academic endeavors at the time.
Madeline explained, “They believed in me and my friends were supportive. They
basically thought, ‘she can do it, I will leave her alone.’ There was a friend and she was
really on my case. She was like ‘I will l help you’ but I was like, ‘No its ok.’ She was
very insisting. Also, my other friends were supportive especially when I told them that I
was not going to graduate. But I did not really talk about how I was failing math to them
so they really did not know that much.” Then she was asked to comment whether she was
hesitant in asking help from teachers, she stated, “Well…thing is like I think I could have
done it myself. I had attitude that I could do it. And I can do it I know I can do it but I did
not do it because I was unmotivated… Right now, I am getting As’ on my tests because I
am actually trying. I don't know if I have math anxiety but I just wanted to avoid math.”
On the other hand, Brendon commented that involvement in school’s extracurricular activities,
which in turn increased the degree of social interaction with peers who had plan to attend
colleges, prompted his initial shift in attitude regarding education. Brendan commented that he
had an ‘epiphany’ during his sophomore years regarding value of education after his loosely
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 202

planned idea of attending college materialized. For him his peers appeared to play a significant
role in shaping attitudes and perspectives toward education.
Brendan commented:
I would say I was one of those people who had epiphany because my freshman year I did
not really have goals about high school or education. I was just drifting around because
that I did not do well initially. Then when I entered my sophomore years and start taking
to friends and joining more clubs I started finding what I want to do, I start wanting to
study and getting better. Also I wanted to go to where my friends were. Where they are
going to college so I need to study more and catch up more and improving every year…
Also because I did not want to stay as a person who keeps wondering around with very
low result because I know that would be bad later on in the life so I tried to improve
better while I still could…not everyone can do it. I think I was lucky. He was then asked
to comment if he had decided college that he wanted to attend, he stated, “No I did not. I
just had goal of going to college. I did not now really what school was good for me, what
school does what or this. I mean counselors tell us once a year about college. I thought
that initially I did not have time to decide and what to do. So look into hobbies or things
that I like. I did not have a definite idea of what college I want to go to until around my
junior year.
The accounts of Madeline and Brendon indicated that environment, especially influence of peer,
has a significant impact on some of the students’ motivation for academic success only when
individuals internalize the importance of education and also committed and determined to change
one’s outlook for the future. Therefore, as it is illustrated above, the impact on external influence
upon individuals regarding academic success varies depending on individuals. Again, it must be
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 203

noted that while initially both high and average achievers were influenced by sense of filial
obligation, the interviewes illustrated that their sustained academic motivation was primarily due
to their determination for obtaining their desired goal.
Perception of Future Success and Level of Educational Attainment
In terms of the perception regarding the links between education and future success, most
high achievers held multiple-layered attitudes (Mickelson, 1990.) As Mickelson asserted,
regardless of race or class, all students in general possessed an abstract attitude, a reflection of
‘espoused ideology’ commonly held by Americans that asserts education is a means of achieving
success and job opportunities in the future. However, she posited that it is by no means
accurately predicts students’ future academic performance. On the contrary, concrete attitudes
(‘reality’ or return on education that students cognitively construct from their own perception
and understanding of the opportunity structure through their experience or of other) measures the
students’ academic performance or GPA at school more accurately.
Interviews revealed that in general high achievers construct positive concrete attitudes
toward the value of education. As for abstract attitudes, some high achievers did mention
possible obstacles when it comes to obtaining a career of their choice; yet generally they
perceived that obstacles could be overcome by obtaining a higher degree.
Daisy explained:
My personal upbringing through professors that I had in high school and middle school
and even with my parents the focus was almost never on career. It was so much on ‘get
straight A’s and you will do fine.’ And you are eventually conditioned to think if you
keep getting straight A’s then everything will be OK. I had to suddenly think like well,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 204

what next? So though of career never occurred in high school and that was one of the
biggest mistake that I have made.
As she mentioned in retrospect, she regretted the fact that she did not place much focus on career
instead of focusing on achieving ‘straight As.’ As an aspiring lawyer, she had mentioned scarcity
of entry level positions; yet she expressed an optimistic attitude toward securing her future career.
Linda, Kimberly, and Steve also share a similar optimism regarding securing a career upon
graduation.
Linda explained that her parents have placed strong value on education since they
perceived it would benefit her in the future in terms of financial security. When she was
asked regarding her career in term of securing a job she stated “I think I will be pretty
capable because all of my focus in Asian and East Asian culture I feel like I would have
better standing when I graduate. Since my field of interest is very specific I would be able
to find something.”
Kimberly also shared similar sentiment with other higher achievers in terms of education
and financial security. She explained “I guess that is the main reason we are pursuing
higher education. When we get out of school we make money. It [higher education]
definitely gives you more opportunities because you get a degree.”
Steve explained, “There are a lot of factors that goes into it but generally I would say
everyone has opportunities, equal opportunities…if you factor in all that in sometimes
not… If you want to earn higher position in life, like a Google, you would have to have
connections in an education to do that. Then he was asked to respond whether higher
education guarantee future financial success, he stated “No but that is life.”ß
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 205

In general optimism towards securing career may be attributed to the fact that four out of five
high achievers were planning to enroll in graduate school[ thus obtaining careers upon
graduation may not be their primary concern. As noted earlier, high achievers in general
subscribe to the conventional wisdom of the middle class since their parents have higher
education and were able to assimilate into middle-class in the United States. It may be that
parents’ accounts of successful integration, both cultural and economical, further validates
children’s perception of the importance of education. In general there was a sentiment that high
achievers embrace commonly held assumption of upward mobility through means of education,
with exception of few cases.
The interviews revealed that in general high achievers construct positive concrete
attitudes toward the value of education. As for abstract attitudes, they recognized having a higher
degree does not necessary land you high paying careers. Average achievers were aware of
various factors, not only limited to level of educational attainment, that impact securing a job.
Also, they were cognizant that these obstacles many not be overcome just by obtaining a higher
degree.
Average achievers, on the other hand, expressed slightly different sentiments towards the
value of education. For instance, Mike noted that education or skills that you obtain in college
does not necessary apply to the task that you would be doing as a job in the future. However, he
perceived that college in general would likely prepare the mindset of working in the real world.
When Mike was asked to comment regarding correlation between higher education and
salary, he stated, “I would say in general people who graduate school would definitely
gets better pay, better position because a lot of job is looking for people with higher
education degree. People would hire master’s degree as compare to baccalaureate degree.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 206

They have learned more and more experience. But also there are some people who would
drop out of school and they are really successful. There are sometimes a lot of jobs I read
some of the stuff you learn in school does not connect what you do at your job basically
what you learned is nothing to do with it. I guess a lot of times education prepares you.
So you can be hard working in job because a lot of jobs have deadlines. Bosses rely on
you to fish certain work it is kind of similar to school you have a homework assign to you
and dead line. I think it is mental preparedness…”
Kathy, Lucy, and Jenny had different opinions regarding the link between higher education and
economic payoffs. Three sisters perceived that a higher degree would likely yield higher earnings
in the future; however, Lucy, the youngest of three sisters who were attending a state college,
indicated that gender plays a significant role more than a college degree.
Kathy and her sisters were asked if attaining higher degree would amount to higher salary
in the future, they commented “I feel that now it does not really apply any more. Degree
does not matter because everyone is going to have it (Lucy). I think employer would pay
someone who has degree (Kathy). But I think it means less now though that did before
(Lucy). Because, they would be looking for master’s…baccalaureate is nothing anymore
(Jenny)… I think gender plays a role too. I think gender is more important than master’s
degree because women are going to get paid less. That is why! I don't think it's a degree.
Gender is more important because that is being going on for too long! Because we have
African American president that gives hope for African Americans and they are going to
do better too. So I think it would be nice to have female president (Lucy)…”
Brendan mentioned that having a higher education degree would be advantageous initially in
terms of being employed.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 207

Brendan explained:
More education means enough money to keep you alive and other people…I mean there
are people who had not gone to university and still manage to make a lot of money, like
the Facebook guy, Apple guy, and some other entrepreneurs. But those are rare cases.
Generally I would suggest at least college education…enough pay…and some people
will notice you when you send job application. I mean pretty much no one look at people
with just high school diploma. You need at least college that is just minimal. If you want
to get a good job graduate school.
Three of the average achievers noted that having higher degree might have benefits. However,
they recognized that it does not necessary equate with securing employment or obtaining higher
wages. It can be discerned that, unlike higher achievers, average achievers were less likely to
subscribe to the notion of a folk theory of ‘making it’ since they do not have immediate family
members or relatives who graduated college and obtained higher paying job which they could
emulate. Therefore average achievers did not have a solid foundation which to believe that they
could achieve upward social mobility through meritocratic means.
Perception about Discrimination
Discrimination or character based on biased judgment, such as racial or ethnic stereotype
would likely have an impact on students’ future educational trajectory and the value of education
in terms of a folk theory of success. Furthermore, the interviews explored how generational
differences and levels of acculturation would affect perception of discrimination.
Although two of the five higher achievers stressed concerns regarding racism in corporate
America, such as the “bamboo ceiling”, they did not appeared to experience exploitation at first
hand. Therefore, as previous research suggested (Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998), higher
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 208

achievers did not need to adapt specific strategies in dealing with discrimination. Lack of
oppositional identities and cultural frame of reference also reflect their academic success and
perception of the links between education and prosperity in the future. Furthermore, high
achievers did not perceive academic success as a domain of white culture and that other peers or
community did not disparage such behaviors. In addition, they did not perceive school as a
subtractive process, but rather they perceived education as a means to successful integration into
the mainstream and middle-class. Although some of high achievers mentioned that peers at times
poke fun at Asian’s academic prowess, it was not necessary for them to disguise their academic
effort to maintain harmonious relationship with others peers.
Keith explained:
People still made fun of things such as Asians are supposed to be good with math. It’s
more like joke thing. “Why are you getting B in math?” or “Oh, Asian failed a test.” It’s
kind of racist but people poke fun at it. It does not really affect me that much
Steve explained:
When my friends struggle in calculus, there were always jokes that “Aren’t you Asian?
Aren’t you supposed to be good at math?” so obviously there was that kind of sentiment.
If you are Asian you are obviously good but at the same time nobody would make fun of
it. We addressed the stereotype but we did not abuse it.
As illustrated above, these students were not influenced by negative stereotypical remarks
toward Asian Americans and perceived as atypical case and not as a permanent nature and
collective effort of white Americans. For the most part these high achieving students were keenly
aware of pervasive stereotypes regarding Asian Americans (excellence in math and academic)
yet when non-Asian peer made remark regarding stereotypes in classrooms they did not
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 209

perceived them as discrimination or a threat directed towards individuals or Asians as a whole,
but rather perceived as innocuous utterances. There was one student who mentioned her personal
encounter of incidences, which she described as a case of ignorance, made her feel insignificant.
Linda explained:
Sometimes my voice was disregarded. In my art class we had a music players that anyone
could plug in their iPod. There was one Caucasian guy who would always play rap music
or hip-hop music and sometimes it was not really appropriate for the classroom. Made a
lot of us uncomfortable. I think half of the people like that music and half of the people
didn't…whenever I would put my iPod in they would either unplug it or they would
lower it. Or say “what the hell is this shit”…So when I played Asian music I took it as
insult…So I asked my teacher not to have music at all but he continued. He never really
stopped it. I just felt like my voice was not really heard… so that some people are pretty
ignorant but generally we are not…”
It can be discerned that her perception of neglect and disparagement was mainly due to the fact
that the school that she had attended placed an emphasis on a value of equality and cultural
competence, which in theory instills a mindset that deters students from forming biased or
stereotypical view of various ethnic groups. Also, it can be discerned that she perceived these
incidents as offensive or ‘insulting’ primarily due to the fact that she placed a value on ethnic
music (popular music from Asia) and that she perceived it as a threat to her ethnic identity.
Although she expressed sense of affliction and disparagement, she perceived these episodes as
atypical and did not perceived them as permanent in nature so that she did not appear to develop
an oppositional stance against the dominant group or society. Overall, none of the high achieving
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 210

students reported to have encountered racism or discrimination that have a significant impact on
the value of education or future career trajectory.
Although schools that average achievers attended were ‘competitive’, none of the average
achievers noted incidences where those who placed effort in academic success were ridiculed for
their academic stride; instead some average achievers noted that these high achievers were
respected and were popular among peers. Therefore, it was not necessary for them to disguise
their academic effort to maintain harmonious relationship with other co-ethnics. Also, noted
earlier, these average students attended high school where there is a large presence Asian student,
which is located in a Chinese enclave that generally values education. Those who placed
considerable effort toward academic endeavor would less likely to face disparagement or
belittled by other students. However, some of the average students stated that there could be a
incidences of discrimination if demography of student population was different.
Mike was asked to comment if he witnessed incidences of discrimination based on
academic achievement, he stated, “Like name calling right? No. No, but if it was it was
probably joking. At least I don't see that between Hispanic to Asian, probably Asian to
Asian but they think it's a funny thing. But I don't see any name-calling because someone
is a good student and is getting A’s in a class. You shouldn't be talk down upon. But
Oklahoma probably would. I was walking down the hallway and they [Caucasian
students] saw a ‘bookworm’, a female I forgot her ethnicity but she studied really hard
and she even dressed like nerd and carrying books. And then there were two white
students. They were making fun of her. They circled around her as she walked. They
danced around her and making fun of her…”
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 211

Mike also recalled an incident of discrimination when he was in Oklahoma where a police sided
with a stepfather, who was Caucasian and alleged suspect of domestic abuse, rather than his
cousin. He perceived that incident of racial discrimination would less likely happen in California
since the population is heterogeneous and people are more aware of cultural diversity.
Mike described:
I was in Oklahoma there was one racial discrimination case that I have witnessed because
of my mom… she came here and she married to white person to get documents by
marriage. So she lived with him and she kind of adopted my cousin so he can go there to
Oklahoma and study with me and go to same high school. But then husband of my mom
he drinks a lot. He always had this anger issues and drunkenness… one time my cousin
got fed up with him and called cops…There was one time cops came by and my cousin
went close to him and cops wanted to him to back off. Police was siding with the
stepfather. He was kind of suspicious of my cousin because of he was Asian. But here
[California] it’s not like that…
Although most average achievers perceived that later generations would have a less difficult time
adapting to the American culture due to the familiarity of culture and customs, Brendan
commented that later generation would be as equally susceptible to racial discrimination and
limited social mobility.
Brendan was asked to comment whether he believe later generations don't experience as
much discrimination as the first generation, he stated, “Not as much as they will
experience discrimination. They will be more familiar with American culture, be able to
more easily adept but we are still going to be discriminated. Because people just don't
like Asian in general. No matter how much we want to look [as white] we can’t. Then he
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 212

was asked to comment regarding job ceiling, he stated, “I think there is a glass ceiling for
every jobs in America. If Asian wanted to advance if they want to get promotion then that
is another story because I would say people would favor white people more. Just because
of racism and preference. Unless you know the person really well…”
Average achieving students attended high school that consisted of a large Asian population in the
Chinese enclave that placed high importance in education. Therefore they did not experience
overt racism or experienced criticism for being academically driven. The accounts of an average
student illustrated the prospect that Asian students could face prejudice when the student
population consisted more of non-Asian. Furthermore, interviews suggested that some Asian
students perceived that there is a ‘glass ceiling’ or limitation to vertical social mobility due to
discrimination. However, overall accounts of students did not give impression that the prospect
of racial discrimination and first-hand experience of racism affected their views on education or
postsecondary plans.
Discussion Research Question One
Research Question One asked: How have high performing and average performing
Chinese heritage students responded to their treatment by the dominant society and what folk
theory of making it have they constructed? In response to research question one there were five
findings that differentiate high achievers and average achievers. They are: social economic status,
academic environment, perception of future success, establishing tangible links, and perception
of ethnicity.
The first finding was that the perception of folk theory differed across social economic
status. In this particular study, parents of high achievers with more education were successful in
assimilating into mainstream middle class by following the conventional wisdom of dominant
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 213

ideology. Second, an academic environment acts to reinforce or undermine conventional wisdom
of folk theory. Third, being able to conceptualize these links increases the likelihood of
sustaining motivation toward current goals of academic achievement. Fourth, their perception of
ethnicity also influences their perception of a folk theory of success. The rest of this chapter will
further discuss how these differences could affect academic achievement and perception of a folk
theory of
Results for Research Question Two
How has the model minority ideology impacted the educational careers of high
performing and average performing Chinese heritage students? For my second research question,
the theory of model minority stereotype was explored in conjunction with the previous
discussion to ascertain feasible explanation for variability in academic performance among
Chinese heritage students.
As with the first research question there were themes that emerged as a result of
interviews between high and average achieving students. The responses suggested that higher
achievers and average achievers had slight variations in terms of their cultural orientation, career
choices, and influence of the model minority ideology. Findings on the second research question
are presented based on themes that emerged as a result of the interviews between high and
average achieving students.
Perception of Model Minority
Model minority is a pervasive societal stereotype of Asian or Asian Americans as a
successful minority group. Generally, a majority of Asian immigrants are aware of the image of
the model minority stereotype, portrayal of Asian as high achievers who were able to capitalize
on their educational success to achieve social mobility (Lee, 1994; Li, 2005; Louie, 2004) as
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 214

noted earlier in chapter two. Although aggregated data presents us with statistics that Asian
Americans in general are faring well compare to other minorities, in actuality only a subgroup of
Asians are meeting the criterion of the model minority stereotype. Furthermore, research
suggests that there is large within group difference in terms of educational aspirations and
educational attainment (Kao, 1995; Lee, 1994; Li, 2005; Louie, 2004).
It can be discerned that how individuals identifies with the label of model minority
affects their ethnic and academic identity. More specifically, if one perceives the identity to be
negative or stigmatizing, then individuals within the identified group adapt strategies to
temporary avoid being seen as part of the group. However, the process of disassociation has a
lasting impact on those who associate academic achievement with their self-identity.
The interviews revealed that three out of four high achieving students associated the term
model minority negatively and described it loosely as the term to highlight the academic success
of Asian Americans.
Linda explained:
It's a minority group that is seen as, group that has made it but has been successful though
hard work to make it to where others are standing…successful minority group that did
not need help…there are positive and negative but generally think that there are more
negative. Negative because people get left behind because they don't follow model
minority. Positive because in some ways more respected because of the stereotype. Not
much positive but negative. I just feel that stereotypes are not good.
Kimberly explained:
It means we are Asians and that is our responsibility to be smart and good in academics.
And I think mainly because how we are raised. I guess it does not really apply to people
who don't have strong family background. I would say I am a part of the model minority.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 215

I would say negative because it does makes us… it draws the line between races. So
when you see Asian you automatically assume that they have all these characteristics. I
think it has more negative connotation to it. In terms of focusing on diversity I think it
hinders us from entering into the mainstream culture because people make assumption
about us.”
Steve explained:
I feel like it more of the thing of the past that still has the presence. I say that because
model minority was started before my generation and that was because someone sees
group of Asian working really hard so they get labeled as that not that other groups who
were not working hard. But they pinpoint us as working the hardest. For me model
minority is I would not say it is necessarily offensive but fact that we are labeled and
whenever someone deviates from that stereotype… its weird that society considered as if
Asian step outside of the stereotype that is unusual, so in that sense it is kind of insulting.
Because we are our own individual and race does not identify us. But fact that if you do
step out of the stereotype you get branded as not typical or unusual… Personally I have
never been affected by it.
Keith explained:
Means that minority that everyone strives to be. Like minority, because Asians are model
minority and how Latino and Blacks should be like Asians because we have sense that
we are superior to them in education…in some way. Like percentage of… I just saw
study recently that Asian males in America have the highest weekly salary over
Caucasians. That is pretty impressive…so… I guess it is Oxymoron in the sense that… I
don't know I guess that is a positive. We are minority and that minority does not
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 216

necessarily mean bad thing. It’s just a numbers game. Minority of cars is Lamborghini
right? So I don't mind being Lamborghini, so that is how I look at it.
As illustrated in the first research question, high achievers and their peers were taking weighted
classes, such as Advanced Placement or Honors Classes and had specific plans to enter
postsecondary institutions. Furthermore, the interviews revealed that most high achievers had
plans to attend graduate school. Therefore, these high achievers exemplify the very definition of
a model minority; yet most high achievers perceive the term has more negative connotations than
positive ones. High achievers suggested that in general it drew too much attention on academic
aspects and made gross overgeneralization of the group. In other words, the term portrays Asian
Americans as a homogenous group and disregards the variability in terms of academic
achievement. Furthermore, one of the high achievers noted that the stereotype could potentially
affect educational policy, particularly enrollment policies of postsecondary institutions, similar to
that of Affirmative Action.
Steve explained:
I know there is a new thing where you apply to college, they have quota of ethnic groups
that they can have. So when it comes to that I feel that my race is against me. Because of
I am Asian and there are many smart Asian. We all want same number of spots and when
that is used against me I feel like “that is not fair.” But at the same time the colleges are
promoting diversity so I do understand where they are coming from but at the same time
it is not fair that there is double standard. So when that happens I feel kind of insulted.
When higher achievers were asked whether Asians in general are perceived to have fewer issues
due to the model minority stereotype, they reported that they were cognizant of Asians who do
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 217

not fit into the stereotype. Furthermore, they noted that issues pertaining to Asians were not often
unrecognized due to the pervasive nature of model minority stereotype.
Daisy explained:
I wouldn’t say that there was certain amount but issues are different. I think every
ethnicity and culture has its own pros and cons and things that they have to deal with,
which are difficult.
Linda was asked to explain if Asians have fewer issues compared to other ethnic groups,
she stated, “That is wrong! That is completely wrong. Definitely have issues and I think
that it is often covered up. They are dismissed because you know Asians are seen as
Model Minority so they see us as kind of up there with Caucasians, with privileges. But
obviously there are other ethnic groups that do struggle with problems that you see that in
ethnic group. There are ethnic groups in America, Asian ethnic group that generally low
incomes or like they struggle with school. There are a lot of problems like that aren’t seen
because people in general perceive Asians are really successful. There are a lot of people
that are left behind.
Steve explained:
I feel that every minority groups that something targeted against them but in reality we all
have issues. It's the culture. We don't show ourselves in public a lot. I do think we do get
stereotype because we have model minority, like good at studying, we get good jobs, and
we are all well off. But obviously that is not true. I was not personally affected by any of
way because I grew up in the environment where everyone prided themselves on being
hard working. So I didn't feel that it is anything against me. In public school obviously
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 218

they would say that Asians are hardest working because they wanted to get into the good
colleges but because only there is so much more values placed on education.
Keith explained:
I feel like Asians do have a lot of problems. Especially a business major one of the
problem that I see in the business world that there is term called a bamboo ceiling. So
basically a well-qualified Asian Americans are overlooked when it comes to high-level
executive positions. They are often passed up on because of the stereotype that Asians
cannot be assertive and too passive when making huge decisions, not powerful enough of
an influencer or speaker wise. Maybe the press is not there. That is the biggest issue I see
in the business world. I guess it target Asian Americans.
All higher achievers responded that Asians do face issues like any other ethnic group but issues
are different. Three out of four students attributed this to the pervasiveness of the stereotype
resulting in overlooking barriers and obstacles that Asians faced. Two of the students noted that
there is not enough exposure of Asian Americans in the mainstream culture. One student who
was volunteering at the legal clinic commented that some of the clients were Asians and that the
myth of the model minority stereotype overlooks those who do not fit into the category of
financially well-to-do Asians.
Daisy explained:
No, I do not think it is necessarily a cultural thing, I think it is a social economic issue.
You know there are Asian that are very well off and they do not need help but you know
I volunteer at a legal clinic and I’ve met with a lot of Asians clients because I speak
Mandarin and these people they don't have much income. You know they do need help,
they need Medicare, they need many things because they are making five hundred dollars
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 219

a month and they have children. No, so I don't think its Asian thing. I think it’s where you
are in terms of pecking order in the economy. No, not a cultural thing…
As some of the previous research (Li, 2005; McGowan & Linden, 2003) suggested, participants
commented that the model minority stereotype serves to conceal the need for Asian Americans in
receiving government assistance and that it does not necessary portray an accurate picture of
their financial wellbeing. Furthermore, high achievers noted that Asians are seen as
homogeneous group and this perception conceals variability in terms of academic achievement
and economic success among them.
Unlike higher achievers, the interviews revealed that half of the average achieving
students never heard of the term ‘model minority’ prior to the interview. Furthermore, three out
of four average achieving students did not appear to have a firm stance or attitude towards being
associated with the term model minority. Therefore, when they were asked to provide viewpoints
regarding the stereotype, the average achievers responded with ideas or opinions that they have
learned in a class or a general opinion rather than their personal one.
Mike explained:
I guess, one of the reasons that society has not been that great because of the stereotype.
First thing that people do is to apply that stereotype. For instance “Asians are bad driver”
even though it may be true…personally I am not really good at it but that kind of
perception is going to stuck in people’s mind. Like, Asians are good with math… I would
see that is negative too. For me it [stereotype] is not. For broader term it is bad,
stereotype often links with racism and there is stereotype for every ethnic group.
Jenny commented:
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 220

