University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students

(USC Thesis Other)

Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

FAMILIAL AND CULTURAL VARIABLES AS PREDICTORS OF RETENTION OF
LATINO ENGINEERING STUDENTS

by

Eric Lara

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2011

Copyright 2011 Eric Lara

ii
Dedication
This is dedicated to the one individual who has stood next to me throughout my
entire higher educational career. You have been there through the good times and the bad,
the lows of when I wanted to just give up to the highs of my graduations. You saw me
fail, but picked me up; you saw me struggle, but encouraged me to continue. You never
complained as I logged year after year of homework and papers, or as I handed you page
after page that needed editing. To my wife, Erica Lara, this degree is for you. I love you.

iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank and acknowledge all of those individuals who have helped
me along this amazing journey. First, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr.
Ruth Chung; not only have you provided me invaluable guidance and insight, but you
have encouraged me when deadlines loomed. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to
work with you on this journey, Dr. Chung. Dr. Darnell Cole and Dr. Anthony Maddox,
thank you for serving on my committee, and for continuing to promote STEM education.
To my USC cohort, thank you for pushing me and encouraging me along the way; it was
a team effort.
To my mom, Pilar, and my brother, Mike, I did it! Thank you for always
encouraging me to follow whichever path I wanted. Anything is possible as long as you
put your mind to it. To all my aunts, uncles, cousins and friends, thank you for all the
support, the words of encouragement and the constant reminders to keep moving forward.
To my in-laws, Ed, Becky and Aaron, your continual support, care and dinners are
greatly appreciated.
I want to thank my advisor and mentor, Becky Cutler, for always having your
door open and welcoming me warmly. It was your motivation and encouragement when I
thought that that my educational path would come to a halt that propelled me to where I
am today; thank you for the push in the right direction. Words cannot express the lifelong
gratitude I have for you.
To the EOP program at Cal Poly Pomona, I would not be here today if it was not
for the opportunity you provided me. EOP gives students the key to open as many
educational doors as possible; I am forever indebted to this program.

iv
A special thank you to Dr. Salazar-Romo, for going down this road before I did,
for advising me during the three years, for lending me textbooks and for your wise
opinion as I selected my dissertation chair.
To Milton, Nita and all of MEP, I appreciate you cheering for me the entire way.
Milton, I am especially grateful for your understanding as my supervisor, while I was a
student.
Last, but certainly not least, to my wife, Erica, the dedication is all yours!

v
Table of Contents

Dedication ii ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
Abstract viii
Chapter I: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
Factors that Influence Successful Retention of Latino Engineering Students 5
Theoretical Frameworks Used in Study 8
Student Retention 8
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings 9
Acculturation 10
Importance of the Study 11
Purpose and Goal of the Study 12
Terms and Definitions 12
Chapter Organization 13

Chapter II: Literature Review 15
Tinto’s Student Retention 15
Critique of Tinto’s Retention Model 16
Latino Culture and the Influence on Retention 18
Math Experience 19
Acculturation of Latinos 20
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings 23
Mentoring and Support 23
On-Campus Peer and Faculty Mentoring and Support 25
Family Support 28
Structural Support 30
Summary 32
Purpose of the Study 34
Research Questions 34

Chapter III: Methodology 36
Participants 36
Instruments 41
Demographic and Background Information 41
High School Math Experience and College Placement 42
Mentoring and Support 42
Utilization of Structural Support 43

vi
Acculturation 44
GPA 45
Procedure 45
Data Analysis 46

Chapter IV: Results 47
Preliminary Analyses 47
Analyses of Research Questions 48

Chapter V: Discussion 52
Discussion of Primary Findings 52
Additional Findings 59
Implications 59
Limitations of Study 62
Future Directions 63
Conclusion 64

References 66

Appendix A: Information Sheet for Non-Medical Research 78
Appendix B: Demographic and Background Information 80
Appendix C: Acculturation 82
Appendix D: Mentoring and Support 84
Appendix E: Utilization of Structural Support 88
Appendix F: High School Math Experience 90

vii
List of Tables

Table 1: Frequency Distribution of Student Participants 37
Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Family Income by Ethnicity 38
Table 3a: Frequency Distribution of Parental Education by Ethnicity 38
Table 3b: Frequency Distribution of Parental Education by Ethnicity 39
Table 4: Frequency Distribution of Incoming Majors 39
Table 5: Frequency Distribution of Current Majors 40
Table 6: Frequency Distribution of Math Placement 41
Table 7: Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson Product Correlations 50
for Measured Variables