We are the model minority like so African American have to be up like us but we are not
up the whites. Like the glass ceiling…like, these minorities can do it why can they not do
it? We are minority too but we could achieve this standard but why can’t you guys do it
too. That's what they use Asians as…that is not positive…Even though we achieve this
but there is certain level we can never surpass that is what my teacher said. I don't know
if that is true…in the business you can’t ever be at that the level [of white] because they
[white people] never want us to be that high. They feel like threatened…that is what he
[professor] said.
Madeline explained, “I have been taught in my class but also I have looked up in the
Wikipedia. So basically, model minority is like you have to be the model for your group.
You have to conform to the western standard or not be the bad stereotype of your culture
that is it. That is what is means right? Well I think I mean it is good that some people are
model minority but you should not criticize those who are not.” Furthermore, she was
asked to comment whether the stereotype has positive or negative connotation, she stated,
“ I guess since we are the model minority, for example, at universities students and
teachers see Asians as smart…maybe the negative aspect would be that they would
expect or demand more…”
Brendan explained:
All minorities like Hispanics and African American should aspire to be like being smart
and cooperative, friendly, educated, rich…something like that. I did not study in the
history until college. In high school I have read it in some books in the library, the really
thick one. It only came up twice or three times during my four years of high school. I
think it is a good and bad thing. Good because people should try to better themselves. It’s
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 221

bad because if you try to force people physically or mentally whether they enjoy it is not
only going to make them unhappy. It may affect their culture negatively and people may
say, ‘Hey! We are not Asian. We should not be having to work so hard!’ To be honest
[personally] it is confusing …I know it may be some sort of insult or some kind…”
The interviews suggested that as with high achievers, average achievers perceived that the
stereotype focuses too much attention on academic aspects and made gross overgeneralization of
the group. Overall all the average achievers were aware of the fact that it has both negative and
positive aspects. In general, average achiever noted that the term could create friction or racial
tensions between Asian and other minority groups since it serve to undermine efforts of other
minority groups and to criticize others for not working hard enough to gain financial
independence and success. Furthermore, some of the average achievers were cognizant that the
stereotype does not accurately represent realities in terms of social mobility. Average achievers
noted that issues pertaining to Asian were not often unrecognized due to a pervasive model
minority stereotype.
Mike commented that many Asian Americans in general have issues of meeting parents’
expectation being of high achievers. Furthermore, he suggested that the stereotype could have an
impact on social interaction with peers from other ethnic groups.
Mike explained:
I am sure we have a lot of issues. Biggest one would be the pressure on education.
Parents would pressure you to do better. One of my friends gets a lot of pressure from his
family because they are all highly educated… kind of struggle. He goes to Miracosta
University. But when he tried to get to the university some of his parents thought it was
not good enough. Once he got in they did not want him to stay in because of tuition.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 222

Social wise I am pretty sure the stereotype has negative effect especially for Asian
parents with traditional values. Especially for Chinese, they are pretty racist! All parents
are worried when you are growing up whom you are going to meet and would they be a
good influences or bad influence on you. Or would they distract from education. I can’t
say for everyone but my mom sometimes little bit. She got better but she still has that.
Sometimes she is afraid that … not African American in general … but back then in
Oklahoma she didn't want me to hang out with too many Hispanics or black people
because…I am not saying that they are bad… stereotype. But for towards Caucasians it is
all right! Bias!”
Unlike Mike, Kathy and her sisters perceived that Asians as a group do not just face certain type
of issues that are unique only to the groups but each individuals faces their own and unique
issues. Brendan also shared a similar sentiment regarding stereotypes and issues that they face.
Lucy explained:
I think it's an individual thing. I know many Asians, all my friends are Asians and they
struggle with math, I mean that is our stereotypical subject but some do in fact struggle
with math. And they have trouble with foreign language too. I think its depends on a
person”
Brendan stated:
We just have as many problems as others. Might be even worse because of the stereotype.
People think that we are too smart and start getting singled out. People also assume
because stereotypes that certain things are true. “Asian women are bad drivers”…or that
“we are not very sociable”, “too strict about studying.” If you take a second look, maybe
spend a day with an Asian person then they will see how wrong they were. But…we are
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 223

discriminated by other people just like Hispanics and African people. As for academic
abilities, some people in the community are smarter than others. It’s pretty much as same
as others too. So…we also share the same fear and hate that other people, other races but
we share likes and hobbies too so I don't thing racial barrier is the problem as long as
people have similar interests and get to know each other.
Madeline explained, “I would say Asians have different issues…but I would say they
don't have the stereotype threat of being unintelligent. We don't have those kind of
negative stereotypes. Of course we have this ‘bad at driving’ but you know that is not as
harmful as you are stupid so…” Then she was asked to comment whether Asian has
lesser psychological problems compare to others, she answered, “It depends on …some
Asians are better off than other and of course those are better off are tend to better
adjusted because they have all the resources… I wouldn't say that we don't have
psychological issues, problems. Its just maybe those who succeeded managed well or… I
wouldn't say we don't have psychological problems because I felt depressed, not
clinically…you know because I was not doing to well.”
Half of the average achievers responded that issues that Asians face might not be differ from
other ethnic group. Only one of the students suggested that Asians would likely face issues of
parental approval regarding academic achievement or meeting parents’ expectation of being
high achievers. Interestingly, one of the average achievers suggested that some of the issues
could be mitigated by the amount of available resources. Overall both higher achievers and
average achievers had slight different perceptions regarding the label of model minority
stereotype; however it appears as though both groups identify the label as negative.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 224

Collectivistic vs. Individualistic Cultural Orientation
Aspects of collectivistic and individualistic cultural orientation appeared to have
impacted how students perceived their academic achievement and future success. Oyserman and
Sakamoto (1997) concluded that there is a positive correlation between how individuals perceive
the label of model minority and their ethnic heritage. Their study hypothesized those who
perceived tradition and heritage positively would also have a tendency to value the label
positively; but those who perceive the label negatively would see the label as undermining
individual effort. However, the study also revealed that respondents were able to perceive their
group membership in a positive light and define their identity through their group membership,
meanwhile focusing on their individualistic goal. Oyserman & Sakamoto (1997) suggested that
the cultural orientation of individualism (often seen as a hallmark of American culture) and
collectivism (interdependence and connectedness which is believe to be a characteristic for the
Asian culture) affect the formation of identity, perception of one’s ethnic group, and the
valuation of the model minority image. Previous studies found that more acculturated Asians
possess a different ethnic identity from first-generation immigrants who holds traditional values
that align more closely with collectivistic cultural orientation (Goto, 1997; Louie, 2006).
Although these high achievers were well acculturated, their interview revealed that the
majority of high achievers possessed collectivistic orientation in terms of ethnic identity but a
more individualistic orientation when it comes to academic achievement.
Daisy described:
I am definitely more independent maybe is it a factor of growing up in an individualistic
culture like I know a lot of students…so I grew up independent… I think its good to be
independent but at the same time I think you need to strike a balance. I look at the Jewish
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 225

community and I think they are so, you know the stereotype so successful and I don't
think that is just a fact of everyone being smart, I think some of it just that they also really
help each other. I see some communities so close knit, like Korean communities, like
they are so close but they are so competitive with each other and they don't help each
other much, and I think if everyone would help each other little bit maybe everyone could
do little bit better. There is some product of working together… so be independent but
help one other.”
Linda on the other hand described:
Collective. For me family is important I am very family oriented. I noticed that when I
am in a big group I like to listen to what other people says rather than telling everyone
what I think right away. So I feel like in that way I believe more collective view. I feel
like a part of the world not in the center of it… I know for me big a decision for me in
college was that I had choice in going to other prestigious universities or Miracosta
University. If I was extremely collectivistic I would have done is going to University that
is close to our house, I would have stayed but kind of more individualistic about it. I
chose Miracosta University because I knew that in the long run if I went to Miracosta I
grow a lot more, it would help myself grow a lot more. And in the end I could contribute
back to my family because I would grow up more and learned more skills. But moments
like those you have to make decisions whether you want to focus more on the group or
focus more on yourself. And I think decision like that would happen all the time…I see
tons of kids slacking off, tons of kids who use parents money and they don't think about
their own future. They think that they can keep spending and that they can have fun and
not worry about their own future. I see that and I shake my heads. It does not build
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 226

character or ethics. It does not contribute anything to the world. Its very individual thing,
it does not help everyone. That is why I am collective. So I really believe in the helping
out the world, helping out the community
Kimberly described, “I would say individualistic rather than collectivistic because I guess
college really changed me and we always focus on individualistic values so that is how…”
She was then asked whether it is necessary for individuals to embrace individualistic
cultural orientation in order to be integrated in to the mainstream, she answered “I think it
would be hard for them to be in the mainstream if you do not have individualistic value. I
think there would be some problems…”
Steve described:
I had my visions for what I want to do in the future. But if I am in class, I feel like I have
a group orientated vision but when it comes to individual I see myself as by myself. But
obviously I want all my friends to do well but obviously that is not possible. But that is
what I strive for. So hopefully that works out. I do want to see my current friends in the
future so if that is what you asking for then yes. I see myself as more group oriented
rather than individualistic
Keith explained, “Definitely collectivistic! My goal in life, for me is to be happy I want
to make sure people that I care about are happy too. It’s not so much about me reaping
the benefit of success but I want my close member of my life to live better life and be
happy.” He was then asked to comment whether school promoted individualistic value,
he stated, “I didn't feel that way, I thought as stepping-stone to my goal; to be better
individually to reach my goal to help other people.”
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 227

Results of the interviews suggested that although, these high achievers were more exposed and
acculturated to the American culture and developed slightly a different ethnic identity from first-
generation immigrants, it appeared that their cultural values aligned more closely with a
collectivistic cultural orientation than with an individualistic orientation. In addition, interviews
revealed that those who endorsed a collectivistic orientation also perceived independent
achievement as crucial part of their future success.
As with high achievers, the majority of average achievers were second-generation
immigrants with high levels of acculturation; thus they would presume to prefer more
individualistic cultural values than collectivistic values. However, the interviews revealed that
the majority of average achieving students stated they possessed both individualistic and
collectivistic cultural orientations.
Mike described:
I mean everyone needs help in their lives but little bit of both. Sometimes especially
living in America everything you are by yourself. You work hard and you make it on
your own that kind of model. I think a lot of times I tried to do everything on my own.
Sometimes I can’t do everything by myself so I would really need teachers and
counselors or friends to help me any kind of thing…but you are going to have to have
little bit of both.
Madeline stated:
I would say both. When I do stuff that I do think about how it would affect my family and
friends… Sometimes I just think about myself…I don't know if I speak for all Chinese or
just in case of people living near village where my parents supposedly grew up but we
tend to live with our grandparents. And that would be more of collectivistic approach.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 228

Grandparents would be in the life of their children and their grandchildren. And we can
live together and look out for each other. But for me I am thinking taking more
individualistic approach. I like American ideal of breaking away from family staring your
own life with partner so I guess in some areas I would prefer more individualistic
approach. Its not because I prefer American ways over Chinese but I prefer that way you
know…
Brendan explained:
Generally our parents or first generation would like us to think collectivistic but then
some people in the second generation, myself included we tried to develop out own
individual sense of identity and values because our parents lived in the another place and
set of rules but here it does not really work out that way. To be able to prosper here you
need to be able to think for yourself and go out to do things for yourself and take action
basically. If you stay in the communities for too long you are not going to get anywhere.
Kathy and her sister appeared to have a different preference regarding their cultural orientation.
Out of three sisters, Kathy was the only sibling that reported to prefer individual cultural
orientation she attributed to her increased level of exposure to American culture and to her
father’s wish for his daughter to be successfully integrated into the mainstream culture. However,
they did not necessarily believe that one is required to possess an individualistic cultural
orientation to be incorporated into the mainstream culture.
Kathy and her sisters explained:
I think I am collectivistic because I always think like how this is going to benefit us but a
whole family too (Lucy). I think I am little more individualistic because I have been
exposed to more of American culture. My dad, he really wanted us to be American then I
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 229

focused a lot more on what Americans do then I tried to live that kind of life. Instead of
Asian life or whatever that is… I feel like am more exposed to Americans that somehow I
am more individualistic. (Kathy). I think I am more collectivistic because I like to take
care of others (Jenny). Jenny is the oldest and likes to take care of us. She always
impresses us. She always asks what you want to do or go. So responsible…and she drives
around too (Lucy).”
Madeline and Brendan also perceived that one is not required to possess an individualistic
cultural orientation in order to be incorporated into the mainstream culture.
Madeline explained:
It’s not the whole truth. I would not say Americans are fully individualistic, like you
know truly selfish… certain areas, like careers or family too especially being a women.
Your family choices and career choices intertwine. You know if you get pregnant during
your career then they may fire you and stuff like that…or like a lot of women they get
degree and they end up taking care of children and husband keep going up while they
stop… so some area in life you have to be individualistic like careers and family but not
every aspect of it.
Brendan explained:
Some part of individualism definitely needed for a person to develop but then you need a
balance of both. Because too much individualism it’s going to… run off and do
something possibly damaging to the community. For example, if someone from Chinese
family were to marry African American that then they would be shunned. Or something
like that if they stick with the community too long they would not have any friends or
won’t have life experiences and they will be keep leaning outdated information. So they
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 230

need to bring out the best from both sides. You also have to try to be careful because
favoring one side too much may insult someone from other side. This is a small example
but if your entire childhood your parents told you not to go out so much, not to go out
with your friends, and have curfew. Then in high school you start learning to become
your own person and get to know your friends. You will have dilemma when you spend
too much time with your family then your friends will forget all about you and they will
think that you are too busy with your own thing all the time. But also if you spend too
much time with your friends, your parents may not like it and start thinking that you are
spending too much time socializing not studying. Sot is definitely difficult to balance.
Most people are able to balance to some extent.
As noted earlier, three out of four students reported to have both an individualistic
cultural orientation as well as a collectivistic orientation. Interviews suggested that most average
achievers’ cultural orientation fall somewhere along a continuum between individualistic and
collectivistic. Some of the negative aspects of a collectivistic cultural orientation that they
mentioned were that younger people must respect and show complete obedience to elders.
Furthermore, they perceived that they were not able to express personal opinions freely since it
could potentially contradict or challenge opinions of elders. In addition, the expectation that
children must take care of their aging parents was perceived as a burden for some average
achievers.
As with high achievers, some of the average achievers equated a individualistic cultural
orientation negatively, such as selfishness, self-serving or too focused on competition, rather
than positive aspects, such as autonomy, innovation, and freedom of expression. Furthermore,
one of the average achiever suggested that the higher level of acculturation increased the
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 231

likelihood of later generation Asian Americans being conflicted when balancing two cultural
preferences.
Career choices
Interview results revealed a slight difference between two groups in terms of their career
as well as educational aspirations. Louie (2004) asserted that to understand the difference in
perception concerning the opportunity structure, effort in achieving educational success, and
subsequent career choices, the result of cultural ecological theory must be interpreted in
conjunction with class and socioeconomic status since there appeared to be slight dissimilarity in
parent’s perception concerning their children’s career choices along the social class. Furthermore,
parents’ expectation as well as their educational background would likely have a significant
influence on students’ career choices.
When higher achievers were asked which career would yield higher financial gains, most
high achievers believed ‘traditionally Asian fields’, such as lawyers, physicians, or engineers that
requires advanced education degrees.
Daisy explained:
Information system or data, engineering I think these are the biggest growing industries. I
think they have much better future than someone who is, unfortunately me, pursuing law.
Law is doing really terribly right now. Very few entry levels, very few people get a
job…Oh, I totally forgot health industry is doing fantastic and health industry will always
do fantastic…
Linda explained:
I got lucky…I flipped through psychology book and this is really interesting learning
how people behave and think about stuff. So then I can make money off of this. At first
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 232

parents were really skeptical about it because Asians do not really focus on psychological
health, they think it’s like a hoax. They don't think psychological problems are really
problems. I think that is the part of the reason that I want to get into it because I want to
be able to educate Asians and Asian Americans because I really think they need it…
Kimberly explained:
Medical and pharmacy! I am doing this for financial stability. Mainly for financial
stability!
Steve explained:
I’ve always wanted to be a doctor when I grow up. Not because of my parents actually.
When I told my mom that I wanted to go to med school my parents told me to think about
it before you do. Part of it is like she didn't want me to go in expecting what is going to
be like versus reality. I think she wanted to make sure I know what I wanted to do. So I
was not particularly influenced by the social factors.
Keith commented:
Medical would be most stable but the amount is not. If you want stability, definitely
accounting. If you want big bucks investment, trading, Wall Street stuff or be in a
technology firm. For me I knew what I wanted to do. Of course it changed around a lot. I
was pre-med for a while but was miserable. Now I am geared toward financing
consulting. That is where my passion is!
When they were questioned whether they are pursing the career because of their parents desire or
their own choice, four out of five students noted that it was their choice. Furthermore, they were
asked whether their parents would support career choices that they perceived as ‘untraditional’ or
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 233

a career that would less likely yield financial stability, four out of five higher achievers
speculated that their parents would honor their decision.
Daisy explained, “She was asked to comment whether her parents wanted her to go into
certain field she stated, “My mother really wants me to go into a government work. I
think she is really short sighted. She wants me to have a stable job but provides good
benefit. They pay less but they make it up with benefit and stability. But I also think that
is short sighted because the government is not hiring so I don't think my mother is well
informed.” Further she was asked to comment whether her parents wanted to her to go
into gender-oriented jobs, she commented, “Well, my parents are not very stereotypical
Asian parents. They are not very involved with in decision making for my future and they
don’t put a lot of pressures on me… much. They don't really push me that much at all,
with anything but they mentioned like ‘you can do accounting’ but I said, No, mom, no!”
Linda was asked to comment whether her parents wanted to her to go into certain field,
she stated, “Of course they do. You know they tell you to become doctors and lawyers.
Those are two main ones and maybe engineers. When I was little I really liked art. My
mom knew that so I tool art classes when I was young. But when I was young what I
want to be would change all time. But I was good at arts so teachers and friends told me
‘you are going to be artist when you grow up.’ I used to say yes, I am going to be artist
when I grow up. But end of middle school mom start telling me you cannot be an artist.
You can’t make money being artist. You know the starving artist. So then on I switched
then on I have to find other majors to be into and really make money. Mom said you can
have artist job on the side but you have to find something more practical. Why don't you
being a lawyers or doctors. Do they push me into that direction but … so my parents were
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 234

really skeptical about psychology at first, but they know that it is really a profession that
can make a lot of money. Also I have told them about what I can really do. It’s a growing
field. They see it as more acceptable as long as I go to graduate school.”
Kimberly was asked to comment whether field that she was currently pursuing was her
interest or her parents, she commented, “For my family and for myself and mainly for
financial stability. My parents told me to go into pharmacy.” She was then asked if her
parents would support non-Asian field, she stated, “They would be definitely against it.
Personally I like music and I like playing guitar, I was planning to go into song writing
and reason why I chose Miracosta was well rounded and if you switch major it would still
be a good school for you. I was thinking about that but long term definitely pharmacy
would be something that I should go for because of financial stability but not for my
interest.”
Steve explained, “my mom would not necessarily steer me to certain direction. She
wanted me to be practical obviously. Obviously, I did not have desire to be an art major
so I feel like she is thankful for that. She didn't need me to stir into other directions.
Because I’ve always known what I want and that happen to be a good financial income. I
know what I wanted to do and what I wanted to do was beneficial for me as well. I didn't
think she had to stir me any way.” Then he was asked to comment whether his parents
would be against career that deemed unpractical in terms of financial stability, he stated,
“Actually, I would not know. I would say for practicality wise she would stir me to any
other direction.”
Keith was asked to comment whether his parents would be supportive of the choice that
perceived as financially unstable, he commented, “Yet, I think they would be supportive.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 235

My dad emphasized that it does not matter what you do, I am proud as long as you are
happy. But recently though, because older and more wise. In his younger years I don't
know. Now do whatever you want. He said, ‘As long as you are content with your life,’
he is really deep nowadays. Definitely an age thing…”
Only one student reported a career choice driven by the sentiment of filial obligation and placed
the emphasis solely on financial stability. For this particular student it can be discerned that she
felt the sense of obligation to compensate for the losses incurred by their parents upon
immigration and to some extent felt obliged to parents’ request although she was not interested
in the career that her parents had chosen for her. The interviews revealed that parents of high
achievers appeared to promote more effort towards succeeding in certain subject fields that they
deemed to be financially more stable, than non-traditional fields, such as arts or music, which
they perceived as very unstable in terms of income. Although the interview results indicated that
parents have a great influence in choosing a major for their children, four out of five students
were pursuing careers of their choice in spite of initial reservation from their parents.
The interviews suggested that some of the higher achievers recognized that available
family resources significantly affect their career path.
Steve commented:
SES would affect it because sometimes there is nothing you can do. You want to go
somewhere but you don't have the option. You don't have the resources. So that is a huge
inhibitor for those people who want to…there is time where you cannot go to med school
and that point I would look for another alternatives. You don't need to be in med school
to be in a medical field. For instance, EMT or nursing school, which is not as expensive
so I would look for the alternatives. Because I am so passionate about it, I would just be
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 236

in the field. Others might change their courses but since I am so passionate about it, I
wouldn't mind switching into another position but I would be in the field for general.
Kevin explained:
I didn't have to work a job before. I didn't have to work my way though high school. In
college, I did volunteering instead of working to pay for tuition. That is what I use my
time for. Financial burden that a lot of college students have I did not have that pressure.
That is a good thing. I am fortunate to not to have that… I just did a study in my class
that maybe seventy percent of the students are in financial burden…large percent of
people that are depressed because of their financial burden. Either you have to do well or
if you have to make means meet then you don't have time to study. High expectation to
do well because your parents spend so much money…
As noted earlier, the interviews revealed that parents appeared to place more effort towards
succeeding in certain subject areas than others due mainly to stereotypes regarding financial
stability of careers. It appeared as though high achievers in this study chose professions (lawyer,
psychologist, pharmacist, physician, and financial consultant) that parents approved or perceived
to be financially stable. In most cases parents would still support their children’s career choices if
the career chosen had a prospect for financial stability.
With regard to career choices concerning the gender of their children, the interviews did
not suggest a difference in parents’ philosophy regarding career choices. Three out of two cases
parents of high achievers did not endorsed their female children to pursue in ‘traditional female
field,’ such as clerical works, nurse, and flight attendant. Parents of female higher achievers
appeared to be not concerned with career that is specifically gender oriented but placed more
emphasis on financial stability.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 237

As with high achievers, average achieving students also perceived ‘traditional Asian
fields would likely yield the highest financial gain in the future; however, there was only one
student who aspired a career in those field. When they were questioned whether they are pursing
the career because of their parents’ desire or their own choice, all four students commented that
it was their choice. Furthermore, they were asked to comment if parents would support career
choices that are seen as ‘untraditional’; all four students responded that their parents would most
likely support their decision.
Mike was asked to comment whether his mother would stir into career that would likely
to yield financial stability in the future, he stated, “Yes, I mean…Asian parents are doing
what is good for you and they believe that it would be best for you. So sometimes they
don't want their kids to do certain stuff even though kids want to…” He was then asked if
his parents would be supportive of his decision if the career that he has chosen was not
financially sound, he commented, “It depends. My mother would not confine my choices
too much but at least she would know which area would earn more money or that good
career that help me with my living. Because my mom wants me to support her when I
grow up. So for sure art is not good idea in terms of finance. She would not discourage
me she would support me but she would probably give me a lot more options. She just
wants me to do well in school that is number one…”
Although Kathy and her sisters acknowledged that their chosen career is very a ‘untraditional
Asian’ field, they still aspired to follow their dreams. Jenny stated initially that their parents
wanted them to pursue a career in accounting; yet they have accepted their children’s career
choices only on one condition that they would be financially stable in the future. Furthermore,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 238

they noted that they would prefer to pursue a career that they are passionate about rather than to
pursue a career just for sake of financial stability.
Madeline explained:
I had undeclared major and I took few psychology classes and I thought I really liked it
so…I chose it because also it is very diverse it is not just one type of psychology you can
go into forensic or clinical you can work with variety of people illness and
stuff…Initially, my dad was telling me just know certain things like how to fix computer
or cars or basic things like that…he wanted to me to go into art because I liked drawing
cartoon but I took art classes I did not really like it because I am not really good at
painting realism. Only cartoon. So I felt behind in those classes...I really did not want to
do fine art…so I decided not to do that so I chose psychology later.” Then she was asked
to comment whether her parents persuaded her to go into gender specific field, she
commented “No, they just wanted to me to get high paying job. They did not say
anything as long as whatever I am going into is the good paying.”
Brendan, who aspired to be engineer, was asked to comment whether his parents would
support his choice if he would to choose career that they perceived as financially unstable,
he stated, “They would be supportive but then expect me to find a good job because there
are not many good professions that you can do with art major or music major… I know
they would be unhappy but they would accept my choice. My parents would be lenient
but other parents may be not so much…”
Although most average achieving participants had possible careers for their future in mind, the
majority of these students did not have specific educational plans for obtaining those careers.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 239

As with higher achievers’ parents, the parents of female average achievers did not
appeared to be concerned with a career that is specifically gender oriented but placed more
emphasis on their success, specifically financial stability. For instance, there was one student for
whom financial stability was crucial in deciding his career path due to the fact that he was
expected to take care of his mother upon graduating college. Average achievers noted that their
parents prefer them to pursue in a career that they believe to be ‘safer’ but not necessarily
promote ‘traditionally Asian field’. The interviews suggested that although parents of average
achiever might emotionally and financially support their children’s career choices, parents
wanted to convey the message to their children that their chosen career must be financially stable.
Model Minority as Stereotype Treat
The stereotype threat, unlike the model minority stereotype, focuses on the relationship
between awareness of a societal stereotype concerning one’s group and decreased academic
performance in a particular domain (Steele, 1997). Questions were posed to participants in order
to examine how this expectation of high achieving students by stakeholders, such as parents or
teachers, would affect Asian Americans’ academic performance in school. Louie’s study (2006)
found that individuals would experience a sense of pessimism and failure when they did not
measure up to the stereotype image portrayed by the mainstream culture. Furthermore, it can be
discerned that if one identifies with the stereotype positively, failure to meet the criterion would
elicit psychological stress and subsequently disidentification with the domain of academic
success in order to remove self-relevancy and protect self-confidence. As noted by Steele (1997),
this threat becomes problematic when individual disidentify with the domain of school, which he
found to be necessary for sustained school success. It may also hamper one’s intellectual identity
as well as future career choices.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 240

As noted earlier, high achievers perceive the model minority to be negative and an
overgeneralize variation of academic achievement among Asian Americans. Although the
majority of high achievers stated that they were not personally affected by the threat, they
recognized the possibility that the stereotype would inhibit those students who are not meeting
the criteria set forth by stereotype from seeking academic assistance.
Daisy was asked to comment if a person with Asian heritage would be hesitant to ask help
from teachers due to stereotype image of high achieving Asian, she stated,
“Yes, I do think that is completely valid. I do think that occurs. Even I struggle with that
some times. Like if I don’t understand something I feel embarrassed almost. I don't know if
that is I being Asian…It’s hard for me to say if it is because I am Asian or maybe because I
usually do well. But I think it is completely valid and someone would feel less inclined to
ask for help because of the perception of stereotype. And you see that in any environment.”

On the other hand Linda explained that in her high school every students were expected to
do well not just Asians, she explained, “High school was a lot more liberal and everyone
had equal standings because we understood culture more generally there was not more
expectation for Asian students to do well but it was more like everyone to do well”

Kimberly was asked to comment whether other peers considered her more intelligent
because of the stereotype or because of diligence or hard work, she stated, “I would say
because I am Asian and not because of hard work or effort.” Then she was asked to
comment whether public expectation to perform well would facilitate or impede her
academic performance, she stated, “I would say it would push me to do better but when I
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 241

am very stressed and when I get myself pressured then it would actually impede. It
happened to me at first year of college it was really out of myself and because I am part of
the pre-med population so very competitive. So sometimes other people do well and I am
not doing as well and I get mad at myself and then I start getting all pressure from other
pre-med students. That would make me do worse in class.”

Steve was asked to comment not meeting the expectation of being high achiever would
threaten to his identity, he stated “I personally wouldn't but then I feel like, if someone else
saw that they wouldn't be like ‘Asians are not smart after all’ because of these specific
individuals. So when that happens that would affect the stereotype. But at the same time
that is just society so… Personally that has never affected me. I feel like people that I
surround myself with don't think that way.”

Keith was asked to comment if he was ever reluctant in soliciting assistance from teachers
due to the stereotype, he stated, “I mean kind of but I don't think that is due to the
stereotype but I didn't like asking questions. Questions that I would ask are ones that I
would try to argue something. I question teachers something why? So they knew me as a
very curious student. But not for struggling with homework, but why this happens,
questions regarding detail of biology. Why this happened, why this did not happen?” Then
he was asked to comment if he had Asian peers that were struggling in class would be
hesitant in asking questions, he commented “ Of course! They did not want to seem stupid.
I don't think it's Asian thing though. It just they didn't want to seen as stupid not because
being Asian. They don't want feel stupid from other peers…”
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 242

The interviews suggested that four out of five higher achievers were not personally affected by
the stereotype of Asian as being high achievers since by definition all of them fit the
characteristics of the stereotype. However, most of them commented that it could presumably
impede some individuals from seeking assistance when necessary, which subsequently would
affect their academic strive and motivation for academic success. From the interview it can be
discerned that for some students being perceived as unintelligent by peers would be detrimental
to one’s intellectual identity and sustained motivation for academic success.
With regard to dealing with psychological stress in general, Asians would be more at risk
due to the cultural norm and practice. One of the students mentioned that typically Asians are
taught to solve issues on their own. Therefore, if a problem should arise one would expect to
show no sign of psychological distress due to stress or anxiety. In addition, she had mentioned
that Asian males are even less likely to seek professional help.
Linda explained:
Especially, Asian culture because they teach you to hold in your stress to not to bring out.
They think that strength is holding everything in be able to solve your own problems. But
obviously stress builds up and can manifest into a lot of ways. I know people who struggle
with these things but feel like they cannot share with anyone. Probably because what their
parents taught them or an environment has taught them. Many are uncomfortable sharing
feelings. Among friends, yes… But they wouldn't seek out professional help. I know one of
them don't want to seek out professional help at all so I have to listen. I know that Asian
American males have it the worst because while females do feel like they can talk about
their problems with others but I don't think males have that. They don't have the social
freedom. They could if they want to but they don't. Guys don't call each other and talk.
They usually do not talk…”
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 243

Some of the high achiever students stated that the stereotype unquestionably heightens the
expectation of their parents. The interviews revealed that high achievers’ parents generally have
high expectation of their children in terms of academic achievement and future success. It would
be especially true for first generation immigrants who immigrated to the United States for the
sake of a better life for their children. Therefore, it can be assumed that second-generation
immigrants, such as students in this study, would be more inclined to feel an obligation to
perform well in school.
Kimberly was asked to comment whether the stereotypes contribute to heighten
expectations for academic success for teachers and parents, she stated, “I would say my
parents. They have very high expectations for me in general…”
Steve explained:
I feel like pride is what Asians have a lot of. So parents have a lot of that. So Asian parents
always talk about their kids with other parents. So in terms of that the pride, it is a huge
thing. So that does heighten the expectation for not only others but for you. Parents expect
more out of you because they want to talk about you. So I understand where they are
coming from but that does heighten the expectations. But when it comes to classes, I feel
like most teachers that are familiar with are trained to award based on merit. You work
hard and you get good grades because you deserve it. Not because you are Asian and I
want more out of you than other person. So teachers that I had did not judge based on race.
Parents, that is another thing!”
The interviews revealed that the stereotype unquestionably heighten the expectation of
their parents. They further revealed that high achievers’ parents generally have high expectation
of their children in terms of academic achievement and future success. Although these high
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 244

achievers were not personally affected by the stereotype and did not perceived it as a threat to
their intellectual identities, they recognized that it would have negative implication for those who
perceive the stereotype to be domain of their relevance and their identity. Furthermore, it can be
discerned that if one identifies with the stereotype positively, failure to meet the criterion would
elicit psychological stress and subsequently disidentify with that domain (academic success) in
order to remover self-relevancy and protect self-confidence. In addition, the findings suggested
that due to cultural practice of Asian American, those who perceive the domain to be positive
would be at more risk of having psychological stress and less likely to seek professional
assistance.
When average achievers were asked to respond whether their academic efforts were in
anyways affected by the model minority stereotype, three out of four participants stated that
expectation of doing well academically did not impede or hinder their academic performance.
Furthermore, the findings suggested that the stereotype of model minority did not appear to
become a threat to their academic or ethnic identity. In addition, it was revealed that for average
achievers, the stereotype of model minority or Asian as high achievers did not appear to prevent
them from seeking academic assistance from teachers.
Noted earlier with higher achievers, dealing with psychological stress in general, Asians
would be at more risk due to the cultural norm and practice. Some of the research suggested that
in general, tradition of collectivistic cultural orientation dissuade individuals from candidly
displaying emotion in order to avoid displaying one’s weakness or to maintain harmonious
relationship with family members. Therefore, individuals from a collectivistic cultural
orientation would be less likely to solicit help for psychological issues (Kramer, Kwong, Lee, &
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 245

Chung, 2002.) Although two of the students did not specifically state that they felt a social
stigma or shame, they were hesitant in soliciting assistance from peers or teachers.
Mike explained:
I mainly talk to my friends about issues not even to my parents. I am more like, if I have
some issues I usually keep it within me. Like my mom, keep everything within me and
once in a while I would tell my friends. Depends on how bad it is…”
Madeline explained, “I was not hesitant of speaking up but I just did not feel like going to
tutor or asking for help. Because I thought I could do it for myself but I did not.” Then
she was asked to comment the reason for not soliciting assistance from teachers or peers
when she was failing in a class, she stated, “I kind of a stereotype threat myself. Because
I am Asian and supposed to be good at math but I am not. Its supposed to be stereotype
lift but ended up being a threat! I am kind of over now. Because I took a math assessment
here and got placed in pre-algebra and I took it again and I got placed in again. I thought
probably it is not in my intelligence because I neglected math all those years obviously
because I did not pay attention so…”
Three of four average achievers commented that the stereotype heighten the expectation of their
parents. Furthermore, half of the average achievers noted that parents have a tendency to
compare their children with other co-ethnics in order to determine academic success within the
community.
Mike commented:
Parents always like to compare with other children from another school or area. If you
don't not do well your parents don't have anything to talk about in their gathering. They
always say my child is going to graduate school or this school or that school. Sometimes if
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 246

you are not doing well your mother will cover for you. So there is heavy pressure from
parents to do well. Because, generally, parents emphasize a lot on education and you must
do well. That would be a really pressure
Kathy and her sister commented:
Parents already have that…higher than the stereotype (Jenny). You have to be the top. It’s
not enough to be number one (Lucy). It’s not because of the stereotype, parents want you
do to well (Lucy). They want you to have easier life (Jenny)”
Madeline commented:
It is common among Asians or I guess any culture…I cannot really say but to say you
know, parents would say so and so is doing better you should do better.
Brendan was asked to comment if the stereotype would heighten expectation for parents
and teachers, he commented “Yes. Even though they won’t say it they will assume that you
should do well.” Furthermore, he was asked to comment the stereotype impede or hinder
his academic performance, he stated, “I would say, it is little impeding but also motivating.
I was expected to do well in math and science because my parents wanted me to be doctors.
I found the pressure to be little intimidating. Still, I used it to boost my motivation because
I want to try to meet my parents’ expectations to the extent so that they wont be completely
unhappy. At the same time I want to move my own pace and do what I want to do.”
With regard to the question of whether the stereotype threatens academic performance, the
findings suggest that for the majority of average students it did not have an impact on academic
performance. However, the majority of average students stated that the stereotype heighten the
expectation of their parents. Although students did not specifically comment whether there was a
direct association between the stereotype and heightened expectation from parents, anticipated
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 247

academic excellence from parents appeared to place a cognitive burden upon some of the
students.
Discussion of Research Question Two
Research Question Two asked: How has the model minority ideology impacted the
educational careers of high performing and average performing Chinese heritage students? In
response to research question two there were three findings that ideology of model minority may
that had influence on educational career. They are: cultural orientation, career choices, and,
perception of threat.
Research Question Two asked: How has the model minority ideology impacted the
educational careers of high performing and average performing Chinese heritage students? In
response to research question two there were three findings that the ideology of model minority
may that had an influence on educational careers. They are: cultural orientation, career choices,
and, perception of threat. Second, findings suggested that perception of model minority appeared
to affect career choices. Third finding suggested that although, none of the students perceived
meeting the standard of a model minority was relevant to their own identities, some of the
students, especially average achievers, were hesitant in asking for assistance, which in turn
would likely affect their motivation for academic success.

Results for Research Question Three
How do educational caretakers treat high performing and average performing Chinese
heritage students? For the third research question, the model minority theory and the theory of
social capital was referenced in attempt to answer how educational caretakers treat high
performing and average performing Chinese heritage students. The focus here is the role of
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 248

institutional agents (teachers, counselors, and administrators) and the significance of their
support. In addition, the association between the influence of institutional agents’ perception and
students’ academic achievement was explored.
Although there may be issues concerning available resources, the interview findings
suggested that higher achievers and average achievers had slight variations regarding role of
institutional agents.
Role of Institutional Agents
Stanton-Salazar (1997) stated that for lower-status groups, such as minorities, gaining
access to social capital from institutional agent is one of the key aspects since forming network
or social freeway would function as pathways to accessing various resources to further their
socioeconomic mobility. Resources can be considered as something tangible such as gaining
access to information about programs at school (i.e., mentoring program, tutor programs),
obtaining information regarding college enrollment procedures and obtaining social or emotional
support. Therefore, Salazar asserted that various aspects of children’s lives (i.e., school success,
well-being, and social integration) are heavily influenced by opportunities for them in
developing instrumental relationships with institutional agents or those who have access in
providing institutional resources and opportunities such as teachers, counselors, community
leaders and even peers.
As previously noted, two out of three students who attended private secondary
institutions expressed that teachers and counselors were accommodating to students’ needs and
that the environment was supportive and nurturing. Also those who attended private high school
stated that classes tended to be smaller and that teachers were more accessible. Thus they were
able to get more personalized attention. Although resources were scarce compare to private high
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 249

schools, it appeared that two of the high achievers who attended public high school were able to
gain access to institutional agents and able to gain social capital.
Daisy who attended a public school explained:
“Nobody served as a mentor figure for me but there were a particular teacher like my
English AP teachers and my digital study teachers were very accommodating that they
did help me with things and they were approachable. It’s not necessarily that they
reached out for me and said ‘hey I want to take you under my wing’ but they were
approachable and that they made everyone know that “if you need a help come talk to
me.” Then she was asked to comment whether teacher genuinely care about students, she
stated, “Some of them I do think so. Maybe not me specifically but I think they care
about students very much. Like I said about my English teachers earlier he really cared.”
Linda who attended a private institution explained:
If you seem like not doing well in the class you can go up and talked to them or they will
approach you. And if you ever want to work with them it is really easy to make an
appointment to meet with them. And they are really good about helping individually. So
students go talk to them about personal things or talk about school work, so it is a really
good support.”
Kimberly who attended specialized public school explained:
If you have emotional or social problem you can go to counselors. I actually knew him
since he was the advisor for my club. I would say only tiny amounts of students seek help
in that area. But I would say he was very helpful. But there was only one or two
counselor for that.”
Steve who attended a private institution explained:
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 250

If you needed teachers they will stay after school to help you. They do reach out to
students. So it was very different kind of environment. Since we were such a small school,
teachers had time to dedicate to us. They really wanted us to succeed. So that was the
attitude that I felt. We had a lot of academic support. You just had to reach out if you
wanted it.
Keith who attended a religiously affiliated private institution explained his school
environment as, “Very welcoming. My school was not known for academics but it’s
more of fostering. It's a Christian school so they emphasize on special aspects of it, the
family oriented teaching and everyone treats each other like family pretty much. So it
was very friendly and relaxed environment but it was not too stringent on academics.
Other than the obvious fact that the difference between public and private school regarding the
environment and amount of available resources, some of the institutional agents in both private
and public high schools appeared to be genuinely concerned with the welfare of students. The
difference between private and public institutions appeared to be that at the private high school
teachers were more receptive to students’ needs and they were more proactive in reaching out for
help.

Daisy explained:
And your question was that were they helpful? Some of staffs were not helpful and I have
no shame in admitting it but some, very few professors, I can remember my writing
professors who everyone was scared of was an amazing professor. Some professors were
amazing and I thought they really changed my experience at high school. Some
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 251

professors were really bad but you get that everywhere even here at Miracosta University
some professors were ….no comment
Linda explained:
We do have counselors but I would not say extremely supportive. They are just there and
do their jobs. They don't reach out to students. They don't make effort to reach out to
students. They are just there if you need help. I guess its depends on students. If they
really need help they do ask for help. I guess some counselors do provide good insights
on things. I would they we had decent system.
From the accounts of high achievers who attended public high school, teachers and counselors
were not less accommodating but due to the limited resources the school is generally
understaffed and that they have lesser opportunities to engage and attend to the needs of students.
Interestingly, although those who attended public high school may not have as many resources as
other counterparts, these high achievers still manage to gain access to institutional agents and
able to access necessary social capital to achieve high academic standings. However, it must be
noted that from these interviews it is not certain how much institutional support contributed to
their academic excellence since the interviews did not specifically address the role of
institutional agents to their intellectual development or to their motivation.
In terms of support, the interviews revealed that all high achievers do not usually ask
teachers for academic support at first. They prefer consulting with their peers first regarding
academic problems and then ask for assistance from teachers if they were still unable to solve
problems. With regard to emotional support, most seek peers for advice and not counselors.
Daisy explained:
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 252

Yes, like for emotional support… my friends. For the school staff, I don't think that I ever
had a very strong relationship with anybody in particular, administrators, like no body
served as a mentor figure for me…”
Linda explained:
“First I would ask my peers and if they did not know I would ask my teachers.” Then she
was asked who would she see for emotional issues, she explained, “It wasn't just a person.
Like if I had issues about school stress I would go to certain someone, if I had about
family stress I would go to different person. So its depends…It includes peers, counselors,
teachers, and family.” In addition she was asked who she referred for information
regarding college guidance, she stated, “From my college counselors. They are the ones
that I asked all the questions. She was really good at getting to know people and knowing
interest and what they like so she really helped me with decisions. I also asked Asian
American teachers how they go about picking school.”
Steve explained:
I would say at first students. I feel like when I learn with peers it’s more like exploring,
figuring out problems and you learn from that. You learn off of each other. When you
don't really know they you would go to teachers. Teachers are last resort. So you tried on
your own then with your friends and then teachers. But we would all go friends at first.
Keith was asked who provided with most support, he stated, “I don't know… its my peers
that gave the most support, advice…maybe they might not be academically as sound as I
am for asking for advice but still I feel like it always good to have more than one brain. It
doesn't matter how smart you are people always have different looks on things. I don't
care about academic standing that much in terms of friendship. Even though I was top of
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 253

my class I hang out with people who were bottom of the class. So to keep diversity you
know…”
Stanton-Salazar asserted that successful socialization for minority children is dependent on
“decoding the system” (p33) and being able to participate within the mainstream sphere in order
to gain access to resource and rich networks. Minority children must also learn to appropriate
language and proper mannerism to activate an exchange with institutional agents who could
provide them with necessary resources to succeed. It may be discerned that higher achievers
already have acquired these necessary skills to activate social capital from institutional agents.
As for average achievers they were keenly aware of limited resources in terms of
numbers of teachers, counselors, and number of courses offered; therefore, they needed to place
extra effort in seeking assistance. Half of the average achievers noted that teachers and
counselors were generally accommodating to the needs of students and other half had mixed
feelings. Furthermore, unlike high achieving students, average achieving students in this study
were less likely to seek academic assistance from teachers or even peers.
Mike admitted that he was not interested in an educational endeavor while he was
attending high school; hence he did not solicit assistance from teachers or counselors. However,
when he was asked about the degree of helpfulness of counselors and teachers, he commented
that they were generally accommodating. He perceived counselors as a person whom you could
consult regarding college or seek advice regarding courses that required for college. As for
teachers, he perceived that they spend more times interacting with students; thus they were more
readily available for emotional support. However, some of his friend perceived counseling was
not useful. He recalled an incident in high school where his friend was disheartened by the
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 254

comment that he received from a counselor such as “college was not for everyone” or “not going
to do well in college.”
Brendan commented that for academic issues he would solicit assistance from counselors
or teachers but with emotional issues he would be more comfortable discussing this with peers or
family members. However, with regard to course works or college guidance he would rely on the
expertise of counselors or teachers.
Brendan explained:
“Yes, they were definitely helpful. They tried their best to look after us. And whenever
we needed help we just go to the office. But mostly, if want to see them it would be have
to be during lunch. Sometimes there would be a line, sometimes not and we need to get
permission from teachers to visit them in the middle of class.” Furthermore he was asked
to respond whether he felt supported, he commented that, “Yes, definitely academics.
Emotional support I cannot really speak for other students but like I said counselors and
teachers were there for you.”
Kathy, her sister and Madeline perceived counselors as not being very helpful regarding
college guidance or academic support. Madeline, as noted earlier, was unmotivated; therefore
she did not solicit assistance from teachers even when she was failing her class. Kathy and her
sisters commented that they were rather hesitant in soliciting help from teachers regarding course
work since she perceived some of the teachers disapprove of students who seek assistance.
Kathy and sister described their experience with teachers and counselors:
“I was sometimes afraid that they would look down on me if I ask for help. Maybe,
because of the expectation that we should already know before asking. I tried asking one
time but then I felt they were looking at me like ‘seriously, you don't understand? Didn't
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 255

you read the book?’ I don't think it was stereotype but it’s just some of the teachers not
all (Kathy). Like strict teachers! They had attitude like “Why are you asking? You should
have done your work!” (Lucy). Counselors were not the most awesome people (Kathy).
When we wanted to change class, they did not help us. “Oh sorry, but you are stuck in
your class.” (Lucy).”
Madeline was asked to comment whom would she seek for academic assistance, she
stated, “I did not go to any of those. I went to tutoring that my teacher offered for few
times but I did not really like it because I did not understand what they were saying.
Sometimes if I did not understand it I would just say to myself I would rather look up for
myself…”
Although she did not make strides to solicit academic assistance from teachers or counselors,
Madeline recalled a particular incidence where a teachers and counselor made a great effort to
provide her academic and emotional assistance.
Madeline described:
One of my counselors actually tried to push me because I really did badly on math. So
basically I failed math and then it was either my algebra two teacher give me a second
chance to keep me doing my work or I go to adult school. Then my counselor made
efforts to talk to my math teacher. She was like “Madeline tried.” She really helped me to
graduate. I appreciated that…
Regarding college guidance, Jenny and Madeline commented that counselors and teachers
attempted to implement plans to inform and motivate students regarding college; however,
neither of them perceived those programs as informative or useful.
Jenny explained:
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 256

My teachers would invite college admission person to tell us how they would accept
students. What letter and essays you were supposed to write and what you supposed to be
doing in high school and what club and what level you are supposed to be at…I was so
discouraged…because she gave us three latter one was olympic atheletes, one typical
Asian over achiever, and one who has Ok grades but like really active in school. They
asked us which one would be accepted. Admission person said, the overachiever one
would get accepted and other two would not. I was like what?!? Now I would not get
accepted at all!
Madeline explained:
Tried to implement program called G-day or something…I forgot. I think it was
pointless…it was just a day where school would have students actually who volunteer to
come to classes and talk about colleges. Give surveys about the usefulness of G-day and
ask students about their educational career path after high school and they tried to
motivate us. But it was really pointless because we would all just do the survey and turn
them in, that’s it.”
Again, the interviews revealed that in general average students were cognizant of limited
resources and they perceived that resources were either unable or unnecessary to access.
Although all the average achievers responded that they were planning to attend a college upon
graduation, they did not have specific plans or were not taking necessary precautiions to ensure
their goal. In terms of support, the interview revealed that average achieving students were less
likely to consult teachers for academic support. Furthermore, interview results indicated that
these students do not even confer with their peers about academic issues.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 257

It can be discerned that average achievers perceived that accessing resources through
gatekeepers were either unimportant or that they were not familiar with ways of acquiring
resources through gatekeepers. Furthermore, it may be discerned that unlike higher achievers,
average achievers did not learn the appropriate language or proper mannerism from their parents
in order to activate an exchange with institutional agents who could provide them with necessary
resources to succeed. It could also be that due to limited resources, schools would likely focus on
higher achievers and overlook these average achievers. Therefore average achievers would be at
disadvantage compare to higher achievers.
Influence of this Stereotype upon Teachers
Both higher achievers and average achievers in this study also did not appear to have
directly experienced exploitation by the dominant society or needed to adapt an oppositional
cultural frame or oppositional identities to protect their cultural identities (Fordham Ogbu &
Simmons, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) This may explain the general lack of
distrust toward authorities or the educational system in the United States’
As noted earlier, Stanton-Salazer (2004) stated that it is crucial for minorities to forge
supportive ties with teachers to gain academic success since institutional agents, such as teachers
and counselors’ are gatekeepers who provide access to information in obtaining various
resources. Therefore the perceptions of teachers and counselors are particularly important for
students, particularly for minority students. Fortunately, both higher achievers and average
achievers noted that their teachers neither placed unrealistic expectation nor discriminated
against students based on this pervasive stereotype.
All high achieving students reported that their teachers did not interact with Asian
students with biased expectation due to the stereotype. Furthermore, that all high achievers stated
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 258

that in general teachers were encouraging to those who gave a lot of effort. In addition teachers
did not favor students because of ethnic background but rather those who participated more
during class discussions.
Daisy explained:
“I think professors know not every Asian student is going to be smart. So I do not actually
think differently.” Then she was asked to respond whether teachers treat students
differently, she stated, “Yes, there was great disparity. I felt like in high school there was
people who work so hard and so dedicated to school and there are people who are complete
opposite, never going to class. So, yes professors would of course differently. They do not
give those students benefit of the doubt. Like say if a professor has students coming late to
class. Someone who is hardworking like say I come into class and I am late and I apologize
and make up some excuse. I think that professors would probably buy it. But if someone
was not as hard working then I don't think the professors would buy their excuses
necessarily. So it is just more matter of building trust I suppose. Professors would not give
much trust to students who aren’t active in the classes. I think that make sense.”
Linda was asked if the stereotype regarding Asians academic prowess in certain field
would affect perception of teachers, she stated, “I don't think so. Some may not be
culturally aware but generally most are professional. They don't really show it.”
Steve was asked whether teachers favor students based on ethnic background, he stated,
“Not so much favoritism because of race but because of what they did academic wise. So
those highly motivated students who did well and contact teachers for outside help are the
ones that teachers would get to know and those are ones that teachers favor but at the same
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 259

time teacher would try not to favor someone. It is a small class so there is not that much
chance to favor one person specifically so it’s just like everyone in general.”
Keith was asked to comment whether teachers set certain expectation for Asian students,
he stated, “I feel like the stereotype that you are talking about was not prevalent in school.
Because its sheer fact that majority was Asian students so it is very hard to stereotype. I
don't think it was that bad.”
Fortunately, for high achievers there was a large presence of Asian Americans; therefore,
stereotyping regarding Asians appeared to be less prevalent. Furthermore, institutional agents
were culturally competent and responsive so that higher achievers did not experience
stereotyping from their teachers. In addition, according to high achievers, teachers generally
favored students who worked hard rather than a specific ethnic group. As noted earlier, it is not
clear from the interview how much influence institutional agents have on their psychological and
intellectual development. However, it can be certain that for high achievers institutional agents
have provided guidance for their future direction in some capacity.
As with high achievers, average achievers did not report that teachers at school expected
more from Asian students because of stereotypes and did not show a preference towards Asian
students. However, as with high achievers, the interviews also suggested that teacher would
likely favor students that actively participated in class discussion.