Table 8: Multivariate Analyses of Variance for College Mentoring and Support 51
by Retention

Table 9: Mean Score on Retention by Use of College Mentoring and Support 51

Table 10: Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for GPA 51

viii
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to build upon and expand the body of research, and explore
the retention issues, associated with first and second year Latino engineering students.
More specifically, this study investigated how Latino engineering students’ acculturation,
college mentoring and support, utilization of structural support and high school math
experience predicted retention and GPA during their first and second years of college. A
quantitative design was utilized to sample 140 second and third year Latino engineering
students from a public four-year university in Southern California. The survey utilized
the Bidimensional Acculturation Scale (BAS) for Hispanics, the Multidimensional Scale
of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), the College Student Mentoring Scale (CSMS), the
University Environment Scale (UES) and a researcher-generated math scale. Manova and
Anova analyses showed significant differences between retained and non-retained Latino
engineering students in college mentoring and support, as well as the use of structural
support. College mentoring and support, non-Hispanic acculturation and math placement
during the first quarter of college were significant predictors of GPA in a regression
analysis. College mentoring was found to be an important influence in all aspects of
retention and academic achievement. Overall, this study has the potential to help STEM
educators, specifically those focused on retention of underrepresented groups, understand
the nuances associated with Latino engineering students as they maneuver their way
through higher education. The results of these and related findings are discussed.

1
Chapter I
Introduction
The underrepresentation of women and minorities in science and engineering is a
compelling problem. The overall college enrollment rate of recent high school graduates
in 2008 was 69 %. In 2009, rates were 74 % for women and 66 % for men. By
comparison, the 2009 college enrollment rate for Hispanic high school graduates was 59
%, the lowest of any ethnicity (Bureau of Labor statistics, 2010). Specifically, in
engineering, there were 427,000 undergraduate students enrolled at four-year institutions,
of which 18% were female and 15% were ethnically underrepresented minorities
(Gibson, 2010). Upon further examination, by specific group, the breakdown of the
underrepresented population was as follows: 5% African-Americans, 9% Hispanics and
less than 1% Native-Americans were enrolled.
While these numbers, compared to total engineering enrollment, are very low, the
graduation data present an even more alarming picture. A total of 5,500 engineering
degrees were awarded to Hispanics during the 2008-2009 academic year, which amounts
to almost 7% of all degrees awarded during that year (Gibson, 2010). This number is
below the two majority ethnicities: 12% for Asian-Americans and 65% for Caucasians.
Among students of color, attrition is much higher during the first year than
among non-minority groups (Good, Halpin & Halpin, 2000). A study conducted by
Otero, Rivas and Rivera (2007) initially surveyed 106 Hispanic students at the end of the
2001 spring semester, with a follow up survey of these same students in spring 2002
(year one to year two); of the 106 students, 73 were still enrolled a year later, 69 %. The
availability of free tutoring, mentoring and advising centers on campus gives students

2
every opportunity to succeed, if they take advantage of it. These students may be less
prepared to understand the advantages of the services, due to little or no academic
guidance from parents, peers and teachers while in middle and high school (Laden,
2001). Latino children enter school significantly behind their White and Asian peers. One
reason may be because Latino parents have the lowest overall educational levels of any
ethnic group in the United States; consequently, these students are the first in their
families to attend college and often come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Latino
students are less likely to go on to Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics
(STEM) careers if they have not had rigorous preparation in math and physics, which
many have not (Laden, 2001; Gandara, 2006; Scatton, Coley & McBride, 2006).
Therefore, in an effort to address the problem of underrepresentation and low graduation
rates of Latinos in engineering disciplines, the focus of this study is to explore ways to
improve the retention rates of this population from year one to year three at four-year
institutions.
Background of the Problem
In November 2009, President Obama launched the Educate to Innovate campaign
to improve the participation and performance of U.S. students in STEM. The campaign
seeks to achieve the following goals: increase STEM literacy so that all students can learn
deeply and think critically in STEM subject areas, move American students from the
middle of the pack internationally to the top in the next decade, and expand STEM
education and career opportunities for underrepresented groups (The White House,
2009).

3
A growing number of jobs require STEM skills, and America needs a world-class
STEM workforce to address the “grand challenges” of the 21
st
century, such as
developing clean sources of energy that reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Success on
these fronts will require improving STEM literacy for all students, expanding the pipeline
for a strong and innovative STEM workforce, and greater focus on opportunities and
access for groups such as women and underrepresented minorities (The White House,
2009). In engineering alone, low-income and educationally-disadvantaged students
graduate half as often as majority students (Marable, 1999; Carey, 2005; Veenstra, Dey &
Herrin, 2008). Gibson’s (2010) data show that, during the 2008 academic year, a total of
110,500 students entered into engineering disciplines as freshmen. At the start of the
2009 academic year, only 94,000 students were considered sophomores, which was a
decrease of 15 %.
While Latinos, African Americans and Native Americans are all severely
underrepresented among STEM bachelor degree-earners, the low degree attainment rate
of Latinos in STEM fields is particularly significant due to the demographics of the
United States. Latinos are the fastest growing demographic group in the United States,
and are projected to make up nearly a quarter of the entire population by the year 2050
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2004). The number of college-aged Latinos is expected to increase
from 3 million to more than 8 million by 2040 (Chapa & De La Rosa, 2006).
Unfortunately, these numbers are not likely to translate into a significant increase in
college enrollments. In fact, according to Chapa and De La Rosa, the number of college-
enrolled Latinos will increase from fewer than 1 million to only about 2 million.
According to Bernold, Spurlin and Anson (2007), only 40 to 60 % of all entering

4
engineering students will graduate with an engineering degree within eight years, and
underrepresented minorities are graduating at a rate of 26 % (Engle, Bermeo & O’Brien,
2006).
High school GPAs, SAT and ACT scores have been identified as one of the
strongest predictors of retention for students entering a four-year institution. Poor
academic preparation from grade school is a significant factor explaining why some
students leave college. Students must have the basic reading, writing, and math skills
necessary to persist through more challenging coursework and graduate (Muraskin &
Lee, 2004).
In addition to the skills students need to persist, the perceptions of those closest to
them will have a great impact. Distinct groups such as parents, peers, and faculty shape
undergraduates’ perceptions of college prior to and during the experience. Students who
limit their campus interactions to members of specific groups may find unity with and
social support from their peers, if their interactions with them are positive. Additionally,
longitudinal studies on undergraduate achievement have shown that the peer group is the
major influence on students’ attitudinal change and development in college (Bonous-
Hammarth, 2000). Many students enter college overconfident and underprepared. These
students have inadequate processes that can prevent the achievement of performance
goals (Clark & Estes, 2002). During the first year of college, most engineering programs
intentionally structure some classes to be “harder than they have to be” to “weed-out” the
weak and unworthy (Landis, 2007; Walden & Foor, 2008). While the school’s intention
is to “weed-out” such students, the majority of students affected by this are those of
color. What is the motive to “weed-out” students?

5
Factors that Influence Successful Retention of Latino Engineering Students
Adjusting to college is a process that evolves over the entire first year. Students
enter the university with high aspirations for a good education and great enthusiasm (Lee,
1999). Along the way, students need to socialize, find internships and make networking
connections, as well as have fun and make friends. Doing so will ensure greater success,
in addition to seeking help and support from their faculty, friends, tutors and peer
mentors (Herndon & Hirt, 2004). Students' interaction with faculty is essential to student
retention, especially in the freshman year. While studying alone is not always a bad thing,
connecting with motivated peers who are also pursuing STEM careers and positive
interactions with STEM faculty on research and independent projects will engage the
student and promote a higher level of thinking (Lee, 1999; Bonous-Hammarth, 2000).
A connection to STEM peers and faculty is of critical importance in such rigorous
disciplines. Similarly, entering such a rigorous technical discipline, which requires a
strong foundation of math and science, students must have a foundation of solid math
skills upon starting college. Students who persist in STEM majors were found to enter
college with adequate mathematical and academic preparation (Bonous-Hammarth,
2000). Typically students receive sufficient preparation if they attended affluent schools
in affluent school districts. But not all families can afford to send their children to the
best schools or to move out of their neighborhoods into areas with more reputable
schools. The ability of higher-income parents to obtain access to high-quality schools by
moving into a good school district or paying private school tuition is something that all
families, regardless of income should be provided (Holme, 2002). This is especially true
in the case of mathematics courses, where algebra continues to be the major gatekeeper