Mike commented:
“Teachers in my school didn’t do any stereotyping or profiling but they just tell them to
work harder… I don't see any down talk or discouragement among teachers to students.”
Then he was asked if teacher would favor students based on ethnicity, he stated, “I see
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 260

teacher would always pick a particular person because that person always participate and
wouldn't call anyone else because no one raises his or her hands. But some teacher would
ask students to participate. A lot of teachers are like that. They tried to get all students to
engage. But students are afraid to speak in front of people. Teachers always encourage
‘there is no right or wrong answer’ or ‘don't be afraid to ask questions’ but unfortunately
it won’t change students’ attitudes regarding class participation.”
Kathy explained, “I don't think they look at the race but more like a person as a whole. If
you are not doing any of your work then like ‘why are you not doing it?’” Then she was
asked to comment whether teachers favor students based on ethnicity, she stated, “I think
that they like students that speaks out more. Not because of Asian.”
Madeline was asked if the stereotype regarding Asians academic prowess affect
perception of teachers, she stated, “No…I guess there were a lot of Asians so not really. I
did not notice any discrimination based on these.”
Brendan explained:
My chemistry teacher for example he would always favor the ones to participate in the
class. Then the teacher would be gentler with their grades. But other teachers even though
they favor students they still grade fairly.”
As with high achievers, average achievers attended school with large presence of Asian
Americans; therefore they perceived stereotypes regarding Asian appeared to be less relevant.
Furthermore, as with high achievers, institutional agents were culturally competent such that
average achievers did not experience stereotyping from their teachers. As with high achievers,
none of the average achiever mentioned that stereotyping affected the behaviors of teachers. In
addition, teachers generally favored students who showed effort rather than any specific ethnic
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 261

group. Some noted that teachers would encourage everyone in the class to participate in a class
discussion and try not to favor only those who actively participate in class.
Discussion of Research Question Three
Research Question Three asked: How do educational caretakers treat high performing
and average performing Chinese heritage students? In response to research question three there
were two findings that may significantly influence academic performance. They are: perceived
roll of institutional agents and their perception of stereotyping.
First, finding suggested that institutional agents’ perception of obligation toward students
affects students’ academic success. As noted earlier, the amount of social capital significantly
affects students’ educational career as well as their future. Different from high achievers, average
achievers had less optimism toward a folk theory of success and had less motivation toward
academic achievement due to a lack of clear objectives or goal for their future. Second, finding
suggested that intuitional agents, particularly teachers, perceived that the label could affect
students’ academic achievement. Although the interview findings suggested that in general
students perceived teachers to be fair, unbiased, and culturally competent, teachers’ deliberate
attempt to evaluate students’ academic strive and effort based on engagement rather than ethnic
stereotype could have unintended adverse effect on student’s academic achievement.

Summary of Chapter Four
This chapter sought to present the result of interviews in order to illustrate similarity or
difference in terms of experience or adaptation strategies between two groups of Chinese
heritage Americans; high and average achieving students at four-year and two year
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 262

postsecondary institutions. The process of data collection was driven by two fundamental goals;
first, address gaps in the knowledge concerning educational experience of average performing
Chinese heritage Americans by applying three major theoretical frames; second, to inform
various stakeholders concerning current educational practices or policies that may facilitate or
hinder academic achievement and progress of these students.
Each interview questions reflects the four-theoretical models that were introduced in
chapter three, however some of the questions overlapped with one or more theoretical models.
Again it must be noted that due to time constraint, not all questions were asked but rather
depending on the response to each question some of the questions were probed further for
clarification purposes. Furthermore, due to small sample size, attitudes or perspectives of
participants in this study may not be an accurate representation of general consensus of the
targeted population.
Interview results suggested that in response to the first research questions, there were five
differences between high achievers and average achievers. They are: social economic status;
academic environment; perception of future success; establishing tangible links; and perception
of ethnicity. In response to research question two there were three findings that the model
minority ideology may that had an influence on educational careers. They are: cultural
orientation, career choices, and, perception of threat. And finally, in response to research
question three there were two findings that may have significantly influenced academic
performance. They are: perceived roll of institutional agents and their perception of stereotype.
The following chapter will compare both groups by reference to the theoretical frameworks and
interview findings. Furthermore, implication of the study will be discussed.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 263

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS
Although aggregated data may suggest that Asians as compare to other minority groups
attain higher degree of success in terms of income and education, a careful examination of data
reveals that there is variability in terms of success within the group. Pervasiveness of this image
is apparent from the lack of research dedicated to issues regarding Asian Americans compared to
African Americans or Hispanic Americans. Although in recent years there has been research
regarding Asian Americans’ academic achievement, most studies of Asian Americans students
appeared to focus on the topic of the model minority stereotype, acculturation, ethnic identities,
within group academic variability, and sociocultural factors associated with academic
achievement. Furthermore, it appears as though many studies have a tendency to focus on either
high or low achieving Asian Americans.
The overall scope of this study is to address a research concerning educational
experiences of average performing college-bound Chinese heritage Americans compared with
the educational experiences of high achieving students. In this study, average achieving Chinese
heritage students were defined as those who attended high school for four-years and maintained
GPA of 2.5 to 3.0. (Nations report card, 2009). By utilizing prominent theories (cultural
ecological theory, model minority theory and theory of stereotype threat, and sociocultural
theory) in the realm of minority education this study was sought to examine adaptive strategies
that facilitate/hinder their academic achievement. In addition, this study attempts to offer
alternative explanations for Asian American’s academic success that previously could not be
explained by genetic and cultural models alone.
For my first research question, the association between the role of the dominant society in
shaping education policy for minority students, remuneration for their academic degrees,
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 264

perception of folk theory of success, response to their treatment in society at-large and in school,
Ogbu’s cultural ecological theory (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons,
1998) was referenced. Although Ogbu’ theory did not specifically address the research questions,
its implication concerning factors that contribute to variability in academic performance, such as
perception of structural opportunity, formation of collective identity, oppositional identity,
oppositional cultural frame of reference, were referenced in attempt to answer the first question.
For my second research question, the theory of model minority stereotype (Kao, 1995;
Lee 1994; Li, 2005; Louie, 2004; McGowan & Lindgren, 2003; Museus & Kiang, 2009;
Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997;) was explored in conjunction with a theory of stereotype threat
(Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999; Steele, 1997) to ascertain
feasible explanations for variability in academic performance among Chinese heritage students.
Unlike the previous section, articles compiled in this section involved discussion regarding
subjects matters which are particular, but not exclusive, to Asian Americans. The model minority
theory and stereotype threat theory were referenced in my attempt to examine how the
stereotyping of Asian’s academic prowess affected high and low achieving Chinese heritage
students.
For the third research question, a model minority theory and social capital theory (Dika &
Singh, 2002; Kao, 2004; Stanton- Salazar, 1997; Zhou and Bankston III, 1994) were referenced
in attempt to answer how educational caretakers treat high performing and average performing
Chinese heritage students. These theories were utilized to explore the role of institutional agents
(teachers, counselors, and administrators) and the importance of their support. Also, the third
research question investigated how the stereotyping of Asians influences the perception and
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 265

behavior of caretakers, which in turn influence high and low performing Chinese heritage
students.
An underlying assumption of this research was that Chinese-Americans attending a four-
year university (Miracosta University) have higher academic performance (GPA and SAT
scores) and students attending a community college (Montevista Community College) have
average academic performance or less compared to their counterparts. Qualitative method,
retrospective interviews concerning their high school experience, was used to compare and
analyze against four-theoretical frame. Both a four-year university and a community college
were chosen for three reasons: 1) host large Asian students (22.6% and 32.9% respectively); (2),
close proximity to one of the large Chinese enclave; and (3) are in diverse learning environment
near a major urban center.
Participants consisted of Chinese-heritage students who attended at least three years of
high school in the US. Students who do not have a reasonable command of English were
excluded from the research since English proficiency and how it shaped postsecondary
opportunity is outside of this study’s scope. This study also require participants be residing in
close proximity to enclaves of Chinese people. Participants were classified into four distinct
groups for this study. First and second group comprised of two male and two female students
who enrolled in a four-year university and also received cumulative high school GPA of 3.0 or
higher. I have categorized these two groups as High-performing groups. Third and fourth groups
were comprised of two male and two female students currently enrolled at a community college
who received cumulative high school GPA of 2.5 to 3.0 which I described as the average-
performing group.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 266

Four out of five high achieving samples from the four-year university were gathered from
using contacts from Student Services by means of referral. As for participants of the community
college, a professor from a history department was contacted and again by referral students were
selected for the interviews. The interviewees were selected by the means of snowball sampling
through social networks participants who meet the criteria for this interview.
For the interview participants’ background information were asked then forty to fifty
minutes interview were conducted based on four theoretical paradigms. Upon completion of the
interviews recorded interview were transcribed and analyzed. Commonalities and differences of
each groups were examined. Furthermore, these narratives were used to analyze emerging or
interconnected themes.
While the results may not be generalizable due to the limited scope and number of
participants, interview results suggested that there were difference in terms of family background,
such as social economic status, parental educational background and their expectation, which
then subsequently affect students’ perception of ethnic identities, cultural values and orientation,
value of education, motivation for academic success, career choices and the role of institutional
agents, that would most likely affect students’ educational careers as well as their future
trajectory.
In the flowing section, I will reference articles in the literature reviews and the results of
interviews in attempt to answer each research questions and limitation of the results. Furthermore,
implications for practice, future research and conclusion will be provided in the following
section.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 267

Discussion of Findings
Research Question One asked: How have high performing and average performing
Chinese heritage students responded to their treatment by the dominant society and what folk
theory of “making it” have they constructed? In response to research question one there were
five findings that differentiated high achievers and average achievers. They are: social economic
status; academic environment; perception of future success; establishing tangible links; and
perception of ethnicity.
The first finding was that perception of folk theory of “making it” differed across social
economic status. In this particular study, parents’ of high achievers who had more education
were successful in assimilated into mainstream middle class by following the conventional
wisdom of a dominant ideology. Therefore they appeared to endorse a folk theory of dominant
culture, subsequently conveying the importance of education to later generations. Second, the
academic environment acts to reinforce or undermine conventional wisdom of a folk theory of
success. Since school culture and peer influence have a tremendous impact on ideas regarding
the value of education, it is advantageous for students to be affiliated with peers who value
education and have definite plans to pursue a postsecondary education. Third, students’
perception of future success had influenced the perception of a folk theory of success. Even
though, a student may have a positive abstract attitude toward education, concrete attitudes
toward education more accurately determined their academic success and students’ perception
toward the actual value of education. Fourth, being able to establish tangible links between
current academic achievement and goals influenced their perception of a folk theory of success.
Being able to conceptualize these links increased the likelihood of sustaining their motivation
toward current academic achievement. Fifth, perception of ethnicity also influences perception of
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 268

folk theory. Students who perceived themselves to be more connected with the culture of their
parents (although it maybe ethnic version of transitional culture) held a conventional wisdom of
achieving success.
In accordance with Ogbu’s study (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu &
Simmons, 1998), both high and average achieving students in this study had generally
accommodating attitudes toward the dominant culture and did not perceive academic success as
the exclusive domain of whites. They also did not see schooling as threatening or devaluing
their own culture or ethnicity. Therefore participants in this study did not appear to adapt
strategies, such as oppositional identities or oppositional cultural frame of reference to avert the
exploitation of the dominant group or to protect cultural identities and maintain boundaries
between them and the dominant groups. It can also be discerned that the lack of an oppositional
stance was due to the large number of Asian American students who perceived education as a
vehicle to future success. Furthermore, the lack of an oppositional stance can be attributed to the
fact they did not perceive they occupied a subordinate status within Asian American ethnicity
(Matute-Bianchi; 1986).
However, there was a distinction between the backgrounds of high and average achievers.
For instance, overall household income and highest educational attainment for parents of high
achievers appeared to be slightly higher than the counterparts. In addition, it happened to be that
the majority of high achievers in this study attended private high schools or a specialized school
for talented students. Therefore, these factors may have played a role in forming their ethnic
identities, their value of education, and their future career aspiration (Louie, 2004).

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 269

Perception on the Value of Education and Social Economic Status
Although my analysis of the interviews resulted similar finding with Ogbu’s study (Ogbu
& Simmons, 1998) in that community forces (frame of reference, value of schooling, degree of
trust in school, and belief about schooling) of the first-generation immigrants appeared to exert a
significant influence on later generations’ perception concerning opportunity structures and the
value of education, and social economic status. The family’s disposable income also had a
significant influence upon students’ perception of the value of education (Louie, 2004).
Interviews revealed that although parents from both groups perceived education as important for
future success (Mickelson, 1990; Ogbu, 1987), parents of higher achievers were more eager to
believe in a folk theory of success or meritocratic means of achieving socioeconomic mobility
since for them higher education had served as a vehicle for achieving their financial success. In
other words, parents of high achievers experienced adversity and struggle upon immigrating and
education played a significant role in their successful integration into the mainstream middle-
class. Therefore it is more likely that parents of high achievers would likely to encourage their
children to attend a private institution where it would be advantageous for their children’s future
educational career as well as their future financial success.
Statements by average achievers also confirmed the notion that a family with more
disposable income would more likely send their children to a private high school where there
would be lower students to teacher ratio and curriculums more geared toward preparing children
to enter elite colleges than to send their children to local public high school with limited
resources and availability of advanced classes. Furthermore, there would be higher students to
teacher ratio where students need to compete for attention from teachers and counselors, which
would be disadvantageous for children’s educational career as well as future financial success.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 270

Interviews suggested that both high and average achievers were aware of the fact that
family income or available resources significantly affect their future educational career as well as
career choices, which I will be discussing further in detail in the next section by referencing the
model minority stereotype. Therefore, as Louie (2004) stated, social economic status along with
available family resources have a significant influence on students’ perception regarding future
opportunities and attitudes toward schooling.
Academic Environment and Its Influence on Achievement
Although voluntary minorities in general have more accommodating attitudes toward the
system (a manner in which minorities were treated in terms of educational policies and
remuneration for their academic degrees) due to the firm believe in a folk theory of success,
Ogbu explained both the culture (the way in which minorities perceive and respond to the
surrounding environment) and ecology (environment or the setting in which minority population
exist) also play significant roles in developing perceptions regarding the value of education
(Ogbu & Simmons, 1998).
Interviews revealed that academic environments, such as culture and mindset of students,
were significantly different between high achievers and average achievers. As noted earlier, all
high achievers, with the exception of one student who attended public school, attended
academically competitive private or specialized high school where the central purpose of the
school is to prepare students to enter elite universities. Therefore, as commented by high
achievers, the majority of their peers were highly motivated and driven since they enter the these
high school with the premise that enrolling in these private or specialized institutions would be
advantageous for gaining admission to elite universities. Whereas in the public high school that
average achiever attended, there was mixture of students who may not have intended to attend
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 271

postsecondary institutions upon graduation. Interviews revealed that roughly half of peers that
average achievers associated with did not have any intention of attending postsecondary
institutions due to various reasons, such as financial difficulties, taking over family business, or
opting to attend vocational schools. As a consequence, it is more likely that higher achievers who
were surrounded by academically driven peers with mindset of attending universities would
likely develop similar mindset and readiness for postsecondary educational career than their
lower achieving counterparts.
Along with peers, interviews revealed that institutional agents (teachers and counselors)
also influenced the degree of academic success since they could provide social capital, such as
academic assistance and information regarding college admission process. As expected,
interviews revealed that the public schools that average achievers attended were understaffed and
overcrowded; thus, in general, teachers and counselors were less likely to be able to provide
individual attention to each student. Conversely, those who attended private schools, support was
more readily available and teachers and counselors were able to extend their help and provide
attention to students. Subsequently these students were able to gain more social capital necessary
to succeed academically. Mickelson (1990) concluded that upon isolating extraneous variables
such as SES and gender, influence of race and peer groups are the most significant predictors for
students’ academic performance. Therefore, high achievers who were surrounded by students
who were dedicated to academic endeavor and school intuitional agents who were exceptionally
accommodating to students needs were more advantageous in terms of achieving academic
success.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 272

Perception of Future Success and Level of Educational Attainment
Unlike Kao’s research (1995), none of the students overestimated the level of grades that
is necessary to achieve educational aspiration. In other words, none of the students specifically
stated that they have to study a lot harder than others (mostly white counterparts) in order to
obtain success. However, in general, both high and average achieving students appeared to have
positive abstract attitudes towards education (Mickelson, 1990), which is the reflection of
‘espoused ideology’ commonly held by Americans which asserts that education is a means of
achieving success and job opportunities in the future. Therefore similar to Ogbu’s assertion that
school in their homeland also appeared to function as a system for transmitting notions of
conventional wisdom for achieving future success.
Interviews, however, revealed that average achievers did not hold positive concrete
attitudes towards education as higher achievers did; in other words, unlike high achievers,
average achievers were less likely to perceive that in reality higher education does not necessary
equates to a higher salary. It can be discerned that parents of average achievers who had an
educational degree that is equivalent to high school and were not successful in entering into
middle-class would be less likely to stress the significance of education as compare to their
higher achieving counterparts who were successfully integrated into the middle-class by
following conventional wisdom. It is evidence from the interviews that as compare to high
achievers, average achievers would less likely hold views that higher education yielded financial
success or upward mobility since they did not have personal experience or see example of
parents of relatives who overcame struggle and difficulties by means of an education. Therefore,
children of average achievers would most likely perceive acquiring trainings or skill sets that are
more tangible in securing immediate financial gain might be more relevant than to pursue a
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 273

career in higher education for their possible future financial success. Accordingly, interviews
also suggested that the majority of average achievers placed lesser value on education for their
future success.
Although interview suggested that both groups recognized higher education does not
necessary prevent them from discrimination in the work place, average achievers were less
optimistic about prospects that having higher degree would amount to higher salary. As noted by
Mickelson, rather than abstract attitude or conventional wisdom, concrete attitudes more
accurately predicted academic performance. Therefore, average achievers who held lesser
optimistic concrete attitude toward a return on education would likely place lesser significance
on academic achievement than higher achievers who had more optimistic concrete attitudes
toward education due to less discrepancy between their reality and dominant ideology of
‘making it.’
Establishing Tangible Links Between Achievement and Goal
As with Louie (2004) interview findings suggested that students from both high and
average group subscribed to traditional cultural values, which assumed to be held by first-
generation immigrants such as a sense of filial obligation and belief in meritocratic means of
achieving success (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Goto, 1997; Li, 2003; Matute-Bianchi, 1986).
Furthermore, as Ogbu suggested (Ogbu & Simons, 1998) the interview findings suggested that
parents from both groups had high expectation for their children to succeed academically and a
tendency to hold their children accountable for their academic failure rather than their schooling.
Therefore, for both groups, academic success was initially driven by their attempt to recompense
for their parents’ loss, which was done for the sake of their children (Louie, 2004).
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 274

The interviews, however, revealed that for a majority of students in both groups, the core
motivation for academic success was not due to filial obligation or not to disappointing their
parents but their own self-expectation and desire for the betterment of their future. Interestingly,
a majority of students in both groups attending college was not their primary motivation for
maintaining academic success. However, interviews revealed that establishing a tangible
connection between current academic achievement and future success is one of the keys in
sustaining motivation. Interviews suggested that high achievers, who believed folk theory, had
clearly established that GPA does not merely represent a number but a vehicle for future success;
whereas average achievers, who did not have a strong belief in a folk theory of success, would be
less likely to establish an association between GPA and future success. In other words average
achievers would more likely see GPA as being mere number that is not relevant to their future
success.
Another difference between high achieving and average students appeared to be the level
of fulfillment that they gain from achieving academic excellence and their core belief regarding
the value of education. Interviews revealed that higher achievers were more effective at digesting
and synthesizing course materials for the sake of comprehension than their average achieving
counterparts. Furthermore, interviews revealed that higher achievers placed a lot of effort in
academic endeavors than did average achievers. It can be discerned that for high achievers, their
studying habits and maintaining academic excellence became their preoccupation and more
habitual as compare to average achievers who appeared to be less effective at learning course
materials and had more difficulty understanding. Subsequently achieving academic success
becomes a more laborious and daunting task for average achievers, which explains why most
average achievers had less motivation and eplaced less effort toward achieving academic success.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 275

Perception of Ethnicity
Perception of ethnicity or how students come to view and identify themselves in terms of
ethnic identity differs between high and average achievers. As stated earlier, although there was
variability among each groups in terms of the length of time they have lived in the United States,
all students have adapted mainstream culture while retaining some of their ethnic culture and
values. Therefore, contrary to Ogbu’s classification of voluntary minority (Fordham & Ogbu,
1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simons, 1998), none of the students in this study perceived
themselves as a foreigner or held tourist-like attitudes but rather perceived themselves as an
American or more specifically as sub-groups of Americans, which they came to identify
themselves as Asian-Americans.
It can be discerned that the formation of their identity may be attributed to the fact that
they live in close proximity to ethnic enclaves with a strong transnational social field. However,
as Louie (2006) stated, due to lack of Chinese proficiency they were not able to forge meaningful
ties to their parents’ homeland. In other words, being unable to communicate in the language of
their parents created gaps between first and second generations in terms of appreciation and
valuation towards culture and heritage, which subsequently lead to the formation of ethnic
versions of a transitional stance that is distinctly different from their parents. Therefore this dual
frame of reference is symbolic in that students in neither groups appeared to have emotional or
personal connection with their parents’ homeland.
As noted in the previous section, the rational for identifying themselves as Asian
American differs between high and average achievers (high achieving students noted as a due to
the common cultural experience and similar attitudes towards education, whereas average
achieving students noted because they did not have any other categories that described their
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 276

ethnicity) it appears either average achievers’ parents did not communicate the significance of
their cultural and ethnic heritage to their children. Furthermore, contrary to Ogbu’s (Fordham &
Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998) assertion that voluntary minorities do not
place much effort in learning the culture of the host country, parents’ of average achievers may
have placed more effort in persuading their children to be oriented toward the mainstream culture
than transmitting the significance of retaining their social identity or cultural heritage to their
children. It could also be that average achievers associated more with peers who had higher
levels of acculturation and were oriented more towards the mainstream culture.
Research Question Two asked: How has the model minority ideology impacted the
educational careers of high performing and average performing Chinese heritage students? In
response to research question two there were three findings that an ideology of model minority
may have influenced their educational careers. They are: cultural orientation, career choices, and,
a perception of threat.
First, interview findings suggested that the perception of model minority has an impact
on the perception of their cultural tradition and heritage, which in turn affects the perception of a
folk theory of success and motivation for academic success. Although a majority of students
perceived the label negatively, the label appeared to affect how students perceive their core value
of their culture regarding education, which in turn appeared to affect their motivation toward
their academic endeavors. Second, interview finding suggested that the perception of model
minority appeared to affect career choices. Although a majority of students reported that they
were pursuing career that they were either interested in or passionate about, they tended to
pursue ‘traditional Asian fields’ or careers that parents perceived as financially stable. Third
interview finding suggested that, although none of the students perceived meeting the standard of
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 277

model minority was relevant in their own identities, some of the students, especially average
achiever, were hesitant in asking for assistance, which in turn would likely affect their
motivation for academic success. Furthermore, the label of model minority appeared to raise the
expectation of their parents.
Again, a majority of students stated that the label of model minority had negative
connotation even though it may have advantages in terms of the perception of others regarding
their intellectual ability; they did not have to adapt strategies to avoid negative stigmas regarding
their intelligence or community perceptions that schools were the exclusive domain of whites
where community member disparage those who attempt to succeed in the domain of school
(Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). The model minority is the one of the central issue of this research
since the pervasiveness of this label conceals the academic variability and experiences within
groups. Therefore Asian Americans still appeared to be one of the misunderstood populations in
the United States (Museus & Kiang, 2009). Interviews suggested that the model minority had an
impact on students’ cultural orientations, and career choices.
Interviews revealed that there is slight different in the perception regarding the label of
model minority stereotype. Although high achievers represent archetypes of model minority,
most high achievers perceived the label as negative and a majority of them had personal opinions
regarding the consequence of being stereotyped. On the other hand, most average achievers had
general opinions regarding the label but perceived it as somewhat negative. Furthermore,
although characteristics of average achievers did not exactly exemplified the model minority,
none of them reported to have experienced a sense of pessimism for not measuring up to the
image of the stereotype. Interviews revealed that students from both groups were in accord with
the idea that that the label does not necessarily represent realities in terms of academic and
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 278

financial success and very often issues pertaining Asian Americans were not recognized in the
mainstream culture due to the pervasiveness of the stereotype.
Cultural Orientation
Oyserman and Sakamoto (1997) concluded that there is a positive correlation between
how individuals perceive the label of model minority and their ethnic heritage. Their study
concluded that those who perceived tradition and heritage positively also had tendency to value
the label positively; but those who perceived the label negatively saw the label as undermining
an individual’s effort.
Although Oyserman et al (1997) found that later generations who showed higher levels of
acculturation held views that are closer to individualistic values (hallmark of American culture),
this study’s interviews revealed a majority of high achievers held collectivistic cultural
orientation and perceived tradition and heritage positively whereas a majority of average
achievers reported to fall somewhere along a continuum since they perceived tradition and
heritage less positively. However, both high and average achievers in this study equated
individualistic cultural orientation negatively, such as selfishness, self-serving or too focused on
competition, rather than positive aspects, such as autonomy, innovation, freedom of expression,
continual effort on improvement and progress through individual effort or that prospects that
with combined effort with others, who strives for continual improvement, could amount to
higher standard of living.
A difference between high and average achievers was that, although, average achievers
valued some of the core value of ethnic group, such as diligence, they perceived Asian tradition
and heritage as less positively. Some of the complaints of the average achievers were that issues
regarding respect, obedience, and fiduciary obligation towards their parents in the future. A
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 279

majority of average achievers perceived tradition and heritage to be too conservative and that it
restricted their ideas or opinions from freely expressing it. Also interview results revealed that
high achievers defined their ethnic identity as Asian American but not Chinese like their parents’
generation. In comparison, average achievers did not define their ethnic identity through its
membership. As noted earlier, high achievers defined themselves through panethnic identity of
Asian American since they perceived that they share similar experience of being immigrant of
Asian heritage. However, average achievers identified themselves as Asian American since they
were not able to fit into any other groups that identified their ethnic identity, which subsequently
explains their negative attitude toward their culture and heritage.
Interview results revealed that high achievers had an inclination to define their identity
through its membership (Asian American) but they held individualistic value when it came to
independent achievement. However, unlike Oyserman and Sakamoto asserted, interviews
revealed that high achievers who define themselves as collectivistic did not have a positive
valuation towards the label of model minority. Although high achievers expressed a sense of
connectedness to the first-generation immigrants who work hard and strived toward achievement,
which in turn created the stereotype, it did not necessarily increase the acceptance of the image
of model minority. As for average achievers, they also held individualistic value regarding their
own achievement. Since they did not have a connectedness to the first-generation immigrants or
had collectivistic cultural orientation, they were less likely to identify the label positively or as a
stereotype.
Career Choices
As suggested by Louie (2004), interview findings suggested students from both groups
were cognizant that available family resources, expectation of parents, career aspiration, and
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 280

educational background would likely have a significant influence on students’ career choices.
Furthermore, students from both groups were in accord with the idea that generally ‘traditional
Asian fields would likely yield highest financial gain in the future. In addition, interviews
revealed that with regard to career choices concerning the gender of their children, a majority of
parents from both groups did not promote gender-specific careers. Also, a majority of students
interviewed indicated that their career choices were not mere reflection of their parents’ career
aspirations but of their own.
Some of the differences were that high achieving students attending the university had
specific careers that they sought to pursue and had specific strategies to achieve their desired
goals. On the other hand, although, average achievers in this study stated their desired careers,
they did not have specific strategies on how to achieve those goals other than attending a four-
year college. As Matute-Bianchi (1986) stated, this lack of specific strategies is attributed to the
fact they did not have mentors or personally knew people in the field that they could provide
sound advice.
Another key difference was that although students from both groups emphasized the
importance of education in the future, high achievers appeared to display more commitment and
eagerness toward achieving academic success. Again, as mentioned earlier regarding the
importance of establishing tangible connections between academic achievement and clear goals,
it also reflects a difference in the students’ level of commitment. Therefore, high achievers who
had established specific career choices clearly understood that their future career is dependent on
how well they do academically whereas average achievers who did not have as clear career
choices with abstract plans for attaining those goals may not necessarily see tangible connections
between academic achievement and securing their desired jobs in the future.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 281

Although parents of high and average achievers equally concerned their children’s
financial stability in the future, parents’ of high achievers appeared to be more involved with
their children’s career choices. Interview revealed that parents of high achievers, more than the
counterparts, appeared to promote effort towards succeeding in ‘traditionally Asian field’, which
they deemed to be financially stable. Interview revealed that parents of high achievers were more
influenced by the stereotype and perceive to that their children would be financially more stable
at Asian Field, careers, such as in science, medicine, law, finance, that Asians already have large
presence in. It can be discerned that parents of average achiever were less involved with their
children’s career decision since they did not have to place large financial commitment on
education at first and also their children did not yet firmly established their future career in their
mind.
Model Minority as a Threat
As noted earlier, although, model minority stereotype may be advantageous in terms of
not having to deal with negative stereotype being unintelligent like other involuntary minorities,
majority of students from both groups perceived the model minority focuses overly on the
academic achievement aspects. In addition, both groups were in accord that model minority had
overall more deleterious effects than benefits. Since nearly all students from both groups
perceived the label of model minority to be negatively and did not place significant relevance in
that domain, majority of students also reported that model minority or unrealistic expectation of
high achieving students by stakeholders did not decreased academic performance. In addition,
since students from both groups did not identify model minority stereotype as their domain of
relevance, they did not see failing to meet the expectation was threatening to their intellectual
identities. Therefore, interview revealed that failure to meet the criterion would less likely to
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 282

elicit psychological stress, which would decrease the risk of disidentifying with that domain of
academic success or removing self-relevancy to protect their self-confidence.
Again, majority of high achievers reported that they were not personally affected by the
model minority stereotype and was not threat to their intellectual identities, they were cognizant
that it could presumably impede some individuals from seeking assistance when necessary,
which subsequently would affect their academic strive and motivation for academic success.
Although average achievers perceived stereotype to be negative and did not identify model
minority stereotype as their domain of relevance, half of majority of students were reluctant in
seeking assistance. This counterintuitive behavior can be attributed to cultural and behavioral
taboo of the Asian culture. As some of the research suggested, in general tradition of
collectivistic cultural orientation dissuade individuals from candidly displaying emotion in order
to avoid displaying one’s weakness or to maintain harmonious relationship with family member
(Kramer, Kwong, Lee, & Chung, 2002.) Therefore, although, students may not embrace the
collectivistic cultural orientation, in general individuals from collectivistic cultural heritage
would be less likely to solicit help from teachers or counselors.
Interestingly, all students reported that stereotype heighten the expectation of their
parents but not necessarily teachers. Although students did not specifically commented whether
there was direct correlation between the stereotype and heightened expectation from parents,
anticipated academic excellence from parents appeared to place cognitive burden upon some of
the students. It appeared as though failing measuring up to the stereotype of model minority or
unrealistic expectation of high achieving students, threatens parents self-worth, since parents had
made sacrifice for the sake of children’s future by means of immigration and in addition made
large sum of investment for children’s future. Which explains reason why parents in general
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 283

more than children in place significant relevance in the domain since for some parents were
living their future through their children.
Research Question Three asked: How do educational caretakers treat high performing
and average performing Chinese heritage students? In response to research question three there
were two findings that may influence significantly on academic performance. They are:
perceived roll of institutional agents and their perception of stereotype.
First, finding suggested that institutional agents’ perception of obligation toward students
affect students’ academic success. As noted earlier, amount of social capital significantly affect
students’ educational career as well as their future. Differ from high achievers, average achievers
had less optimism toward folk theory and had less motivation toward academic achievement due
to lack of clear objectives or goal for their future. Therefore, other than providing environment
that is conducive for students to learn, institutional agents, who are gatekeeper of social capital,
need to be cognizant of their role in providing their social capitals that significantly impact
students’ academic success as well as prospect of students’ future educational career. Second,
finding suggested that intuitional agents, particularly teachers, perception toward the label could
affect students’ academic achievement. Although interview suggested that in general students
perceived teacher to be fair, unbiased, and culturally competent, teachers’ deliberate attempt to
evaluate students’ academic strive and effort based on engagement rather than ethnic stereotype
could have unintended adverse effect on student’s academic achievement. As interview
suggested, in general average achievers were less likely to solicit assistance primarily due to
cultural practice, therefore teachers could mistakenly perceive that behavioral cue to be the sign
of inattentiveness or apathy towards learning. Conversely, students may attribute teachers’
unresponsiveness and inattentiveness to be as sign of indifference and disregard, which may
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 284

elicit psychological stress and subsequently disidentify with that domain of academic success in
order to remover self relevancy.
Social capital in fundamental sense can be defined as a social relationship that provides
resources, which in turn benefit individual with productive advantage. The theory underlines the
importance of social relationships and collaboration to achieve goals (i.e., economic
advancement). Previously, social capital model that places heavy emphasis on the role of parents,
peers, and teachers in providing moral support and encouragement as well as heightening the
individuals’ motivation, aspirations, and goals (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). However, Stanton-
Salazar (1997) stated that for lower-status groups, such as minorities, gaining access to social
capital from institutional agent is one of the key aspects since forming network or social freeway
would function as pathways to accessing various resources and to further maximize their
socioeconomic mobility.
Resources can be considered as something tangible such as gaining access to information
about programs that schools offers (i.e., mentoring program), obtaining information regarding
college enrollment procedures and obtaining social or emotional support. Therefore, Salazar
asserted that various aspects of children’s life (i.e., school success, well-being, and social
integration) are heavily influenced by opportunities for them in developing instrumental
relationships with institutional agents or those who have access in providing institutional
resources and opportunities such as teachers, counselors, community leaders and even peers.
As discussed earlier, it must be noted that there were distinctions between background of
high and average achievers, such as social economic status, and parents’ educational attainment,
and parents’ perception regarding folk theory. In addition, it happened to be that majority of high
achievers in this study attended private high school or specialized school whereas all average
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 285

achievers attended local public high school; therefore, these factors may have played a key role
in developing students’ perception towards duty, the support of institutional agents and
importance of gaining social capital for their future.
Role of Institutional Agents
Other than the obvious fact that a difference between public and private school regarding
the environment and the amount of available resources, some of the institutional agents from
both private and public high schools appeared to be genuinely concerned with the welfare of
students. Interview results, however, revealed differences in terms of commitment toward
providing necessary support both academically and emotionally. The difference between the two
institutions appeared to be that at the private high school teachers were more committed and
proactive in attending to the needs of students; therefore, institutional agents at these private
institutions appeared to be more sensitive to their needs. It is also advantageous for students who
were attending private institutions since they have lower students to teacher ratio where students
were better able to receive personalized attentions. As for those who attended public high
schools, they were cognizant of limited resources and were aware that they had to compete for
scarce resources. Although it can be discerned that institutional agents wanted to extend
assistance to all those who need it, due to lack of resources it is more likely to focus their
attention to either high achievers or low achievers. Average achievers ended up being the
population that most likely to be overlooked by institutional agents.
The interviews suggested that in terms of support, either academic or emotional, students
from both groups responded that they were more comfortable seeking out support from their
peers rather than teachers or counselors. This observation held true even for those who attended
private high schools which supposedly are better able to accommodate their needs, Although
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 286

none of the high achievers specifically stated that they had consulted with either teachers or
counselor regarding college, they were able to obtain necessary information to prepare in
advance for specific postsecondary institutions. On the other hand average achievers reported
that they were not actively inquiring information relating to college while attending high school.
This apparently lackadaisical attitude toward inquiring information about college may be
attributed to abstract postsecondary education plans and less optimism towards a folk theory of
success or concrete attitudes towards education. In other words, average achievers generally held
views that higher education was beneficial but did not necessary believed that a degree would
yield a higher salary in the future. It can also be discerned that average achievers were not aware
of the fact that institutional agents could provide them with social capital that is essential for
planning a postsecondary education career
Influence of Stereotype on Teachers
These students did not perceive that the dominant group has exploited them nor do they
believe that their condition is far less favorable compare to dominant group. This orientation
manifested in their being resentful towards their ecological structure (Fordham Ogbu &
Simmons, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmos, 1998). Furthermore, they did not perceive
schooling as a subtractive process and they distrust norms and values associated with schooling;
yet they incorporated these values as part of their own identity. These students did not have any
reason to believe that institutional agents were distrustful or suspicious of their motives.
As with Ogbu, Stanton-Salazer (2004) also emphasized importance of forging supportive
relationship ties with institutional agents. He believed that is it though institutional agents that
students gain social capital. In other words, institutional agent, such as teachers and counselors,
are gatekeepers for providing access to information about various resources. Therefore, the
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 287

perception of teachers and counselors are particularly important for students, especially for
minority students who have limited social capital as compare to the dominant group.
Both high and average achievers reported that their teachers did not interact with Asian
students with biased expectation due to Asian stereotypes. Furthermore, students reported that
teachers were encouraging to all students and not just to students with from certain ethnic
backgrounds. Although students from both groups reported that teachers tried not to favor
specific students based on ethnicity, they tended to favor students who actively participated in
class.. As noted earlier, this would potentially pose an issue for those who may appear less
enthusiastic or active during class. As noted earlier, average achievers had a tendency to not ask
for academic assistance even when they needed it and were less enthused regarding being
academically success. To exacerbate the situation, understaffed personnel and resources were
scarce in public high schools thus limiting individual attention to all students. Therefore, teachers
would most likely overlook average achievers who were less active and were not exceptional
achievers or failing class.
Students from both groups stated that in general teachers appeared to be culturally
competent and that they did not engage in biased behaviors. Interestingly, students from both
group expressed that since they attended school with a large Asian student body that stereotypes
regarding Asian American were not relevant. Although teachers may be culturally competent,
some of the students noted
that
the
faculty
was
not
diverse.
This
lack
of
diversity
in
faculty

staff
could
potentially
pose
an
issue
for
average
student
attending
public
school.
As
noted

earlier,
due
to
large
number
of
Asian
students,
social
interaction
between
other
Asian

students
may
not
pose
as
issue;
however,
interaction
with
non-‐Asian
teachers
or
authority

figures
may
pose
an
issue
for
some
students
since
they
would
be
less
familiar
interacting

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 288

with
a
member
of
other
ethnic
groups.
Therefore
it
can
be
discerned
that
the
reluctance
of

average
achievers
in
soliciting
assistance
may
stem
from
either
their
social
inadequacy
or

that
students
may
have
biased
opinions
towards
non-‐Asian
teachers
in
comprehending

their
issues.

Again
reluctance
in
soliciting
assistance
poses
as
an
issue
for
average
students,

since
public
high
school
have
limited
resources,
not
obtaining
resources
from
institutional

agent,
who
could
provide
necessary
social
capital
for
their
academic
success,
would
be

detrimental
for
their
future
educational
career.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 289

Implication for Practice
l As some of the research suggested, in general tradition of collectivistic cultural orientation
dissuades individuals from candidly displaying emotion to avoid displaying one’s weakness
or to maintain harmonious relationship with family members (Kramer, Kwong, Lee, &
Chung, 2002.) As the interviews suggested, some of the students were often hesitant or
uneasy discussing academic or personal issues with authorities; therefore institutional
agents should be more familiar with the norms and traditions of different cultures.
l In general, the interviews suggested that a majority of institutional agents were white. As
noted earlier, some students were hesitant in inquiring information from authorities either
due to cultural norms or that they do not want to appear to be unintelligent. Although
culturally competent faculty may alleviate the problem, it could also be mediated by hiring
faculty who reflect the student population so that students would likely to better able to
relate and would likely to have less hesitation in seeking assistance.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 290

REFERENCES
Ainsworth-Darnell, J.W., & Downey, D.B. (1998). Assessing the oppositional cultural
explanation for racial/ethnic differences in school performance. American Sociological
Review, 63,536-553.
Asian American Federation of New York (2004). Census Profile: New York City’s Chinese
American Population.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karakul & A.H. Halsey
(Ed.), Power and ideology in education (pp.487-511). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp.241-258). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Boykin, A.W. (1986). The triple quandary and schooling of Afro-American children. In U.
Neisser (Ed.), School achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp. 57-92).
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Browne, M. (1986). A look at success of young Asians. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/25/science/a-look-at-success-of-young-asians.html
Butterfield, F. (1986). Why Asians are going to the head of the class. The New York Times,
Retrived from http://www.nytimes.com/1986/08/03/education/why-asians-are-going-to-
the-head-of-the-class.html?pagewanted=all
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social Capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94 (Issue Supplement), S95-S120.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 291

Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundation of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap press of
Harvard University Press.
Castro, F.G., Marsiglia, F.F., Kulis, S., & Kellison (2010). Lifetime segmented assimilation
trajectories and health outcomes in Latino and other community residents. Am J Public
HealthI, 100(4), 669-676.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2002). Demographics. [on-line] Available:
http://www.cic.gc.ca/
Chen, C., & Stevenson, H. (1995). Motivation and mathematics achievement: A comparative
study of Asian-American, Caucasian-American, and East Asian high school students
child development. Child Development, 66(4), 1215-1234.
Cheryan, S. & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2000). When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual
performance: The psychological hazards of “Model Minority” status. Psychological
Science, 11(5), 399-402.
Chou, R., & Feagin, J. (2008). The Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism.
Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm.
Chun, K. (1995). The myth of Asian American success and its educational ramifications. In. D.
Nakanishi & T. Nishida (Eds.), Asian American Experience (pp.95-112). New York:
Routledge.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social Capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology. 94, (Issues Supplement) S95-S120.
Coleman, J.C., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., &
York, R.L. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 292

Conchas, G.Q. (2001). Structuring failure and success: Understanding the variability in Latino
school engagement, Harvard National Review, 71(3), 475-504.
Cook, P.J. & Ludwig, J. (1998). The burden of “acting white”: Do Black adolescent disparage
academic achievement. In C.Jenkins & M.Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap
(pp.375-400). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of
stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.
Cross, W.E. (1971). The Negro-to-Black conversion experience. Black World,13-27.
Cross, W.E. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African identity. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Dika, S.L. & Singh, K. (2002). Application of social capital in educational literature: A critical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.
Espiritu, Y.L., & Tran, T. (2002). Vietnam, my country: Vietnamese Americans and
transitionalism. In. P. Levitt & M.C. Waters (Ed.) The Changing Face of Home: The
Transitional Lives of the Second Generation (pp. 367-398). New York: Russel Sage
Foundation.
Fehrman, P.G., Keith, T.Z., & Reimer, T.M. (1987). Home influence on school learning: Direct
and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school grades. Journal of Education
Research, 80, 330-337.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J.U. (1986). Black students’ success: Coping white “Burden of ‘Acting
White.’” The Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206.
Gans, H. (1992). Second generation decline: Scenario for the economic and ethnic future of the
post 1695 American immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15(2), 173-193
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 293

Chhuon, V., & Hudley, C. (2011). Ethnic and panethnic Asian American identities:
Contradictory perceptions of Cambodian students in urban schools. Urban Review: Issues in
Public Education, 43(5), 681-701.
Gordon, M.M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National
Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goto, S.T. (1997). Nerds, normal people, and homeboys: Accommodation and resistance among
Chinese American students, Anthropology & Education, 28(1), 70-80.
Hare, B.R., & Costenell, L.A. (1985). No place to run, no place to hide: Comparative status and
future prospects of Black boys. In M.B. Spencer, G.K. Brookins, & W. Allen (Eds.),
Beginnings: The social and affective development of Black children (pp.201-214).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Harker, R., (1990) Education and Cultural Capital in Harker, R., Mahar, C., & Wilkes, C., (eds)
(1990) An Introduction to the Work of Pierre Bourdieu: the practice of theory, Macmillan
Press, London.
Hoover-Dempsey, V., Bassler, O.C., & Brissie, J.S. (1987). Parent involvement: Contributions of
teacher efficacy, school socio-economic status, and other school characteristics.
American Educational Research Journal, 24, 417-435.
Hui-Michael, Y., & Garcia, S.B. (2009). General educator’s perceptions and attributions about
Asian American students: Implications for special education referral. Multiple Voices for
Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Leaners, 12(1), 21-37.
Kao, G. (1995). Asian American as model minorities? A look at their academic performance,
American Journal of Education, 103, 121-159.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 294

Kao, G. (2004). Social capital and its relevance to minority and immigrant populations.
Sociology of Education, 77, 172-183.
Kramer, E.J., Kwong, K., Lee, E., & Chung, H. (2002). Cultural factors influencing the mental
health of Asian Americans. Western Journal of Medicine, 176(4), 227–231.
Lagdameo, A., Lee, S., & Nguyen, B. (2002). Voices of Asian American students. New
Direction for Student Services, 97, 5-10.
Noguera, P.A. (2004). Social capital and the education of immigrant students: Categories and
generalizations. American Sociological Association, 77(2), 180-183
Lee, S.J. (1994). Behind the model minority stereotype: Voices of high and low-achieving Asian
American students, Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25(4), 413-429.
Lee, S.J., & Rotheram-Borus, M. (2009). Beyond the “Model Minority” stereotype: Trends in
Health Risk Behaviors among Asian/Pacific Islander high school students. Journal of
School Health, 79(8), 347-354.
Lewis, A., Chesler, M., and Forman, T. (2000). The Impact of ‘Colorblind’ ideologies on
students of color: Intergroup relations at a predominantly white university. Journal of
Negro Education, 69(1/2), 74–91.
Levitt, P. (2001). The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press.
Li, G. (2005). Other people’s success: Impact of the “model minority” myth on underachieving
Asian students in North America, KEDI Journal of Education Policy, 2, 69-86.
Louie, V.S. (2004). Compelled to Excel: Immigration, Education, and Opportunity Among
Chinese Americans, Stanford: CA. Stanford University Press.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 295

Louie, V.S. (2006). Second-generation pessimism and optimism: How Chinese and Dominican
understand education and mobility through ethnic and transnational orientations,
International Migration Review, 40(3), 537-572.
Matute-Bianchi, M.E. (1986). Ethnic identities and patterns of school success and failure among
Mexican-decent and Japanese-American students in a California high school: An
ethnographic analysis, American Journal of Education, 95(1), 233-255.
McGowan, M.O., & Lindgren, J. (2003). Untangling the myth of model minority. Social Science
Research Network Electronic Paper Collection [Available]:
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=420600
Mickelson, R.A. (1990). The attitude-achievement paradox among black adolescents. Society of
Education, 63, 44-61.
Museus, S.D., & Chung, M.J. (2009). Rising to the challenge of conducting research on Asian
Americans in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 142, 95-105.
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 Direction
for Institutional Research, 142, 5- 15.
Nakanishi, D.T. (1995). Growing and diversity: The education of Asian/Pacific Americans. In. D.
Nakanishi & T. Nishida (Eds.), Asian American Experience (pp. xi-xx). New York:
Routledge.
Nations Report Card (2009), [On line] Available:
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/hsts_2009/race_gpa.asp Retrieved May, 2, 2013.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 296

NCES (2004). National center for educational statistics: Dropout rates in the United States 1999.
[On line] Available: http://necs.ed.gove/pubs2001/dropout/type0frates.asp. Retrieved
April 2, 2004
NCES (2007). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex,
attendance status, and level of student: Selected years, 1976 through 2007. Retrieved.
August, 10, 2010. from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_226.asp
Ngo, B., & Lee, S.J. (2007). Complicating the image of model minority success: A review of
South East Asian American education. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 415-453.
Ogbu, J.U. (1978). Minority Education and Caste. New York: Academic Press.
Ogbu, J.U. (1983). Minority status and schooling in plural societies. Comparative Educational
Review, 27, 168-190.
Ogbu, J.U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an
explanation. Anthology & Education Quarterly, 18, 312-334.
Ogbu, J.U., & Simmons, H.D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-
ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education,
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Omatsu, G. (1994). The “Four Prisons” and the movement of liberation: Asian American
activism from the 1960s to the 1990s. In A.Juan (Ed.), The state of Asian American
Activism and Resistance in the 1990s. (pp.19-70). Boston: South End Press.
Oyserman, D. & Sakaomoto, I. (1997). Being Asian American: Identity constructs, and
stereotype perception. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33(4), 435-453
Peng, S.S., & Wright, D. (1994). Explanation of academic achievement of Asian American
students. The Journal of Educational Research, 87(6), 346-352.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 297

Phelan, P., Davidson, A.L., & Yu, H.C. (1993). Students’ multiple worlds: navigating the
borders of family, peer, and school cultures. In P. Phelan & A.L. Davidson (dEs.),
Renegotiating cultural diversity in American schools (pp.52-88). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Poutes, A.L.E., & Rumbeut, R. (2001). Legacies: The Story of the Immigration Second
Generation. Berkley and New York: University of California Press and Russell Sage
Foundation.
Poutes, A.L.E., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its
variants. The Annals of the American Academy, 520, 74-76.
Rabat, R. (2002). Severed or sustain attachments? Language, identity, and imagined
communities in the post-immigrant generation. In P.L. Levitt & M.C.Waters (Ed.),
In the Changing Face of Home: The Transitional Lives of the Second Generation
(pp.43-95). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T.L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and
shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science,10(1), 80-83.
Spencer, M.B. (1995). Old issues and new theorizing about African American Youth: A
phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory. In R.L. Taylor (Ed.), Black
youth: Perspective on their status in the United States (pp.37-70). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Spencer, M.B., & Harpalani, V. (2006). What does “acting White” actually mean?: Racial
identity, adolescent development, and academic achievement among African American
youth. In J.U. Ogbu (Ed.), Minority Status Collective Identity and Schooling.: Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 298

Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization and
racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational ReviewI, 67(1)1-40.
Steele, C.M. (1990). The content of our character. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance, American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.
Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test Performance of
African Americans, Journal of Personality and social psychology, 69, 797-811.
Stevenson, H.W., & Stigler, J.W. (1992). The Leaning Gap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and
What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education. New York: Summit.
Sue, S. (1991). Ethnicity and culture in psychological research and practice. In J. Goodchilds
(Ed.), Psychological perspective on human diversity in America (2nd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Sue, S. & Sue, D.W. (1973). Chinese American personality and mental health. In Asian
American Perspectives. Sue. S. & Wagner, N.N (ed.), 111-124. Palo Alto, CA: Science
and Behavior Books, Inc.
Suzuki, B.H. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implication for student affairs
practice and higher education. New Direction for Student Services, 97, 1-32.
Takaki, R. (1989). Strangers From a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. New York:
Penguin Books USA, Inc.
Teachman, J. (1987). Family background, educational resources, and educational attainment.
American Sociological Review, 52, 548-557.
U.S. Census Bureau (2002). Population profile of the United States. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/pop-profile/profile.html
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 299

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). We the People: Asians in the United States. Washington, DC:
U.S.Government Printing Office.
Uyematsu, M. (1971). The emergence of yellow power in America. In A. Tachiki, E. Wong, & F.
Odo, with B. Wong (Eds.), Roots: Asian Amerian reader: A project of the UCLA Asian
American Studies Center (pp.9-13). Los Angeles: University of California.
Warner, W.L., & Srole, L. (1945). The Social System of American Ethnic Groups. New Haven,
CT: Yale Univerisity Press.
Xie, Y., & Goyette, K.A. (2004). Demographic Portrait of Asian Americans. Washington, DC:
Russell Sage Foundation and the Population Reference Bureau.
Zhou, M., & Bankston III., C.L. (1994). Social capital and the adaptation of the second
generation: The case of Vietnamese youth in New Orleans. International Review, 28(4),
821-845.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 300

Appendix A
Research Questions and Theoretical Framework

Research Question Theoretical Framework Evidence
1. How have high
performing and average
performing Chinese
heritage students responded
to their treatment by the
dominant society and what
folk theory of making it
have they constructed?
Cultural/Ecological Theory
of Minority Student
Response to Schooling,
voluntary and involuntary
minorities, acting White
and coping with the burden
of acting White,
oppositional identity,
oppositional cultural frame
of reference (Fordham &
Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987;
Ogbu & Simmons, 1998),
abstract and concrete
attitude (Michelson, 1990),
relationship between level
of acculturation and
academic variability
(Matute-Bianchi, 1986;
Goto, 1997), segmented
assimilation and
transnational framework
(Louie, 2006))

2. How has the model
minority ideology impacted
the educational careers of
high performing and
average performing Chinese
heritage students?
Model Minority Theory
(intragroup variation on
ethnic identity, academic
achievement) (Lee, 1994),
financial commitment
toward education, (Kao,
1995), valuation of model
minority and correlation
between individual and
collectivistic belief
(Oyserman & Sakamoto,
1997), job discrimination
(McGowan and Lindgren,
2003), blaming the victim,
education fever (Li, 2005),
adverse effect of the myth
(Museus & Kiang, 2009),
SES and the perception of

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 301

folk theory (Louie, 2004)
Stereotype Threat (Steele,
1997), effect of positive
stereotype, culturally
specific nature of stereotype
(Shih, Pittinsky, &
Ambady ,1999), hindrance
and public expectation
(Cheryan & Bodenhausen
(2000))
3. How do educational
caretakers treat high
performing and average
performing Chinese
heritage students?
Model Minority Theory
(blaming the victim,
education fever (Lee, 1994;
Li, 2005), Critical Scholars
view on the stereotype
(McGowan & Lindgren,
2003), perpetuate myth that
Asians do not need
assistance (Museus &
Kiang, 2009),
Social Capital Theory
institutional agents,
secondary discourse,
(Stanton- Salazar, 1997)

4.How are the
postsecondary educational
plans and career plans
impacted by the responses
to the three previous
questions?
Model Minority Theory
(Influence of the level of
acculturation and SES
(Louie, 2004)
Social Capital Theory
Bourdieu’s theory – class,
gender, and race, Coleman
– norms and social control
(Dika and Singh, 2002),
institutional agents, existing
social structure, bicultural
network orientation,
individualism (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997), obligation
and expectation (Kao,
2004), family value and
community ethnic
involvement (Zhou and
Bankston III, 1994)

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 302

Appendix B
Student Profile
BACKGROUN OF PARTICIPANT

1) What is your name? Age?
2) Where were you born?
3) Where was your parents born?
4) Do many of your relatives live in the United States or abroad?
5) At what age did you come to the U.S.? At what grade did you enroll in school in the
U.S. for the first time?
6) Where do you live? How long have you lived there?
7) Who are the members of your family?
8) What are your family members’ highest educational attainments?