6
for entry into the college-preparatory track. Algebra is a prerequisite for all higher-level
math courses that students need to succeed in college. For those who enter college
without the solid algebra foundation, these students are often required to enroll in
remedial math courses during their first year of college (Bonous-Hammarth, 2000;
Scatton et al., 2006). Latino students will not go on to STEM careers if they do not have
intense preparation in math. Mathematics has become a means of disqualifying students
even before they can get to college (Landis, 2007); but without such preparation, these
students are not likely to go on to college at all (Scatton et al., 2006).
For the students who do pursue college in STEM disciplines, study techniques
will become important. When it comes to study techniques, most engineering students
seem to prefer to study alone and not ask for help (Bonous-Hammarth, 2000). While
universities and professors cannot mandate the study habits of students, Herndon and Hirt
(2004) stress the importance of the social support students receive from friends, student
clubs or even from living on campus; it is through these means that a student feels
connected to a community. Study groups, peer mentoring, faculty involvement and
family encouragement are additional means of support that students need to be successful
in college. Latino families are thought to provide emotional support; however, peer
support is also important for Latino college students, as friends can provide emotional,
informational and instrumental support (Crockett, Iturbide, Torres, McGinley, Raffaelli
& Carlo, 2007).
Household income also has a significant effect on students’ learning outcomes in
STEM disciplines. Education must often be financed by family resources. This does not
only include tuition fees, but also learning materials and transportation to the campus

7
(Blossfeld & Shavit, 1993). Among the most important factors affecting success of low-
income and educationally-disadvantaged students, which includes cognitive and verbal
ability, is the background familial issues such as money (Brooks-Gunn and Duncan,
1997; Engle et al., 2006; Otero et al., 2007). Many students, as well as families, are not
aware of the financial benefits of taking out a school loan. Students would rather work
part-time while in school to finance their education. Many students are not exposed to
information about financial aid or have trouble filling out the Free Application for
Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) (Santiago & Cunningham, 2005; Zarate & Pachon, 2006).
When students seek on-campus resources, particularly if they are struggling to
finance their education, these first-generation students are introduced to the campus.
Minority Engineering Programs (MEPs) have been established at many universities
across the country with a goal to increase the numbers of minority students in engineering
majors (Marable, 1999). A few of the services that a MEP offers are those that many low-
income and educationally-disadvantaged students lack: scholarships and grants, study
centers, team building/group collaboration techniques, free tutoring, academic advising
and, an important aspect for many of these students, a peer mentor. Many students feel
uncomfortable asking for help; they have always either been able to succeed on their own
or they are too intimidated to seek assistance.
In addition to the resources supplied by programs like MEP, Gonyea (2010)
suggests that students who receive instruction that is matched to their learning style have
better cognitive outcomes and more positive affective outcomes. Ethnicity has
consistently been a factor that is investigated as a possible predictor of learning styles.
Studies on acculturation have found mixed results when examining ethnic differences in

8
learning styles. Some studies have found significant differences whereas others have
found no significant differences. Some researchers have found that first-generation
Latinos perform better academically than second- and third-generation Latinos (Hurtado-
Ortiz & Gauvin, 2007), some find that more highly integrated and bicultural students tend
to have better academic achievement (Lopez, Ehly, Garcia-Vazquez, 2002), and others
have not found a difference between academics and generational status (Fuligni, Witkow,
& Garcia, 2005). Along with the influences that acculturation has on Latino students, this
study examines the role of college mentoring and support, utilization of structural
support and high school math experience on retention and academic achievement of
Latino engineering students.
Theoretical Frameworks Used in Study
This study will focus on three major frameworks: student retention, cultural
models and cultural settings and acculturation. While these are major frameworks, little,
if any, has been mentioned as it relates to retention from year one to year two of Latino
engineering students.
Student retention.
Student persistence and departure is one of the most studied areas in higher
education (Tinto, 1975; 1982; 1988; 1993; 1997). Tinto’s model presents a process in
which college students make decisions about whether to remain in universities. Tinto
(1993; 1997) identifies student departure as taking two forms: academic dismissal and
voluntary withdrawal. Tinto’s model suggests that students enter universities with a range
of differing family and community backgrounds, a variety of personal attributes, skills,
financial resources, dispositions, and various types of precollege educational experiences