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 303

Appendix C
Structured Interview Questions
Students

The structured interview questions are based on three theoretical frames: (1) Ogbu’s
cultural ecological theory [voluntary and involuntary minorities, acting White, oppositional
identity, oppositional cultural frame of reference (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu &
Simmons, 1998), abstract and concrete attitude (Michelson, 1990), relationship between level of
acculturation and academic variability (Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Goto, 1997), segmented
assimilation and transnational framework (Louie, 2006)], (2) Model Minority Theory [intragroup
variation on ethnic identity, academic achievement (Lee, 1994), financial commitment toward
education, (Kao, 1995), valuation of model minority and correlation between individual and
collectivistic belief (Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997), job discrimination (McGowan and Lindgren,
2003), blaming the victim, education fever (Li, 2005), adverse effect of the myth (Museus &
Kiang, 2009), SES and the perception of folk theory (Louie, 2004), blaming the victim,
education fever (Lee, 1994; Li, 2005)], and (3) Social Capital theory [(institutional agents,
secondary discourse, (Stanton- Salazar, 1997), family value and community ethnic involvement
(Zhou and Bankston III, 1994)]. Ogbu’s model will be used to in attempt to ascertain influence
of cultural ecological factors upon Chinese heritage students. Theory of model minority focuses
on issues of how the widely perpetuated stereotyped image of Asian affect educational career of
Chinese heritage students. Stereotype threat (Steele, 1997) in addition will be referenced in
conjunction with model minority stereotype in order to discern if the myth of the stereotype
regarding Asian’s academic prowess may in fact becomes hindrance to low achieving Chinese
heritage students. Social capital theory will focus on factors such as educational caretakers or
institutional agents impact educational achievements and trajectories for Chinese heritage
students.

PERCEPTION OF SCHOOL CULTURE
1. How long have you been a student in this high school?
2. How did you feel about coming to this high school?
3. Did many of your friends from middle school come to this same high school? Why or
why not? How about your friends from neighborhood?
*3a. Do you have many friends in general?
*3b. Do you have many Chinese friends at school or outside school?
4. How would you describe this school culture and environment to those who will attend
this school in the near future?
5. How would you describe the people at this school? Students? Teachers? Counselors?
Administrators? Others? (Ethnic composition resemble similar to that of student
demography?)
6. What kind of classes are you taking now? Why did you choose those classes?
7. Are there other students of Chinese heritage or Asian students in your classes?
8. How are you doing in these classes now? How are you doing compare to other peers in
those classes? How about other Chinese heritage or Asian students?
*8a. Do you believe that you have to study a lot harder than others to obtain success?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 304

9. Describe a class that you enjoy and what is it about that class that make this the case?
10. What are teachers’ expectations for you (Chinese heritage students or Asian
students)?
11. How does this teacher treat you? How does this teacher treat other students like you?
*11a. How do teachers perceive those Asians who do not do so well? Do teachers label
them as having behavioral problems (ADD)? Is this due to lack of parenting? Or are you
not placing enough effort?
*11b. Do you believe that teachers favor some students than other?
12. Describe a class that you DO NOT enjoy and what it is about that class that makes
this the case?
*12a. Do you feel that curriculum at this school discounts or devalue ethnic diversity? In
other words, during lectures do teachers discount different cultural value or perception
due to ethnic heritage? Do teachers honor individualistic value over other?
13. Do you feel that this particular high school does a good job in supporting you?
14. Is there anyone in the entire school who you believe supports you as a student of
Chinese heritage? If so, describe this person.
*14a. Do you believe that Asians do not have many issues compared to other ethnic
minorities?
*14b. Do you believe that Asians do not need support?
*14c. When you need academic assistance do you seek for help? How about others who
do not usually do well?
*14d. Do you feel hesitant to ask for help because of the stereotype (expectation to do
academically well)?
15. Other than teachers, how does the staff treat students? How do they treat students of
Chinese heritage?
16. Who provides you with the most support? In what ways does he or she support you?
17. How does the school support students of Chinese heritage?
*17a. Do you often talk with teachers or counselors regarding your educational plans? Do
they make time to listen and talk to you regarding your future educational career?
*17b. Do teachers teach you how to be successful at your school (such as mannerism and
use of proper language)?
*17c. Do you feel that teachers truly care about you?

ACADEMIC AND RACIAL IDENTITIES
18. What kind of student usually does well in this school? Why is this so?
19. How are you different or similar to the student you have just described?
20. How are students of Chinese heritage doing in this school? Why do you say that?
21. How is this similar or different from your experiences?
22. What is it like being a student of Chinese heritage in this school?
23. How are you similar of different?
*23a. Are you planning to go to college? What about your friends? Do you believe that in
general most Asians plan to attend college?
*23b. Do you believe aspiration to go to college motivate you to study hard?
*23c. Do most of your friends usually take honors or AP classes?
24. If you need help with schoolwork, who do you ask? Who is this person?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 305

25. If you need personal advice, who do you ask? Who is this person? What relations is
this person to you?
26. Do you think you act like basically the same person or in the same way at home and
school? (Do you often behave in a manner that is more suitable for school environment
‘effective socialization strategy’, which may be different from how you behave at home)?
With friends? Why is this the case?
27. In what ways are you different and in what ways do you act the same?
28. How do you feel about being a student of Chinese heritage in this high school? How
do you perceive your self as (your ethnicity – Asian American, Chinese American,
Chinese, American)? Do you feel that your ethnic culture and heritage is important to
you?
29. Is there anything that teachers, administrators or others do to contribute to you feeing
this way? If so, what?
*29a. Do you identify with the values of first generations? (Kao, 1995 – “Model
minority?
30. What is something you enjoy about being of Chinese heritage? Something difficult?
*30a - Do the later generation Asians still retain their ethnic and collective identity or do
they become more “Americanized” than previous generations?
*30b - Do you endorse collectivism or individualistic value?
*30c - Americans are often described as possessing individualistic orientation, valuing
personal independence and achievement. Does this describe your characteristics?
*30d - Do you believe that being individualistic is the key to be incorporated into the
mainstream?
*30e - Do you believe that you have more independent value as compare to collective or
vise versa or both equally?
*30f. Do you believe that Chinese heritage students struggle with cultural difference that
arises after coming to contact with mainstream culture?
*30g. Do you believe that later generation Chinese heritage students suffer more or less
from cultural difference (Question regarding degree of assimilation)? Do you think that it
may possibly impede academic success?
*30h. In your opinion do you believe that later generations adapt behavioral patterns that
are counterproductive in achieving academic success at school (oppositional identity)?
*30i. Do you believe that later generation immigrants endorse the belief of the first
generation immigrants? Also, do you believe that later generation Chinese heritage
students struggle with the conflict of maintaining one’s traditional culture that endorse
academic success while rejecting academic success?
*30j. Immigrants who chose to come to the U.S. on their own will are assumed to have
visitor like attitudes thus they generally have more accommodating attitude towards
discrimination and other unfair treatment. Therefore they do not perceive as collective
effort of white Americans or it is permanent in nature. In some cases, they attribute
discriminatory treatment by white American to lack of knowledge concerning foreign
culture or cultural competence? Do you think generally later generations Asians perceive
in such manner? Do you believe this is true for later generation immigrants who generally
are more assimilated into the dominant culture?
*30k. In your opinion later generations do not experience discrimination due to higher
level of acculturation (mastery of language and higher level of acculturation)?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 306

*30l. Do you believe that later generation immigrants have easier time getting integrated
into the mainstream culture?
31. Have you been taunted (teased) by your peers for getting good grades? What
happened? How did you feel?
32. How does fitting in with your friends relate to your schoolwork? Why is this so?
*32a. Maintaining harmonious relationship with others is important (when there is
existence of racial tensions)?
*32b. Which do you perceive is more important; maintaining harmonious relationship
with other (ethnic groups and peers) or educational achievement?
*32c. Do you have to disguise your academic effort in order to maintain peer
relationship?
33. Do you ever feel you have to choose between being popular with friends and getting
good grades? Why is this so?
*33a. Do you believe that stereotype of Asian students (Asians as being only concerned
about academic achievement) hinders from making friends at school?
*33b. Do you have many friends that are not Asian at school? Do you think having
friends that are not Asian is important to you?
34. Have you ever heard the phrase “acting White” What does it mean to you? (Probe for
language, speech, music, dress, school behavior, cliques, etc)? Do your friends of
Chinese heritage believe getting high grades equals acting White?
35. Have you ever felt you had to give up something about your ethnic/racial identity in
order to do well in school? (managed identities. Probe do they assume that every student
of Chinese heritage had to give up their ethnic/racial or maintain identity to do well in
school.)
*35a. Would Asians attempt to emulate behavior that is considered as a domain of white
culture, he/she would likely to be should be disparaged by their peers and others within a
group? Would this be considered as “Acting Asian”? Further, this acting Asian impedes
or facilitate academic success?
*35b. Do you have strategies to avoid stereotypes of being Asian? Do they impede your
academic achievement?
*35c. Do you place lesser preference towards values and cultures related your own
ethnicity in order to avoid seen stereotypical manner (i.e., not get involved in Asian
clubs)?
*35d. Although you perceive schooling as important because of the stereotype of Asian
as studious or nerdy do you often avoid being stereotyped by camouflaging your effort to
excel?
*35e. Although school is important, do you believe those who do not do well in school
are purposefully doing so in order to be not associate with the stereotype (perception of
academic achievement as priority)?
36. Do you believe other people consider you more intelligent because of your heritage or
is it because of your own effort?
*36a. Do you believe Asians do as equally well or better academically compare to
whites?
37. Do others (peers, teachers, administrators, and school staff) compare your academic
performance with other Asians (high achievers) at school? How does this make you feel
about yourself?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 307

*37a. Have you ever heard of the term “model minority”? What does it mean to you?
(Being conventional or too fixated on educational endeavor)?
*37b. Do you perceive the term model minority as connotes positive or negative image?
Do you perceive that it promote or hinder academic success? How do you think others
perceive it as (positive or negative)?
*37c. If you perceive model minority stereotype connotes positive image; do you believe
you do not do well because lack of your skills or something else (i.e., existing structure
that discriminate minorities)?
38. Would you ever avoid taking a class in which you would do poorly even if the class
were very interesting? Why is this so?
39. Do others feel that you are supposed to do well on standardized test like the SATs?
*39a. Do Asians generally do well on math? Do you believe that in the United States
stereotype regarding Asian American’s superior quantitative skill is prevalent?
*39b. Asians excel in certain (math and science) field because they are innately good at
it?
*39c. Do you believe that all Asians generally do well in school?
*39d. When you are expected to do well on tests does it facilitate or impede (choking)
your performance? In other words does it make you more anxious because there is
expectation from your parents and teachers to do well?
*39e. Do you believe that stereotypes contribute to heightened expectations for academic
success for both parents and teachers? Also are you burdened by the expectations? Does
it promote or impede academic performance?
40. Would you avoid academically challenging classes? Why is this so? (Probe if they
avoided the class because only a Whites and Asians do well in those classes.)
*40a. Do you believe that Asians are underrepresented minority in the realm of higher
education? (Many Asians enroll in the higher educational institutions. Then are you
incline to believe that there is many educational research regarding Asians?
*40b. Asian Americans are not a minority in a sense that they are not underrepresented in
academia nor in middle class status, however, they are often not described as successful
Americans but labeled as ‘model minority.’ When you hear statement as such how do
you feel about it?

CULTURE AND PERCEPTION OF SUCCESS
41. Which field do you perceive would yield greater financial stability (i.e., medicine,
engineering, or computer science)?
41a. Would you choose a career that requires extensive verbal and interpersonal skills or
careers that require more logic and analysis of objective data?
41b. Are you pursuing certain type of career because it interests you or because of
possible future financial stability (filial obligation), your interest, or was it your parent’s
career aspiration or something else? Do your parents promote certain career over others?
41c. Which reflect your career choices (following the family example – parents already
established in the field; choosing what is practical – forced; or reluctant rebels - internal
struggle between their aspiration and sense of filial obligation upon deciding to pursue
their field of choice)?
**41d. Do your parents want you to go into “traditionally female field” (i.e., clerical
works, nurse, and flight attendant) or professional career (i.e., lawyers, doctors)?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 308

41e. Do you believe your family’s SES influence your educational trajectory and career
choices?
41f. Do you think gender and race influence educational outcomes?
42. Do you perceive that higher education will yield for higher pay in the future?
43. Do you believe education = equal opportunity/ future success?
44. Do you believe that Asian immigrant truly hold positive concrete attitude
(constructed from own perception and understanding of the opportunity structure through
experience of their parents and relatives) regarding return on the education? In other
words are parents and relative’s experience with real-world same or differ from dominant
ideology?
45. Do you believe that majority of Asians subscribe to the ‘conventional wisdom’ of
middle-class Americans (equating academic success to financial stability)?
45a. Do you believe that Asians have equal job opportunities to whites?
45b. Do you worry about your getting a job after graduation? Do you believe you may be
discriminated because of your ethnicity?
45c. Do you believe that because of racism your social mobility may be hindered?

45d. Do you believe that mainstream society commensurate benefits (money) that
correspond with their academic achievement or credentials, particularly for ethnic
minorities?
46. Do you feel that you have to study hard because at least you owe that much to your
parents?
46a. Do parents set certain expectations for school (Grades, GPAs, SAT scores)?
46b. Do you feel that not doing well in school is dishonorable to you and your family?
47. Some assume that academic success of Asian Americans to the value of hard work
accompanied by the value of filial obligation, meeting their parents’ expectations to
achieve prosperity and higher social status. Do you believe this is true?
48. Community forces of first-generation immigrants appear to exert influence on later
generations’ perception concerning opportunity structure and value of education. Do you
believe this is true for 2
nd
or 3
rd
generation Asian immigrants?
49. Do you believe that compared to parents of other ethnic minorities your parents are
more tolerant towards racism and discriminatory behaviors since they perceive that
compared to the country of their origin, opportunity structure of the United States is far
better thus benefit outweigh such treatments (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986 – “Acting White”)
50. Do you believe that your parents are doing better after coming to the United States or
worse in terms of finance and social status?
50a. Did you parents attend college here in the United States or a foreign country?
50b. Do you or your parents know a person who attended college that could give advice
regarding how to get admitted into college?
50c. Does your parents encourage to attend college or are they more concerned with you
getting a job after graduating high school?
51. Do you believe that having Chinese heritage hinders participate on mainstream
activities?
52. Although all immigrants who value hard work through individual effort should be
incorporated into the mainstream society, some groups were never incorporated into the
mainstream society due to their distinct culture and appearance. Asian Americans, for
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 309

instance, were one of the example of group who valued hard work and striving
achievement of American culture, yet was never was considered as a part of mainstream.
Do you believe this is true?
52a. Do you speak and write your own ethnic language? How competent are you with
your Chinese language skills (speaking, reading, Writing)?
52b. How involved are you with your Chinese community?
52c. Do you feel that there are certain norms within community, that regulate your
behaviors?
52d. Do you believe that your community sets rules for good (good grades in school) and
bad (dropping out of school) behaviors that you must abide by?
52e. Do you believe helping others and value of hard work is important? Do you believe
that family member also honor those values too?
52f. Do you believe that being too American is not good? What about your parents? Or
community?
52g. Do you believe that your family and others in the community are very connected?
Does your parents compare you with others within the community?

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 310

Appendix D
Question and Theories 1
I: “Acting White” – cultural ecological theory

1) Ogbu (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998)
two key elements in explaining academic variability; they are ecological factors, or later he
describes as the system, and community forces (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu & Simmons,
1998). The system, which Ogbu described, is a manner in which minorities were treated in terms
of educational policies and remuneration for their academic degrees. Community forces, which
this study will explore further in detail, are consequences of perception and responses for their
treatment in broad society and in school (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998).
a) What accounts for the intergroup variability?
- Asian are categorized as voluntary minorities and were not incorporated into
American society through subjugation thus should not experience obstacles and
barriers equal to that of voluntary minorities (no oppositional identity or/and
oppositional cultural frame of reference). Furthermore, voluntary minorities face
difficulty due to difference in culture and language at first, it does not appear to
have permanent effect on their academic achievement.

b) Do Asian immigrants experience secondary cultural difference?
- Secondary cultural difference - characterizes the difference that arises after two
populations have been in contact for extended period, which developed as a
response and treatment of dominant group – impede academic performance and
further lead to academic variability?
c) Would Asians attempt to emulate behavior that considered as a domain of white
culture, he/she would likely to be should be disparaged by their peers and others within a
group? Would this be considered as “Acting Asian”? Further, this acting Asian impedes
or facilitate academic success?
d) Do Asians perceive schooling as subtractive process?
e) Do the later generation Asians still retain their ethnic and collective identity or do they
become more “Americanized” than previous generations?
- In general, voluntary minorities perceive their social identity as fundamentally
different from that of dominant group. Further, they have tendency to retain their
social identity or sense of ‘peoplehood’ even after emigration.
f) Do all Asians subscribe to the ‘conventional wisdom’ of middle-class Americans
(equating academic success to financial stability)?
g) Do barriers Asian Americans encounter more burdensome for later generations? –
Would it impede academic success?
- Barriers to achieving success appear to have lesser cognitive burden upon
Asians as compare to involuntary minorities, since they appear to hold the
mindset that they are foreigner in the country and that they have option of
returning to their country of origin or emigrate to country that offer more
opportunities and prospects of economic success.
h) Obgu stated that Asians do not perceive discriminatory treatment as a collective effort
of white Americans or permanent in nature. In some cases, they attribute discriminatory
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 311

treatment by white American to lack of knowledge concerning foreign culture or cultural
competence? Do all later generations Asians perceive in such manner?
i) Community forces of first-generation immigrants appear to exert influence on later
generations’ perception concerning opportunity structure and value of education. Is this
true for 2
nd
or 3
rd
generation Asian immigrants?
- Although not all members in a group believe or behave in manner similar to the
dominant pattern of their group. Ogbu asserted that descendants or later
generation immigrants (i.e., second, third, or fourth-generations) are also
considered as voluntary minorities since he contends that in general, the
community forces of first-generation immigrants appear to exert influence on later
generations’ perception concerning opportunity structure and value of education.
i-1) Do later generation immigrants endorse the belief of the first generation immigrants?
- Parents of voluntary minorities appear to have high expectation for their children
to succeed academically and tendency to hold their children accountable for their
academic failure rather than school. Children of voluntary minorities also are
more inclined to share the parents’ sentiment and commitments towards schooling,
thus they work hard, do their homework, and abide by standard academic practice
of school.
j) Ogbu et al. postulated that voluntary minorities generally have more accommodating
attitude towards dominant culture and schooling due to lack of oppositional quality. Is
this true for later generation immigrants who generally are more assimilated into the
dominant culture?
k) Do you have to disguise your academic effort in order to maintain peer relationship?
(not perceived as nerds or geeks?)
- In comparison between underperforming students and high-achieving students
are that coping strategy of underperforming students were not as effective in
camouflaging their academic ability. Therefore, underperforming students are
those who succumbed to the peer pressure, while high-achievers have developed
coping strategy to successfully camouflage their ability and maintain peer
relationship.

2) Mickelson (1990)
a) Do Asian immigrant truly hold positive concrete attitude (constructed from own
perception and understanding of the opportunity structure through experience of their
parents and relatives) regarding return on education? In other words do parents and
relative’s experience with real-world same or differ from dominant ideology?
- Students’ poor performance at school can be attributed to both their experience
at school and grim future perspective conveyed by their parents and relatives
regarding return on education. Both voluntary and involuntary minorities are
stated to have positive abstract attitude on education.
3) Matute-Bianchi (1986)
a) Asian students appeared to be aware of their stereotype images at school. Do these
image hinder or promote academic success?
- Often Asian immigrants were perceived as “smart” and “quiet” and school
personnel expected to them to be high achievers and maintain excellent grade
point average.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 312

b) Do later generations not experience discrimination due to higher level of
acculturation?
- According to Matute-Bianchi Japanese-Americans have made stride to
accommodate themselves with white middle-class mainstream culture to be
virtually indistinguishable from dominant group. As a consequence, later
Japanese generations were not constrained with negative attributes of minorities
that predecessor experienced.
c) Do you believe that later generation Asians don’t suffer from secondary cultural
differences because of process of assimilation? Do they adapt maladaptive strategy?
4) Goto (1997)
a) Development of oppositional identity account for the academic variability for Asian
students?
- According to Goto, growing number of researchers (Chun, 1995; Nakanishi,
1995; Takaki, 1989) are reporting more instances of Asian Americans
experiencing barriers to social mobility. As a consequence, Asian Americans in
some instances form oppositional identity in response to such barriers (Omatsu,
1994.) – confirm (1j;3b,c)
b) Maintaining harmonious relationship with others is important (when there is existence
of racial tensions)?
- Maintaining harmonious relationship with others. Furthermore, Chinese-
Americans wish to remain anonymous and not to draw unnecessary attention to
themselves for being high achievers.
c) Do only more acculturated Asian immigrants adapt oppositional quality?
- Asian-American individuals who emphasized with homeboys appear to struggle
with conflict of maintaining Chinese culture that endorse academic success while
rejecting academic success in some instances - confirm (1j;3b,c;4a).
5) Louie (2006)
a) Do you believe education = equal opportunity/ future success?
- Segmented assimilation, according to Louie is a process of cultural and
economic integration into the mainstream culture (Castro, F.G., Marsiglia, F.F.,
Kulis, S., & Kellison, 2010). Therefore, degree of successfulness, culturally and
economically, in integrating varies considerably between individuals and groups.
Furthermore, experience of individuals and groups also varies depending on the
segment of society in which one is assimilated. First-generation immigrants, for
example, may perceived low-paying job positively when comparing with job
opportunity in their homeland, second-generations would more likely to reject
these jobs since their frame of comparison differ from first-generation immigrants.
b) Do you perceive that you are doing well compare to other friends or Asians in school?
- Those assimilated into mainstream culture, white middle-class, by means of
straight-line assimilation or those who forged strong ethnic ties with their
community and achieved positive outlook on education and mobility. However
others who experienced downward socioeconomic mobility, settling in the
vicinity of struggling minority neighborhood, have tendency to perceive negative
outlook on education. – confirm (5a)
c) Do you speak and write your own ethnic language (Social capital)?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 313

- The concept of transitionalism on the other hand, is a belief that upon emigration,
rather than severing ties with homeland and being incorporated then assimilated
into a new society, immigrants maintain bilateral cultural and social relationship
with their country of origin and their host country. Louie caveat that for second-
generation immigrants to maintain transitional stance, individual must be
equipped with sufficient mastery of language in both English and parent’s
homeland. In addition, Louie asserted that to engage in transitional practices,
second-generation immigrants must maintain ‘meaningful’ ties with society of
parent’s homeland.
d) Degree of community involvement?
- Louie asserted that for in most cases second-generation immigrants develop
ethnic orientation, recognizing shared sense of belonging, culture, and history to a
particular ethnic group, rather than transitional orientation.
e) How do you compare yourselves to other coethnics in terms of success?
- (First, educational success was measured against other coethnics children within
parents’ ethic networks. Often benchmark that parents used to compare their
children were not only their grades in school but attendance to prestigious schools.
Second benchmark was the others who grew up in the ethnic enclave.