9
and achievements. These attributes are filtered through the students’ commitment to the
institution and their personal goal to graduate. Each attribute is posited as having a direct
impact upon retention in college. Its central idea is that of "integration." It claims that
whether a student continues or drops out is predicted by their degree of academic and
social integration with the campus (Bean, 1988).
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings.
Cultural models are tools for the mind, the shared mental schema of how the
college environment should work (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001), and are familiar
settings, just like family and home, which are often taken for granted. Students adapt to
these models over time, watching and listening to their friends and family, becoming
comfortable and familiar (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Since students are more likely
to contact parents and friends in times of need, those who maintain relationships with
their parents during the first year of college, especially if living on campus, are more
likely to form better relationships, seek out help and will generally be more integrated
socially within the university. Similarly, time spent socializing with friends in the Student
Center or other campus areas are just as important (Barnett, 2004; Otero et al., 2007).
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) and Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese and Garnier
(2001) mention that the difference in culture between home and school may also affect
performance in minority students, due to the fact that they may experience the cultural
setting of the schools as unfamiliar territory. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) speculate
that the cultural models and settings are two of the factors that cause the low performance
of some minority students. To address problems of Hispanic children’s
underachievement, Gallimore and Glodenberg (2001) attempted to understand these

10
students’ home influences, parents, siblings and friends, in relation to their learning at
school.
Acculturation.
The final theoretical framework of this study will be the acculturation variable of
Latino students and how it relates to their matriculation through the first and second year
of engineering study. Acculturation refers to the process that occurs when two distinctly
different cultures come into firsthand contact with each other and the social, attitudinal,
and psychological changes that occur in individuals as a result of this process (Berry,
1997, 2003; Gutierrez, Franco, Powell, Peterson, & Reid, 2009; Gonyea, 2010).
There are four acculturation strategies that Berry (1997) presents: assimilation,
separation, integration and marginalization. Assimilation refers to those individuals who
seek daily interactions with other cultures and ignore or separate themselves from their
own cultural identity. Separation is in contrast to assimilation, where individuals want to
hold onto their original culture and, at the same time, avoid interaction with others.
Integration occurs when an individual wants to interact and be part of both cultures.
Finally, marginalization occurs when individuals express little to no interest in any
culture (Cuellar, Arnold & Maldonado, 1995; Berry, 1997). A bidimensional framework
of acculturation will be used to study the student population for this research (Marin &
Gamba, 1996), instead of the more traditional unidimensional process which considers
acculturating process as a zero-sum behavior (Marin & Gamba, 1996).
While first generation youth had higher GPAs, more acculturated youth were
more likely to attend college. The research by Hurtado-Ortiz and Gauvain (2007)
concluded that less acculturated youth do not attend college because they lack knowledge

11
about resources that help pay for college. The researchers recommended that
interventions focus on parents, since parents are known to influence the academic
outcomes of their children, and to enhance their support of youth by attaining information
about available resources.
Importance of the Study
With the ever-growing Latino population in the United States, there is a greater
need for students of this group to graduate with STEM degrees. STEM careers are
growing in numbers and importance, yet most degrees awarded go to non-minority
students. The United States is graduating far fewer engineers than our technological-
savvy counterparts such as India and China (Chubin, Donaldson, Olds & Fleming, 2008).
According to these reports, the United States produced roughly 70,000 undergraduate
engineers in 2004, while China and India graduated 600,000 and 350,000, respectively
(Colvin, 2006).
The greatest attrition among collegiate students occurs between the freshman and
sophomore year and amongst students of color (Good et al., 2000). The at-risk students
tend to lack what Wolters (1998) suggests is both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation occurs when students persist longer, are more deeply engaged and
enjoy getting something out of the activity; they want to do it in order to succeed.
Minority Engineering Programs (MEPs) has been established at several universities
across the country with a goal to increase the numbers of minority students in engineering
majors (Marable, 1999). Some of the many services that MEPs offers are those that many
low-income and educationally-disadvantaged students need most: study centers, team
building/group collaboration techniques, academic advising and, an extremely important

12
aspect for many of these students, a peer mentor. Herndon and Hirt (2004) stress the
academic support component for underrepresented students; these students need the
tutoring services, peer mentoring programs and contact with faculty. Students, especially
Latinos, tend to perform better in school when they have cultural congruity with their
specific majors. Cultural congruity is a concept used to describe the fit between students’
personal values, beliefs and behaviors and those of the environments in which they
operate (Gloria & Kurpius, 1996). Any cultural capital gained before the start of college
will significantly attribute to academic success. The more social capital a student has, the
higher his level of cultural congruity (Cole & Espinoza, 2008).
Purpose and Goal of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the retention issues associated with first-
and second-year Latino engineering students by investigating the students’ acculturation,
college mentoring and support, utilization of structural support and high school math
experience among Latino Engineering students during their first year of college. This
study aims to investigate the following two research questions: (1) Are there differences
in acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization of structural support, and high
school math experience by retention groups among Latino engineering students? and (2)
Do acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization of structural support and
high school math experience predict higher earned GPA in Latino engineering students?
Terms and Definitions
Educationally Disadvantaged. Individuals or groups whose schooling is judged to
be qualitatively or quantitatively inferior as compared with what is considered necessary
for achievement in a particular society (Education, 2010).

13
First generation American. A person who was born in another country
First generation College student. A student who is the first in their immediate
family to attend college.
Hispanic/Latino. The ethnic group of a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban,
Central or South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. In
1998-99, the title of this ethnic group was modified from Hispanic to reflect the new
federal standards and more current use (California Department of Education, 2009). The
name Latino will be used to describe the population in this study, however, the literature
review may use the term Hispanic as it was cited in the primary research.
Second generation American. A person who was born in the United States and has
at least one parent who is foreign born.
Chapter Organization
The remaining chapters have been organized as follows: Chapter 2 provides a
review of the literature into the current research on Latino retention, including the impact
of mentors and structural support. The effect high school math has when it comes to
placement exams entering college, specifically how algebra is a factor. The role of
acculturation is also discussed throughout, as an important factor within the Latino
community. The theories discussed will be student retention, cultural models and settings
and finally, acculturation.
Chapter 3 discusses the methodology used for this study, which includes the
demographics of the students who participated, the instruments used in the study, the data
collection procedures and the research design used to analyze the data.
Chapter 4 is a display of the results of the study, including data which show the

14
demographics and answers to the research questions asked, as well as an analysis of the
data.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion on the major results of the study and its
limitations, including implications for both researchers and practitioners interested in
understanding the issues faced with Latino engineering students as they persist through
their first and second years of college.

15
Chapter II
Literature Review
Student persistence and dropout rates are some of the most extensively researched
areas in higher education (Tinto, 1997). The purpose of this study is to build upon and
expand this body of research to Latino engineering students by examining acculturation,
mentoring and support, utilization of structural support and high school math experience
(independent variables) as predictors of retention and academic achievement. This
chapter will provide a review of the literature that is associated with the main factors
addressed in this study, beginning with Tinto’s Model of Student Retention (Tinto, 1975;
1982; 1988; 1993; 1997), Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) cultural models and
cultural settings, and, finally, acculturation theory (Marin & Gamba, 1996; Berry, 1997;
2003).
Tinto’s Student Retention
Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure is the most widely cited theory to
explain the departure process, and has reached “near paradigmic status” in the field of
higher education (Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000). Tinto’s model presents a process in
which college students make decisions about whether or not to remain in universities.
Tinto (1997) describes student departure as taking two forms: academic dismissal and
voluntary withdrawal. Tinto’s model suggests that students enter universities with a range
of differing family and community backgrounds, a variety of personal attributes, skills,
financial resources, dispositions and precollege educational experiences and
achievements. These attributes are filtered through the students’ commitment to the
institution and their goal to graduate. Each attribute is posited as having a direct impact

16
upon retention in college. Tinto (1993) claims that students need to “break away” from
past associations and traditions to become integrated into the college’s social and
academic realms. The central idea of the model is that of "integration," as it claims that
whether a student continues or drops out is strongly predicted by his degree of academic
and social integration with the campus (Bean, 1988). Tinto believed that students’ levels
of commitment were continually shaped by their interactions within the various academic
and social systems of the college. Tinto notes that students’ motivation and college
awareness among those entering the university influence the level of their initial
commitment to the institution. Students’ social and academic integration into the
institution alters their levels of institutional commitment. According to Tinto (1997),
students who develop higher levels of institutional commitment are more likely to remain
at the college or university than are those who fail to develop high levels of institutional
commitment.
Critique of Tinto’s retention model.
The Tinto model has been criticized as unsuitable for minority students (Stage,
1989; Tierney, 1992, 1997, 2000; S. Hurtado, 1994; A. Hurtado, 1997; Guiffrida, 2003,
2005). Tierney argues that Tinto model’s application of the social integrationist
perspective creates “potentially harmful consequences for racial and ethnic minorities”
(Tierney, 1992, p. 603). Tierney further critiques the Tinto model for its focus on
minority individuals, when, with minorities, many times the unit of analysis should be the
group rather than the individual (Tierney, 1992).