II: “Model minority theory”

1) Lee (1994)
a) How do you perceive your ethnic identity?
- Lee’s study illustrated existence of intragroup variability regarding perception of
one’s identity, schooling, and stereotype of model minority.
b) Have you ever heard of the term “model minority”? Do you think it is a positive term
or negative (being conventional or too fixated on educational endeavor)?
- negatively affecting the likelihood of gaining social acceptance from peers in
non-Asian groups.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 314

2) Kao (1995)
a) Do parents set certain expectation for school (Grades, GPAs, SAT scores)?
- Parenting behavior appeared to be different between Asian and whites. Compare
to white parents, Asian parents have more likely to have rules regarding amount
of time spent on watching television or maintaining grades at school.
b) Does the pressure to do well in school promote or hinder academic success?
- Asian parents expressed least amounts of interest in children’s school experience,
yet stipulated their children to achieve exceptionally high academic success.
Therefore, Kao suggest Asian parenting style to be more authoritarian than white
parents.
c) Do parents push you to study certain subject or place more emphasis? (physician, an
engineer, a physical science researcher, or an accountant)
- Unlike African Americans (Ogbu, 1986), Asian Americans receives
remuneration that corresponds with educational attainment yet unequal to that of
white counterparts. Although children may aspire to pursue in creative fields,
Asian parents would discourage their children in pursuing these filed since they
perceive these non technical field to be “unsafe” (p.151) in term of obtaining
future financial stability.
d) Are you planning to go to college?
- correlation between grades and level of educational aspiration with the
hypothesis that higher educational aspiration promote higher test scores and GPAs
at school.
e) Do you believe that you have to study a lot harder than others to obtain success?
Result confirmed with the previous statement, regarding career opportunities in
the future, that generally Asians overestimate the level of grades that is necessary
to achieve educational aspiration.
f) Do Asians generally do well on math?
- both math and reading test score appeared to be identical between Asians and
whites with exception of Pacific Islanders
g) Do you identify with the values of first generations?
- more acculturated the immigrants were less likely to identify with traditional
cultural value of the first generation immigrants, which placed significant
emphasis on work ethics and academic pursuit since they held belief that
education as the key obtaining future socioeconomic mobility. Because more
acculturated immigrants may not share the values and beliefs of fist generation,
such as perception of opportunity structure and meritocratic means of achieving
success, they may place lesser effort in achieving academic success at school,
which subsequently lead to lower academic achievement.
h) Do you believe Asians do well academically compare to whites?
- At first glance, data appeared as though Asians in overall are excelling
academically and achieving higher academic success when comparing test scores
and GPA to that of white counterparts, yet when controlling family income and
home resources data revealed Asians had slight advantage on grades, but no
perceivable differences with regard to test scores.
3) Oyserman and Sakamoto (1997)
a) Do you perceive the term model minority as connotes positive or negative image?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 315

- Asian Americans, for instance, was one of the example of group who valued
hard work and striving achievement of American culture, yet was never
considered as a part of mainstream. Furthermore, by definition, Asian Americans
are not minority in a sense that they were not underrepresented in academia nor
middle class status, however, they are often not described as successful
Americans but labeled as ‘model minority.’ Although some Asian Americans may
perceive model minority in a positive light, others may argue that the label it self
present a barrier and discrimination for them to entering into mainstream society
b) Do you endorse collectivism or individualistic value?
- Data revealed that individualistic cultural orientation had correlation with
positive valuation of one’s group membership but not with ethnic identity.
Furthermore, individualistic cultural orientation was related with public self-
esteem and connectedness. Whereas collectivistic cultural orientation was related
with positive valuation of their ethnic group and importance of group’s identity to
self-concept, inclination to define their identity through membership.
c) How do teachers perceive Asians at this school?
- As stated earlier, collective beliefs are strongly correlated with ethnic identity
and positive valuation of model minority, therefore, collectivism increase the
acceptance of the image of model minority. Further, those who perceived the
label positively anticipated that it would promote favorable impression of
themselves towards members of out-groups, especially with regard to success in
academic achievement.
d) You are doing well in school because of your own effort?
- Data revealed that those who perceive tradition and heritage positively also have
tendency to valuate the label positively, but those who perceive the label
negatively see the label as undermining individual’s effort and created barrier in
keeping them out of mainstream.
e) Do you have strategies to avoid stereotype of being Asian? Do they impede your
academic achievement?
- Devised similar strategies to avoid being perceived stereotypically. More than
half of participants reported to have strategies for stereotype concerning social
competence and interpersonal generosity. Strategies mainly focused on avoiding
certain situation.
f) Are you aware of prejudice or stereotype towards being Asian (ex. label of
overachiever, nerd, etc.)
- Focused on camouflaging their academic stride and avoid stereotypical image of
Asian as ‘nerds’ rather than avoid from receiving good grades.
g) For those who perceive model minority stereotype positive; do you believe you do not
do well because lack of your skills or something else?
- When there is existence of structural racism, they would be more inclined to
make self-blaming attribution about one’s effort and skill, when the blame should
be attributed toward prejudice of structural racism or discrimination.
4) McGowan and Lindgren (2003)
a) How do you perceive that others feel about model minority stereotype (positive or
negative)?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 316

- Assertion of critical scholars, in which they claim the model minority stereotype
in actuality conceals hostility towards Asian Americans and further serve to
disdain immigrants and other minorities, mainly African Americans and Latinos.
b) Do you believe that Asians have equal job opportunities to whites?
- Research suggested that many of those who held positive view of Asian
Americans would most likely to not recognize existence of discrimination in the
job market. In other words, the model minority stereotype continue to
discriminate Asian Americans and hinder their opportunities in the U.S.
Furthermore, the model minority stereotype hinder individuals’ ability to define
their own identities as well as creating certain expectations about individuals
belonging Asian American group.
5) Li (2005)
a) Do parents and teachers expect to do well in school? Do you think this pressure to do
well impede or promote academic success?
- Li argued that the model minority stereotype first, serve to conceal the need for
Asian Americans in receiving assistance or government programs. Second, it
instills the mindset that those who are failing to achieve success do not suffice
effort or even inherently lacks ability to succeed, which allowing the dominant
group to place blame on other minority groups for their failure.
b) Are most of your friends taking AP or Honors classes?
Model minority myth does not accurately reflect the increasing level of
underachievement and dropout rates for Asians. National Center for Educational
Statistics (NACS, 2004) reported that in some states Asians in subgroups do not
necessary have higher achievement when comparing to other minorities.
c) Do you feel hesitant to ask for help because of the stereotype?
d) How do teachers perceive those Asians who do not do so well? Do teachers label them
as having behavioral problems (ADD)? Is this due to lack of parenting?
- In general teachers would most likely to attribute their failure to behavioral
issues or learning difficulties rather than their instructions.
e) Do you believe that stereotype contribute to heightened expectations for academic
success for both parents and teachers? Also do you burdened by the expectations? Does it
promote or impede academic performance?
- The stereotype instills the mindset that those who are failing to achieve success
do not suffice effort to succeed, which promoted “blaming the victims” approach;
and second, the stereotype appear to induce and heighten parents’ “educational
fever” (p.81), high expectation and aspiration for children’s educational
achievement, which placed additional burden to already existing problem.
f) Do you feel that because of the model minority stereotype, your parents were expect
higher academic achievement?
6) Museus and Kiang (2009)
a) Do you believe that all Asians generally do well in school?
- disaggregated data revealed that existence of wide variance in the level of
academic achievement within the group. For example, disaggregated data
revealed Asian Indians as having the highest rate of baccalaureate attainment,
whereas Southeast Asians (Hmong, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese)
consistently showed lower level of degree attainment (Museus et al., 2009)
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 317

b) Do you believe that Asians are underrepresented minority in the realm of higher
education?
- virtually no attention has been given to AAPIs in five of the most influential
academic journals in the field of higher education - this oversight, which renders
Asians invisible, exacerbates problems associated with mental health and
exclusion from educational resources and opportunities.
c) Do you believe that Asians do not need support (ie., special programs)from the
government?
- Asians do not necessitate support or assistance from federal agencies like other
minorities.
d) Are most of your friends planning to attend college? In general, do you believe other
Asians plan to attend college upon graduation?
- Disaggregated data showed that rate of college attainment for some Asian
subgroup college is lower than national population and other minority groups
(Kao, 1997; U.S. Census Bureau, 2004)
e) Do you feel that not doing well in school = dishonorable to you and your family?
f) When you need academic assistance do you seek for help? How about others who do
not usually do well?
- Asian American who perceive the label of model minority positively have a
tendency to interpret academic failure as sign of dishonor to them and most
importantly to their family. Therefore, it is discerned that those students who do
not fit the prototype of model minority student, such as low achievers, would be
less inclined or hesitant to seek for academic assistances or talk about their failure.
g) Do you believe academic success = future financial success
- Some studies have shown that, in spite of Asian Americans’ success in academia
and high educational achievement, they do not necessary receive remuneration
that corresponds with their educational attainment (Kao, 1995; McGowan, 2003).

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 318

7) Louie (2004)
a) What does your parents want you to be (career choices; male/female)?
- Louie examined variability among immigrant’s educational experience and
perception of the relevance of education along the line of socioeconomic class.
b) Does your parents want you to excel in certain subjects?
- Interview revealed that parents in both urban and suburban area appear to place
more effort towards succeeding in certain subject areas than others, which
indicated that parents have great influence in choosing major for their children.
c) Does your parents promote certain career over other?
- Interview revealed that parents in both urban and suburban area appear to place
more effort towards succeeding in certain subject areas than others, which
indicated that parents have great influence in choosing major for their children.
d) Asians excel in certain (math and science) field because they are innately good at it?
- Chinese children excelled in particular field, such as science and math, not due
to their innate ability but through hard work and strive for high academic
achievement, which often were endorsed by their parents.
e) Which field do you perceive that would yield greater financial stability (i.e., medicine,
engineering, and computer science)?
- Parents only deem a few particular fields, such as medicine, engineering, and
computer science, to be ‘safe’ or offer financial stability for their children in the
future. Safe field also appear to suggest that their children to require lesser
subjective judgment, such as verbal and interpersonal skills, but more on logic
and objective data. In most cases, parents were reluctant in acknowledging the
likelihood that other field could offer financial stability in the future for their
children.
f) Would you choose a career that requires extensive verbal and interpersonal skills or
careers that requires more on logic and analysis on objective data?
- In other words, parents only deem a few particular fields, such as medicine,
engineering, and computer science, to be ‘safe’ or offer financial stability for their
children in the future. Safe field also appear to suggest that their children to
require lesser subjective judgment, such as verbal and interpersonal skills, but
more on logic and objective data. In most cases, parents were reluctant in
acknowledging the likelihood that other field could offer financial stability in the
future for their children.
g) Are you pursuing certain type of career because it interests you or because of possible
future financial stability, or was it your parent’s career aspiration?
- Education was perceived as means of obtaining possible jobs that yield future
financial security but not for the sake of learning or for academic pursuit.
- In some cases, however, interview revealed that differences in parents’
perception towards their children’s career choices did not reflect their
socioeconomic class or available financial resources but parent’s career aspiration.
h) Do you believe financial resources affect possible future career choices?
- Parents who resided in suburban area, which tend to be upper/middle class,
expected their children to pursue the professional career of their parents. On the
other hand, working class parents perceived that some career are unattainable for
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 319

their children thus parents would steer their children to fields which they deem to
be next best choice, such as pharmacy, computer science, and accounting.
i) Do you feel that you have to do well academically because of the sense of filial
obligation?
- As stated earlier, majority of respondents felt the sense of obligation to
compensate for the losses incurred by their parents upon immigration and to some
extent oblige to parents request.
j) Which reflect your career choices (following the family example – parents already
established in the field; choosing what is practical – forced; or reluctant rebels - internal
struggle between their aspiration and sense of filial obligation upon deciding to pursue
their field of choice)?
k) Does your parents want you to go in to “traditionally female field” (i.e., clerical works,
nurse, and flight attendant) or professional career (i.e., lawyers, doctors)?
- With regard to career choices concerning gender of their children, interview
revealed there was difference in parents’ philosophy along the class line.
l) Do you worry about your getting a job after graduation? Do you believe you may be
discriminated because of your ethnicity?
- Interview revealed that anxiety was not associated with working but recognizing
that corporate America was not ‘race neutral’ when it comes to mobility (Kao,
1995; McGowan & Linden, 2003; Museus & Kiang, 2009). In most cases, anxiety
derived from stories that they have heard regarding their parents and peer’s
experience of racial discrimination at workplace, which subsequently cause them
to hold pessimistic view pertaining to race and mobility in workplaces
m) Do you believe that because of racism your social mobility may be hindered?
- Consequently, many respondents perceived lack of racial inequity in workplaces
and further held pessimism towards their social mobility in future. Although
respondents held belief that obtaining higher education and degrees would
circumvent hindrances and struggles that their parents faced, they also recognized
that obtaining degrees from college would not necessary protect them against
possible racial discrimination in the future.

III: “Stereotype threat”

1) Steele (1997)
a) When there is presence of the negative stereotype associated with your group do you
feel anxious of confirming to negative stereotype regarding their limited ability?
Furthermore, do you often underperform when there is presence of negative stereotype
regarding one’s domain of interest?
- In general, it can affect the members of any groups when there is existence of
negative stereotype about one’s group (i.e., elderly, teenage drivers, white men).
Members of these groups, who identified with the domain could risk being judged
based on the stereotype. In addition, those who identify strongly with the
negatively stereotyped domain could face prospects of being reduced to that
stereotype, which in turn threatens their self-identification with the domain.
b) During ability diagnostic test do you often underperform when there is demographic
questionnaire was first asked (i.e., being Asian)?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 320

- For African Americans, stereotype threat concerning their intellectual ability
was tested. When the test was presented as ‘ability-diagnostic,’ measure of one’s
intellectual ability, participants greatly underperformed, while on ‘ability
nondiagnostic’ test, unrelated to intellectual ability, participants score was
equivalent to their white counterparts. Differ from the first test, when African
American participants were asked to record their race on demographic
questionnaire prior to the test, their performance worsened significantly as
compare to control group who did not recorded their race on demographic
questionnaire prior to the test
c) Do you place lesser preference towards values and cultures related your own ethnicity in
order to avoid seen stereotypical manner?
- Result suggested that African American participants appear to place lesser
preference towards values and cultures related to African Americans (i.e., hip-hop
and basketball) in order to avoid being seen stereotypical manner. However, in a
situation when African Americans do not need worry about triggering the threat,
they valued things that related with their own culture. Therefore, Steele suggested
that in general, African Americans utilize ‘stigma adaptation’ strategy, a strategy
to avert the threat temporary by appearing previously identified domain less self-
relevant, when there is a presence of the threat.
d) Although you perceive schooling is important because of the stereotype of Asian as
studious or nerdy do you often avoid being stereotype by camouflaging your effort to
excel?
d1) Although school is important, do you believe that those who do not well in school is
their attempt to not to be associated with the stereotype (perception of academic
achievement as priority)?
- As result revealed, the effect of stereotype threat can be mitigated when
individual do not identify with domain of relevance, in other words, by
disidentifying with the domain of self-relevance, one can dispel the stigma attach
to the one’s group temporarily. However, process of disassociation have lasting
impact on those who perceived school achievement as their self-identity.
2) Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady (1999)
a) Do you believe that in the United States stereotype regarding Asian American’s superior
quantitative skill is prevalent?
3) Cheryan and Bodenhausen (2000)
a) Do you believe because stereotype concerning Asian it create anxiety or pressure to
perform? Would it hinders performance?
Hypothesized that making salience of the dimension concerning Asians’ superior
math skills would not increase performance on quantitative task, but rather create
potential for ‘choking’ or hinder performance when individuals are under pressure
to meet the expectation of positive stereotype.
b) Do you believe model minority stereotype connotes a positive or negative image?
Improve performance when the positive identity associated with
stereotype was privately held.
c) Do you believe that expectation of your parents and teachers to do well due to stereotype
facilitate/promote or hinder your performance?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 321

Furthermore, Cheryan et al. postulated that phenomenon of boost in self-
confidence, which assumed to enhance test performance, occurs only when an
individual hold expectations of success privately. However, when such
expectation was to be anticipated by others, individuals would most likely to
experience anxiety about meeting those high expectations, which in turn impede
test performance or elicit phenomenon often referred to as “choking under
pressure.”

IV “Social Capital”

1) Article by Dika and Singh (2002)

a) Did you parents attend college here in the United States or foreign country?
- Cultural capital such as attitude and knowledge to succeed in educational system
was described to be transmitted by parents to their children.
b) Do you think class, gender, and race influence educational outcomes?
- Bourdieu’s work has been referenced by various researchers to explain how the
factors such as class, gender, and race would significantly affect educational
experience and outcome of minority children.
2) Stanton-Salazar (1997)
a) Do you often talk with teachers or counselors regarding your educational plans? Do they
make time to listen and talk to you regarding your future educational career?
- In the article, Stanton-Salazar defined institutional agents as those who have
access in providing institutional resources and opportunities such as teachers,
counselors, peers, and community leaders. Resources can be considered as
something tangible such as gaining access to information about programs that
schools offers (i.e., mentoring program) and obtaining assistance from counselors
regarding college enrollment procedures.
- Institutional support can provide individuals with ‘various funds of knowledge,’
such as gaining access to a particular networks which allows for exploring various
opportunities, role models, and provision of social and emotional support and
advocacy.
b) Do teachers teach you how to be successful at your school (such as mannerism and use
of proper language)?
- Institutional agents are crucial in transmitting children with secondary discourse,
socially accepted manner of using language and proper mannerism in formal
context that could potentially link to ‘social goods’ (i.e., money, prestige, status
and credentials), that is built upon culture and norms of middle-class white
community.
c) Do you believe that teachers truly care about you?
- For minority students role of parental support and mentorship at times rely on
institutional agents, however, due to policies and rules of institution often take
precedence over needs of these students.
- Trusting relationship between children and institutional agents is crucial for in
academic success and however due to policy and institutional order as well as
teachers, who implement these policies, is it difficult to forge supportive tie with
teachers for long duration of time.
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 322

d) Do you believe that teachers favor some students than other?
- Due to longstanding discrimination and historical exclusionary practice by
dominant white, minority groups often perceive institutional agents as
representing interest of dominant group, which is also evident from tension
between underrepresented ethnic minority communities and the dominant group.
e) Do you often behave in a manner that is more suitable for school environment (effective
socialization strategy), which may be different from how you behave at home?
- Asserted that possessing bicultural network orientation entails for crossing
borders and overcoming institutional barriers, which allow for entry into
institutional setting where minority students may generate social capital, such as
forming institutional support and gaining funds of knowledge.
f) Do you believe that teachers honor individualistic value over other?
- Therefore, those who grew up not having individualism as their moral
foundation, would most likely to be perceived as ‘exotic and inferior.’
g) Do you believe that if you do not do well in school, teachers perceive it as a sign that
you are not placing enough effort?
- Another issues pertaining to the concept of individualism is that everyone has
capacity to make ‘right choices,’ thus individuals also carry responsibilities for
making wrong choices.
3) Kao (2004)
a) Do you have many friends at school or in general?
- Therefore, those who are alienated or having a few friends would have lesser
opportunity to exchange obligations or share expectations, which I stated earlier
as a form of resource. Kao asserted that as compare to native born, immigrants
and minorities generally are more alienated from the dominant society, thus have
a lesser opportunities to exchange obligations and expectations, which in turn
translate to lesser chance of accessing this resource.
b) Do you have many Chinese friends at school or outside school?
- Among coethnic-immigrants sense of obligations and expectation would be
assumed to be greater due to shared experiences of emigration and attachment
towards their native country (i.e., culture, language, and religion).
c) Do you or your parents know a person who attended college that could give advice
regarding how to get admitted into college?
- In the case of immigrant parents, those who know other parents with more
knowledge of how to maneuvering through educational system would
significantly improve children’s educational outcome.
d1) Did your parents attend college in the United States?
- Actualized social capital is instrumental or supportive relationship in itself.
d2) Does your parents encourage to attend college or are they more concerned with you
getting a job after graduating high school?
e) Do you feel that there are certain norms within community, which regulate your
behaviors?
- Social norm could be powerful method for controlling behaviors for individual
group members. Further, Kao assumed that, particularly among tight-knit
immigrant communities, influence of social norms would be stronger. In addition,
Kao asserted that social capital in the form of ‘ties’ with each other would
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 323

strengthen with use and unlike other forms of social capital (i.e., monetary and
human capital), this particular form (i.e., obligations and expectations,
information channels, and social norms) is ‘less susceptible’ to being exhausted
by individuals.
4) Zhou and Bankston III (1994)
a) How do you perceive your self as (your ethnicity)? Do you feel that your ethnic culture
and heritage is important to you?
- Zhou et al. asserted that by maintaining group membership and their original
cultural patterns, immigrants might gain adaptive advantage.
b) Do you believe that later generation immigrants have easier time getting integrated into
the mainstream culture?
- Assimilationist generally hold belief that these ethic traits of original culture will
gradually disappear over the course of generation, which in turn breaks down the
ethnic boundaries and allowing increased participation in the society (Gordon,
1964.)
c) Do you believe that having Chinese heritage hinders participating in mainstream
activities?
- Child in his study suggested that rebels are the ones that would be most adjusted
due to their inclination to accept new culture in place of their ‘original’ ones.
d) In your opinion do you feel that you are very involved in one’s ethnic community?
e) Do you believe that your community sets rules for good (good grades in school) and bad
(dropping out of school) behaviors that you must abide by?
f) Do you believe helping others and value of hard work is important? Do you believe that
family member also honor those values too?
- Family members were instilled with values of obedience, industriousness, and
helping others, yet discouraged individualistic values, which are commonly
associated with one of the values of dominant American society.
g) Do you believe that being too American is not good?
- Especially for their children, parents pressure them not to become “too American”
(p831) by persuading them to avoid dating or spending too much time with non-
Vietnamese children. Therefore, it appeared as though family and community
provide value and behavior standards for their youth, which in turn impart their
children with direction and guidance to adapt in a manner that is accordance to the
core value of family and the community.
h) Do you believe that your family and others in the community is very connected? Does
your parents compare you with others within the community?
- Each family was interconnected with one anther through social and kinship
relations. Furthermore, these Vietnamese frequently participated in events to measure
their own accomplishments with others within the community.