17
Tierney (1992) argues that Tinto has visualized college-going at the individualist
level rather than collectively. Students attend college, become integrated or not, and then
graduate or depart. Underrepresented students are affected most by this claim; these
students assume responsibility for the larger economic, social and political forces that
bear on an individual's ability to succeed academically. Tinto (1993) emphasized that
students enter an institution with particular background characteristics (family, skills,
abilities and prior schooling) that have shaped their levels of commitment to completing
their degrees. According to Tinto, the more that students are academically and socially
integrated into the university, the greater their commitment to graduate. Stage (1989)
countered that while commitment is central to Tinto’s theory, the theory fails to provide
an understanding of students’ motivational orientations to such commitments. This
limitation may be particularly significant when using the theory to describe
underrepresented student academic achievement and persistence. Research suggests that
underrepresented students’ motivational orientations for attending and succeeding in
college may differ from those of their White peers (Hurtado, 1994; Stage, 1989).
Moreover, critics have argued that the theory’s failure to recognize cultural
variables makes it especially problematic when applied to minority students (Guiffrida,
2005; A. Hurtado, 1997; Tierney, 2000). One significant cultural limitation of the theory
that is well established in higher education literature relates to Tinto’s (1993) assertion
that students need to “break away” from past associations and traditions to become
integrated into the college’s social and academic society. Tierney (1992) disagreed,
stating that breaking away, is not applicable to minority college students because the
model was intended to describe developmental progression within a culture, rather than

18
assimilation from one culture to another. Critics have also challenged this portion of
Tinto’s theory that ignores bicultural integration or the ability of minority students to
succeed at college while remaining part of both the majority and minority cultures (Kuh
& Love, 2000; Rendon, Jalomo & Nora, 2000).
Latino culture and the influence on retention.
Social support comes from multiple sources, and different sources may provide
different levels and types of support. Latino culture emphasizes familismo, which
involves strong feelings of attachment, shared identity and loyalty among family
members (Marin & Marin, 1991). Latino families are thought to provide emotional
support, but, additionally, peer support is important for Latino college students, as friends
can provide emotional, informational and instrumental support (Crockett et al., 2007).
Crockett et al. (2007) suggest that children of immigrants acculturate more quickly than
their parents. Second-generation youth may feel caught between the opposing values of
their parents and peers, or experience conflict between their own values and those of their
less acculturated parents.
First-generation students also confront obstacles with respect to cultural
adaptation due to discontinuities between cultures (Engle et al., 2006). First-generation
students often experience problems that arise from simultaneously living in two vastly
different worlds, fully accepted by neither (Engle et al., 2006). Students who receive
instruction that is matched to their learning style have better cognitive outcomes and
more positive affective outcomes (Gonyea, 2010).

19
Math experience.
High school math exposure, either at the onset of high school or at its conclusion,
is a critical component in the determination of math placement scores at the start of
college. A recent study at Michigan State University (Hill, 2006) showed that students
with no senior-year math during high school usually placed into low-levels of college
math courses and, consequently, fared poorly in them. The same study showed that
students who took both AP and non-AP calculus courses in high school were generally
more successful and better prepared for the college placement exams. With many Latino
students unaware of college requirements, they do not enroll in high school algebra or
other advanced math courses which are essential to the application process (Valadez,
2002). According to the National Report Card (2005), 23 % of high school seniors
scored at, or above, the proficient level in mathematics. The students who scored
proficiently, and even those who did not, experienced a lack of connection between the
mathematics expectations they receive in grade school and those they will encounter in
college (Hill, 2006).
Furthermore, the aforementioned disconnect is supported by a recent National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP) report (Braswell, Lutkus, Grigg, Santapau,
Tay-im &Johnson, 2001) that revealed that only 17 % of U.S. twelfth graders were
proficient at mathematics, and fewer than 22 % of the 1.2 million students who took the
ACT college-entrance examinations in 2004 were ready for college-level work in the core
subjects of mathematics, English and science (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).
Among high school graduates who do pursue postsecondary education, a troubling
number not only waste time, but also taxpayer dollars, since they place into remedial,