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 324

Appendix E
Question and Theories 2
Grades:
1) What accounts for the intergroup variability? (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987;
Ogbu & Simmons, 1998 – “Acting White 1a”)

Perception of one’s academic success:
1) Do you perceive that you are doing well compare to other friends or Asians in school?
Louie, 2006 – “Acting White 5b)
2) How do you compare yourselves to other coethnics in terms of success? (Louie, 2006
– “Acting White 5e)

Links between financial success and academic achievement:
1) Which field do you perceive that would yield greater financial stability (i.e., medicine,
engineering, and computer science)? (Louie, 2004 – “Model minority 7e”)
2) Do you perceive that higher education will yield for higher pay? (Forham and Ogbu,
1986 – “Acting white 1”)

Academic achievement (Degree of effort):
1) Do you believe that you have to study a lot harder than others to obtain success? (Kao,
1995 – “Model minority 2e”)

Academic success and aspiration for higher education:
1) Are you planning to go to college? (Kao, 1995 – “Model minority 2d)

Links between oppositional identity and academic variability:
Development of oppositional identity account for the academic variability for Asian
students? (Goto, 1997 - “Acting White 4a”)

Views on cultural difference:
1) Do Asian immigrants experience secondary cultural difference? (Fordham & Ogbu,
1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998 – “Acting White 1b”)
2) Do you believe that later generation Asians don’t suffer from secondary cultural
differences because of process of assimilation? Do they adapt maladaptive strategy?
(Matute-Bianchi, 1986 – “Acting White 3c”)

Behavioral pattern (peer relationship and academic achievement):
1) Would Asians attempt to emulate behavior that considered as a domain of white
culture, he/she would likely to be should be disparaged by their peers and others within a
group? Would this be considered as “Acting Asian”? Further, this acting Asian impedes
or facilitate academic success? (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons,
1998 – “Acting White 1c”)
2) Maintaining harmonious relationship with others is important (when there is existence
of racial tensions)? (Goto, 1997 – “Acting White 4b”)
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 325

3) Which do you perceive is important; maintaining harmonious relationship with other
(ethnic groups and peers) or educational achievement? (Goto, 1997 – “Acting white 4”).
4) Do you believe that stereotype (Asians as being only concerned about academic
achievement) hinders from making friends at school? (Goto, 1997 – “acting white 4”).
5) Do you have many friends that are not Asian at school? Do you think having friends
that are not Asian is important to you? (Goto, 1997 – “Acting white 4")
6) In your opinion do you believe that later generations adapt behavioral patterns that are
counterproductive in achieving academic success at school? (oppositional identity) –
(Goto, 1997 – “Acting white 4”)

Perception of school (general):
1) Do Asians perceive schooling as subtractive process? (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu,
1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998 – “Acting White 1d”

Ethnic identity:
1) Do the later generation Asians still retain their ethnic and collective identity or do they
become more “Americanized” than previous generations? (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986;
Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998 – “Acting White 1e”)
2) How do you perceive your ethnic identity? (Lee, 1994 – “Model minority 1a)
3) Do you endorse collectivism or individualistic value? (Oyserman and Sakamoto, 1997
– “Model minority 3b”)
4) How do you perceive your self as (your ethnicity)? Do you feel that your ethnic culture
and heritage is important to you? (Zhou and Bankston III, 1994 – “Social capital 4a”)

Belief on how to achieve success:
1) Do all Asians subscribe to the ‘conventional wisdom’ of middle-class Americans
(equating academic success to financial stability)? (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987;
Ogbu & Simmons, 1998 – “Acting White 1f”)
2) Do you believe academic success = future financial success (Museus and Kiang, 2009
– “Model minority 5g)

Discrimination (parents)
1) Do you believe that compare to parents of other ethnic minorities your parents are
more tolerant towards racism and discriminatory behaviors since they perceive that
comparing to country of their origin, opportunity structure of the United States is far
better thus benefit outweigh such treatments (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986 – “Acting White”)
2) Do you believe that your parents are doing better after coming to the United States or
worse in terms of finance and social status? (“Model minority”)

Discrimination or barriers (generational):
1) Do barriers Asian Americans encounter more burdensome for later generations? –
Would it impede academic success? (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu &
Simmons, 1998 – “Acting White 1g”)
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 326

2) Obgu stated that Asians do not perceive discriminatory treatment as a collective effort
of white Americans or permanent in nature. In some cases, they attribute discriminatory
treatment by white American to lack of knowledge concerning foreign culture or cultural
competence? Do all later generations Asians perceive in such manner? (Fordham & Ogbu,
1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998 – “Acting White 1h”)
3) Do later generations not experience discrimination due to higher level of
acculturation? (Matute-Bianchi, 1986 – “Acting White 3b”)
4) Do you believe that later generation immigrants have easier time getting integrated
into the mainstream culture? (Zhou and Bankston III, 1994 – “Social capital 4a”)

Discrimination (ethnic heritage)
1) Do you believe that having Chinese heritage hinders participating in mainstream
activities? (Zhou and Bankston III, 1994 – “Social capital 4c”)
2) Although all immigrants who value hard work through individual effort should be
incorporated into the mainstream society, some groups were never incorporated into the
mainstream society due to their distinct culture and appearance. Asian Americans, for
instance, was one of the example of group who valued hard work and striving
achievement of American culture, yet was never was considered as a part of mainstream.
Do you believe this is true? (Oyserman and Sakamoto – “Model minority 3”)

Discrimination (jobs):
1) Do you believe that Asians have equal job opportunities to whites? (4) McGowan and
Lindgren, 2003 – “Model minority 4b/
2) Do you worry about your getting a job after graduation? Do you believe you may be
discriminated because of your ethnicity? (Louie, 2004 – “Model minority 7l”)
3) Do you believe that because of racism your social mobility may be hindered? (Louie,
2004 – “Model minority 7m)
4) Do you believe that mainstream society commensurate benefits (money) that
correspond with their academic achievement or credentials, particularly for ethnic
minorities? (Fordham and Ogbu, 1986 – “Acting white 1”)

Future opportunity and education (community influence):
1) Community forces of first-generation immigrants appear to exert influence on later
generations’ perception concerning opportunity structure and value of education. Is this
true for 2
nd
or 3
rd
generation Asian immigrants? (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987;
Ogbu & Simmons, 1998 – “Acting White 1i”)

Future opportunity and education
1) Do you believe education = equal opportunity/ future success? (Louie, 2006 – “Acting
White 5a”)

Difference in perception (generational)
1) Do later generation immigrants endorse the belief of the first generation immigrants?
(Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998 – “Acting White 1i-1”)
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 327

2) Do only more acculturated Asian immigrants adapt oppositional quality? (Goto, 1997
– “Acting White – 4c”)
3) Do you identify with the values of first generations? (Kao, 1995 – “Model minority –
“Acting White – 2g”)

Level of acculturation and views on the dominant culture:
1) Ogbu et al. postulated that voluntary minorities generally have more accommodating
attitude towards dominant culture and schooling due to lack of oppositional quality. Is
this true for later generation immigrants who generally are more assimilated into the
dominant culture? (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu & Simmons, 1998 –
“Acting White 1j”)

Perception of future opportunity:
1) Do Asian immigrant truly hold positive concrete attitude (constructed from own
perception and understanding of the opportunity structure through experience of their
parents and relatives) regarding return on education? In other words do parents and
relative’s experience with real-world same or differ from dominant ideology? (Mickelson,
1990 – “Acting White 2”)

Stereotype (general perception)
1) Do you perceive the term model minority as connotes positive or negative image?
(Oyserman and Sakamoto, 1997 – “Model minority 3a”/ Cheryan and Bodenhausen,
2000 – “Stereotype threat 3d”)
2) Asian students appeared to be aware of their stereotype images at school. Do these
image hinder or promote academic success? (Matute-Bianchi, 1986 – “Acting White 3a”)
3) Do Asians generally do well on math? (Kao, 1995 – “Model minority 2f”)
4) Asians excel in certain (math and science) field because they are innately good at it?
(Louie, 2004 – “Model minority 7d”)
5) Do you believe that in the United States stereotype regarding Asian American’s
superior quantitative skill is prevalent? (Shih, Pittinsky, and Ambady, 1999 – “Stereotype
threat 2”)
6) Do you believe Asians do well academically compare to whites? (Kao, 1995 – “Model
minority 2h)
7) Do you believe that all Asians generally do well in school? (Museus and Kiang, 2009
– “Model minority 6a”)
8) Do you believe that Asians are underrepresented minority in the realm of higher
education? (Many Asians enroll in the higher educational institutions. Then do you
incline to believe that there are many educational research regarding Asians?) (Museus
and Kiang, 2009 – “Model minority 6b”)
9) Asian Americans are not minority in a sense that they were not underrepresented in
academia nor in middle class status, however, they are often not described as successful
Americans but labeled as ‘model minority.’ When you hear statement as such do you feel
that racism is still prevalent in American and towards Asians in general? (Oyserman and
Sakamoto, 1997 – “Model minority 3”

Stereotype (the label hindering performance):
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 328

1) When there is presence of the negative stereotype associated with your group do you
feel anxious of confirming to negative stereotype regarding their limited ability?
Furthermore, do you often underperform when there is presence of negative stereotype
regarding one’s domain of interest? (Steele, 1997 – “Stereotype threat 1a”)
2) During ability diagnostic test do you often underperform when there is demographic
questionnaire was first asked (i.e., being Asian)? (Steele, 1997 – “Stereotype threat 1b”)
3) Do you believe because stereotype concerning Asian it create anxiety or pressure to
perform? Would it hinders performance? (Cheryan and Bodenhausen, 2000 – “Stereotype
threat 3a”)
4) Do you believe that expectation of your parents and teachers to do well due to
stereotype facilitate/promote or hinder your performance? (Cheryan and Bodenhausen,
2000 – “Stereotype threat 3c”)

Stereotype (college enrollment)
1) Are most of your friends planning to attend college? In general, do you believe other
Asians plan to attend college upon graduation? (Museus and Kiang, 2009 – “Model
minority 6d”)

Stereotype (Asians do not need support)
1) Do you believe that Asians do not have many issues compare to other ethnic
minorities? (Museus and Kiang, 2009 – “Model minority 6 added”)
2) Do you believe that Asians do not need support (ie., special programs) from the
government? (Museus and Kiang, 2009 – “Model minority 6c”)
3) When you need academic assistance do you seek for help? How about others who do
not usually do well? (Museus and Kiang, 2009 – “Model minority 6f”)

Stereotype (perception of others regarding Asians)
1) How do you perceive that others feel about model minority stereotype (positive or
negative)? (McGowan and Lindgren, 2003 – “Model minority 4a”)

Stereotype (perception of teachers view regarding Asians)
1) How do teachers perceive Asians at this school? (Oyserman and Sakamoto, 1997 –
“Model minority 3c”)
2) How do teachers perceive those Asians who do not do so well? Do teachers label them
as having behavioral problems (ADD)? Is this due to lack of parenting? (Li, 2005 –
“Model minority 5d”)

Stereotype (positive image of stereotype and academic achievement)
1) You are doing well in school because of your own effort? (Oyserman and Sakamoto,
1997 – “Model minority 3d”)
2) For those who perceive model minority stereotype positive; do you believe you do not
do well because lack of your skills or something else? (Oyserman and Sakamoto, 1997 –
“Model minority 3g”)

Stereotype (comparison of actual academic performance of Asian with data)
1) Are most of your friends taking AP or Honors classes?
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 329

Stereotype (Behavior - hindrance for academic achievement)
1) Do you have strategies to avoid stereotype of being Asian? Do they impede your
academic achievement? (Oyserman and Sakamoto, 1997 – “Model minority 3e”)
2) Do you feel hesitant to ask for help because of the stereotype? (Li, 2005 – “Model
minority 5c)
3) Do you place lesser preference towards values and cultures related your own ethnicity
in order to avoid seen stereotypical manner? (when there is negative stereotype associated
with one’s group) (Steele, 1997 – “Stereotype threat 1c”)
4) Although you perceive schooling is important because of the stereotype of Asian as
studious or nerdy do you often avoid being stereotype by camouflaging your effort to
excel? (Steele, 1997 – “Stereotype threat 1d”)
5) Do you have to disguise your academic effort in order to maintain peer relationship?
(not perceived as nerds or geeks?) (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986 – “Acting white 1k”).
6) Although school is important, do you believe that those who do not well in school is
their attempt to not to be associated with the stereotype (perception of academic
achievement as priority)? (Steele, 1997 – “Stereotype threat 1d1”)

Stereotype (influence upon others expectation)
1) Do you believe that stereotype contribute to heightened expectations for academic
success for both parents and teachers? Also do you burdened by the expectations? Does it
promote or impede academic performance? (Li, 2005 – “Model minority 5e”)

Stereotype (discrimination)
2) Are you aware of prejudice or stereotype towards being Asian (ex. label of
overachiever, nerd, etc.) (Oyserman and Sakamoto, 1997 – “Model minority 3f”)

Social Capital (language):
1) Do you speak and write your own ethnic language (Social capital)? (Louie, 2006 –
“Acting White 5c”

Social Capital (community involvement):
1) Degree of community involvement? (Louie, 2006 – “Acting White 5d”)

Perception of model minority:
1) Have you ever heard of the term “model minority”? Do you think it is a positive term
or negative (being conventional or too fixated on educational endeavor)? (Lee, 1994 –
“Model minority 1b”)

Academic achievement (parental influence - expectation for school)
1) Do parents set certain expectation for school (Grades, GPAs, SAT scores)? (Kao, 1995
– “Model minority 2a”)
2) Does the pressure to do well in school promote or hinder academic success? (Kao,
1995 – “Model minority”; 2b/ Li, 2005 – “Model minority 5a”)
3) Do you feel that not doing well in school = dishonorable to you and your family?
(Museus and Kiang, 2009 – “Model minority 6e”)
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 330

4) Do you feel that you have to do well academically because of the sense of filial
obligation? (Louie, 2004 – “Model minority 7i”)

Choosing majors (children)
1) Would you choose a career that requires extensive verbal and interpersonal skills or
careers that requires more on logic and analysis on objective data? (Is it your choice or
suggestion/experience from your parents or relatives?) (Louie, 2004 – “Model minority
7f”)
2) Are you pursuing certain type of career because it interests you or because of possible
future financial stability, or was it your parent’s career aspiration? (Louie, 2004 – “Model
minority 7g”)

Choosing majors (financial resources)
1) Are you pursuing certain type of career because it interests you or because of possible
future financial stability, or was it your parent’s career aspiration? (Louie, 2004 – “Model
minority 7h”)
2) Which reflect your career choices (following the family example – parents already
established in the field; choosing what is practical – forced; or reluctant rebels - internal
struggle between their aspiration and sense of filial obligation upon deciding to pursue
their field of choice)? (Louie, 2004 – “Model minority 7j”)
3) Does your parents want you to go in to “traditionally female field” (i.e., clerical works,
nurse, and flight attendant) or professional career (i.e., lawyers, doctors)? (Louie, 2004 –
“Model minority 7k”)

Choosing majors (parental influence)
1) Do parents push you to study certain subject or place more emphasis? (Kao, 1995 –
“Model minority 2d”/ Louie, 2004 – “Model minority 7b)
2) Does your parents promote certain career over other? (Louie, 2004 – “Model minority
7c)
3) What does your parents want you to be (career choices; male/female)? (Louie, 2004 –
“Model minority7a”)
4) Would you choose a career that requires extensive verbal and interpersonal skills or
careers that requires more on logic and analysis on objective data? (Is it your choice or
suggestion/experience from your parents or relatives?) (Louie, 2004 – “Model minority
7f”)

Social capital (SES)
1) Do you think class, gender, and race influence educational outcomes? ((Dika and
Singh, 2002 – “Social capital 1b”)

Social capital (Coleman – child parent relationship)
1) Did you parents attend college here in the United States or foreign country? (Dika and
Singh, 2002 – “Social capital 1a”/ Kao, 2004 – “Social capital d1”)
2) Do you or your parents know a person who attended college that could give advice
regarding how to get admitted into college? (Kao, 2004 – “Social capital 3c”)
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 331

3) Does your parents encourage to attend college or are they more concerned with you
getting a job after graduating high school? (Kao, 2004 – “Social capital 3d2”)

Social capital (Bourdieu – role of institutional agents)
1) Do you often talk with teachers or counselors regarding your educational plans? Do
they make time to listen and talk to you regarding your future educational career?
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997 – “Social capital 2a”)
2) Do teachers teach you how to be successful at your school (such as mannerism and use
of proper language)? (Stanton-Salazar, 1997 – “Social capital 2b”)
3) Do you believe that teachers truly care about you? (Stanton-Salazar, 1997 – “Social
capital 2c”)
4) Do you believe that teachers favor some students than other? (Stanton-Salazar, 1997 –
“Social capital 2d”)
5) Do you believe that teachers honor individualistic value over other? (Stanton-Salazar,
1997 – “Social capital 2f”)
6) Do you often behave in a manner that is more suitable for school environment
(effective socialization strategy), which may be different from how you behave at home?
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997 – “Social capital 2e”)
7) Do you believe that if you do not do well in school, teachers perceive it as a sign that
you are not placing enough effort? (Stanton-Salazar, 1997 – “Social capital 2e”)

Social capital (Coleman – peer)
1) Do you have many friends at school or in general? (Kao, 2004 – “Social capital 3a”)
2) Do you have many Chinese friends at school or outside school? (Kao, 2004 – “Social
capital 3b”)

Social capital (community influence - values)
1) Do you feel that there are certain norms within community, which regulate your
behaviors? (Kao, 2004 – “Social capital 3e”)
2) Do you believe that your community sets rules for good (good grades in school) and
bad (dropping out of school) behaviors that you must abide by? (Zhou and Bankston III –
“Social capital 4e”)
3) Do you believe helping others and value of hard work is important? Do you believe
that family member also honor those values too? (Zhou and Bankston III – “Social capital
4f”)
4) Do you believe that being too American is not good? (Zhou and Bankston III – “Social
capital 4g”)

Social capital (community involvement)
1) How competent with your Chinese language skills (speaking, reading, Writing) (Louie,
2006 – “Acting white 5”/ Louie, 2004 – “Model minority 7”/ Zhou and Bankston III,
1994 – “Social capital 4”)
2) In your opinion do you feel that you are very involved in one’s ethnic community?
(Zhou and Bankston III, 1994 – “Social capital 4d”)
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 332

3) Do you believe that your family and others in the community is very connected? Does
your parents compare you with others within the community? (Zhou and Bankston III,
1994 – “Social capital 4h”)

Family value:
1) Some assume that academic success of Asian Americans to the value of hard work
accompanied by the value of filial obligation, meeting their parents’ expectations to
achieve prosperity and higher social status. Do you believe this is true? (Goto 1997 –
“Acting white”/ Lee, 1994 – “Model minority”)

Educational Aspiration = higher performance
1) Do you aspire to go to college afterword? Do you believe that it motivate you to study
hard? (Kao, 1995 – “Model minority”)

Camouflaging academic stride:
1) Do you often camouflage your academic stride in order to blend in with other class
mates?
Asians often utilize strategies focused on camouflaging their academic stride and
avoid stereotypical image of Asian as ‘nerds’ (i.e., slacking off) rather than avoid
from receiving good grade (Goto, 1997; Oyserman & Sakamoto, 1997). Carful
examination also revealed that there was difference in strategies in terms of
dealing with the label of model minority stereotype (Goto, 1997). Generally, more
recent Asian immigrants have tendency to keep minimal contact with non-Asians
since they were lesser capable of socializing with non-Asian due to level of
acculturation.

Peer associations:
1) Do you believe that you have more independent value as compare to collective or vise
versa? - These individuals hold belief that while maintaining their own distinct ethnic
identity, they could choose cultural orientation depending on situations. On the other
hand, individuals who interacted with non-Asian peer, more willingly generally were
more acculturated (i.e., second or third generation) counterparts (Goto, 1997).

Affective dissonance:
1) Do you believe that for later generations that do not identify their value with first-
generations may have to struggle with conflict of maintaining one’s traditional culture
that endorse academic success while rejecting academic success? –
Furthermore, study revealed that sign of affective dissonance, similar to that of
African Americans, were present among these individuals. Those Asian-
Americans who emphasized with groups who possessed oppositional identity
appear to struggle with conflict of maintaining one’s traditional culture that
endorse academic success while rejecting academic success in some instances.
For those individuals resistant or ‘noncompliant’ behavior was not merely their
attempt to disguise or conceal desire for academic stride but indication that in
some sense they endorse behavior of those groups that reject standard academic
practice in school. In other words, these students who displays noncompliant
VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 333

behavior have adapted oppositional qualities, similar to what has Ogbu described
regarding African American’s maladaptive behaviors (Goto, 1997 - “Acting white
4”).

Filial obligation:
1) Do you feel that you have to study hard because at least you owe that much to your
parents? (Lee, 1994 – “Model minority 1”)

Collectivistic vs individualistic:
1) Americans are often described as possessing individualistic orientation, valuing
personal independence and achievement. Does this describe your characteristics?
(Oyserman and Sakamoto, 1997 – “Model minority”)
2) Do you believe that being individualistic is the key to be incorporated into the
mainstream? (Oyserman and Sakamoto, 1997 – “Model minority 3”)

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 334

Appendix F
Coding for Interview Questions
Research Question Theoretical Framework Interview Items
1. How have high
performing and average
performing Chinese
heritage students responded
to their treatment by the
dominant society and what
folk theory of making it
have they constructed?
Cultural/Ecological Theory
Minority Student Response
to Schooling, voluntary and
involuntary minorities,
acting White and coping
with the burden of acting
White, oppositional
identity, oppositional
cultural frame of reference
(Fordham & Ogbu, 1986;
Ogbu, 1987; Ogbu &
Simmons, 1998), abstract
and concrete attitude
(Michelson, 1990),
relationship between level
of acculturation and
academic variability
(Matute-Bianchi, 1986;
Goto, 1997), segmented
assimilation and
transnational framework
(Louie, 2006))
CE: 1,2,3*4, *6, *8, *12a,
*18, 19, *20, 21, 22, 23,
*26, 27, *28, *29, 29a, 30,
30a, 30f, 30g, 30h, 30i, 30j,
30k, 31, 32, 32a, 32b, 32c,
33, 33a, 33b, 34, 35, 35a,
35e, *37b, 44, 45, 49, *52a,
*52b
2. How has the model
minority ideology impacted
the educational careers of
high performing and
average performing Chinese
heritage students?
Model Minority Theory
(intragroup variation on
ethnic identity, academic
achievement) (Lee, 1994),
financial commitment
toward education, (Kao,
1995), valuation of model
minority and correlation
between individual and
collectivistic belief
(Oyserman & Sakamoto,
1997), job discrimination
(McGowan and Lindgren,
2003), blaming the victim,
education fever (Li, 2005),
adverse effect of the myth
(Museus & Kiang, 2009),
SES and the perception of
folk theory (Louie, 2004)
MM: 8a, *10, *11, *11a,
14a, 14b, 14c, 14d, 23a,
23b, 23c, *28, 30b, 30c,
30d, 30e, 35b, *36, 37a,
*37b, 37c, *39a, 39b, 39e,
40a, 40b, 41, 41a, 41b, 41c,
(41d), 41e, 42, 43, 45a, 45b,
45c, 45d, 46, 46a, 46b, 47,
48, 50, 52, *52a

VARIATION IN ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT 335

Stereotype Threat (Steele,
1997), effect of positive
stereotype, culturally
specific nature of stereotype
(Shih, Pittinsky, &
Ambady ,1999), hindrance
and public expectation
(Cheryan & Bodenhausen
(2000))
ST: *4, *6, *7, *8, *9, *10,
12, 13, *15, 17, *18, *20,
*29, 35c, 35d, *36, *37,
*37b, 38, *39, *39a, 39d,
40
3. How do educational
caretakers treat high
performing and average
performing Chinese
heritage students?
Model Minority Theory
(blaming the victim,
education fever (Lee, 1994;
Li, 2005), Critical Scholars
view on the stereotype
(McGowan & Lindgren,
2003), perpetuate myth that
Asians do not need
assistance (Museus &
Kiang, 2009),
Social Capital Theory
institutional agents,
secondary discourse,
(Stanton- Salazar, 1997)
2, *4, 5, *6, *7, 8a, *10,
*11, *11a, *11b, 12, *12a,
*13, 14, 14a, 14b, 14c, 14d,
*15, 16, 17a, 17b, 17c, 24,
25, *28, *29, 30, 30b, 30c,
30d, 30e, 30f, 30g, 30h, 30i,
30j, 30k, 30l, 34, 35, 35b,
35e, *36, *37, 37a, *39,
39a, 39b, 39c
4.How are the
postsecondary educational
plans and career plans
impacted by the responses
to the three previous
questions?
Model Minority Theory
(Influence of the level of
acculturation and SES
(Louie, 2004)
Social Capital Theory
Bourdieu’s theory – class,
gender, and race, Coleman
– norms and social control
(Dika and Singh, 2002),
institutional agents, existing
social structure, bicultural
network orientation,
individualism (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997), obligation
and expectation (Kao,
2004), family value and
community ethnic
involvement (Zhou and
Bankston III, 1994))
SC: 3a, 3b, *4, 5, *6, *7,
*9, *10, *11, *11a, 11b, 12,
*12a, 13, 14, *15, 16, 17,
17a, 17b, 17c, *18, 24, 25,
*26, *29, 30l, *36, *37, 39,
41f, 50a, 50b, 50c, 51,
*52a, *52b, 52c, 52d, 52e,
52f, 52g

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The pervasiveness of the stereotype regarding Asian Americans as high achieving students is apparent from the lack of research dedicated to issues regarding this population. Although, in recent years, there has been more research regarding Asian Americans’ academics, most studies of Asian Americans students focus on the model minority stereotype, acculturation, ethnic identities, academic variability, and sociocultural factors in terms of academic achievement. Furthermore, many studies focus on either high- or low-achieving Asian Americans. The overall scope of this study was to address a gap in the knowledge concerning the educational experience of average performing college-bound Chinese heritage Americans by comparing the educational experiences of high- and average-achieving students. By utilizing prominent theories (cultural ecological theory, model minority theory, theory of stereotype threat, and sociocultural theory) in the realm of minority education, this study sought to examine adaptive strategies that facilitate or hinder academic achievement. ❧ The study found slight variations between high and average achievers regarding their social economic status, academic environment, perception of future success, establishing tangible links, and perception of ethnicity. Furthermore, results indicated that stereotypes affect students’ perceptions regarding cultural orientation and career choices. In addition, the perceived role of institutional agents and their perceptions of stereotype affect the academic careers of high and average achieving students, which, in turn, affects their future success.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...

PDF

Toward an understanding of the achievement of African American students at a nationally regarded California public high school through the theoretical lenses of acting white, stereotype threat, a...

PDF

Representation matters: the ways in which African American faculty support African American students in higher education

PDF

A comparative study of average and high-achieving high school immigrant and non-immigrant students of Mexican heritage

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

A qualitative study on Pilipino American students relative to their high school success and career choices

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

Ethnic-specific resources and the path to graduation for African American students at predominately White institutions

PDF

Teachers in continuation high schools: attributes of new teachers and veteran teachers in urban continuation high schools

PDF

The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students

PDF

Factors that contribute to high and low performing Vietnamese American high school students

PDF

Sociocultural and motivational factors affecting Asian American females studying physics and engineering in high school

PDF

Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?

PDF

The relationship between student perceptions of parental expectations, utility value, aptitude and English achievement among Asian American high school students

PDF

Urban schools that have narrowed the achievement gap: middle school math achievement in an urban setting

PDF

A longitudinal study on the performance of English language learners in English language arts in California from 2003-2012

PDF

The revolution just might be digitized: toward a critical race theory of the African-American igeneration's online social enfranchisement

PDF

The missing voice: graduate students' perceptions of the school counseling profession

PDF

Cultivating motivation and persistence for urban, high achieving, low-SES African American students

PDF

Positive classroom leadership: how teachers manage meaningfully in high needs contexts

Asset Metadata

Creator Nagasaka, Kuro (author)

Core Title Educational factors at urban public school that contribute to variation in academic achievement: comparison of high and average achieving Chinese Americans

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 09/12/2014

Defense Date 09/10/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Asian,Asian American,average achievers,Chinese American,high achievers,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee chair), Fischer, Linda A. (committee member), Green, Alan Gilford (committee member)

Creator Email nagasaka.kuro@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-476259

Unique identifier UC11287081

Identifier etd-NagasakaKu-2924.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-476259 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NagasakaKu-2924.pdf

Dmrecord 476259

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Nagasaka, Kuro

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