20
non-credit, English and math courses. These remedial courses do not count for college
graduation credit and only extend the time required to graduate. In addition, those
students who are receiving financial aid are being supported while taking these courses
that do not offer credit towards any degree. Skills like those taught in Algebra II,
considered a threshold course, should have been learned in high school. Threshold
courses are a minimum requirement for entrance to a 4-year institution, but only eight
states require high school graduates to take at least Algebra II (U.S. Department of
Education, 2006).
A research study conducted by the College Board (2004) shows that students who
do well on an AP exam are academically prepared to place out of a introductory college
course and move on to the next higher-level course. While few universities do not give
college credit for AP courses, many do give credit for those students who score a three or
higher. Another study reveals that a group of AP students whose AP exam scores
exempted them from introductory-level college courses performed as well or better in
upper-level courses than their peers who were non-AP students and who first completed
introductory courses. These same students were also more likely to receive a grade of A
or B in a higher-level course than their non-AP peers (College Board, 2004).
Acculturation of Latinos
Adapting to a new culture and environment, where language could be one of
many barriers, is a process many individuals in the United States must face. Human
behavior is partially influenced by the many cultural factors that surround us, and
individuals generally act in ways that are based on cultural expectations (Berry, 1997). A
meta-analysis proved that there are substantial levels of acculturative stress amongst

21
Latino college students. This group reports higher levels of stress then their White
counterparts, including academic, financial, and personal stress. Acculturative stress
occurs when individuals, particularly this group of college students, experience problems
throughout the acculturation process. Additionally much of the stress relates to
insufficient academic preparation and the financial burden of a higher education
(Crockett et al., 2007).
There have been many acculturation scales developed that focus on the Hispanic
population (Marin & Gamba, 1996). The research surrounding these scales supports the
notion that acculturation is a unidimensional process, which states that an individual will
move from a Hispanic pole to a non-Hispanic pole. In order to adopt a new culture,
according to these scales, people would need to reduce their native culture, which does
not always happen (Cuellar, et al., 1995). Essentially, as an individual moves away from
one end, that person loses the cultural domain he is leaving (Rogler, 1994). The older
definitions of acculturation did not take into consideration what occurs when a person
adheres to both their indigenous culture and their host culture, which is labeled as
biculturalism or bidimensional (Cuellar et al., 1995). Using a bidimensional process, such
as the Bidimensional Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (BAS) (Marin & Gamba, 1996),
the scale measures the change in behavior in an individual on two cultural domains. As a
student moves along the cultural domain, he does not necessarily lose that domain; rather,
the two domains are encompassed together (Marin & Gamba, 1996; Berry, 1980, 1997).
By using bilinear measures, a person can be identified as part of one culture, two cultures
or not relating to any culture. In the case of a person who loses his or her native cultural

22
identity and adopts a new identity in a second culture, they are said to have assimilated
(Berry, 1980).
Castillo, Cano, Chen, Blucker and Olds (2008) state that the university culture is
comprised of White American values and beliefs and, because of this, many Latino
college students undergo an acculturation process in which they have the additional
pressure of learning cultural values that differ from their own. College is a stressful time
for many students, especially those who are first-generation and have no prior knowledge
about college. As they go through the process of adapting to new educational and social
environments, these students may feel pressured to assimilate to the university culture in
order to be successful in college (Castillo et al., 2008). Studies have found that Latino
students perceive going to college as a threat to their acceptance in the Latino community
(Niemann, Romero & Arbona, 2000). Additionally, Niemann et al. found that Latino
college students who strongly identified with Latino culture, as demonstrated by ethnic
loyalty, reported feeling threatened by possible alienation in their ethnic communities for
having a college education.
Stressors, such as financial burden, peer conflicts and academic performance, are
common among college students, but the stress that a student feels for being perceived as
having turned their back on their culture or community is one that is difficult to contain
(Castillo et al., 2008). Children raised in the U.S. have a higher acculturation level than
do their parents, and have adopted White American cultural norms. These cultural
differences may lead to family conflict, especially since immigrant parents tend to
acculturate and adapt to the culture at a slower rate in comparison to their children
(Castillo et al., 2008). Family conflict may occur when less acculturated parents expect

23
their children to continue following their culture’s heritage, values and traditions (Lee &
Liu, 2001). Latino families undergo significant changes in attitudes, behaviors, beliefs,
and values as a result of acculturation, and the degree of these changes often vary by
individual (Cuellar et al., 1995). The few studies on this topic have shown that racial and
ethnic minority family conflict has a detrimental psychological effect on the acculturating
individual (Lee & Liu, 2001).
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings
Cultural models are familiar settings and, like family and home, are often taken
for granted. Students adapt to these models over time, watching and listening to their
friends and family, becoming comfortable and familiar (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Zarate and Gallimore (2005) examine factors associated with college retention amongst
Latino students, both inside and outside the college campus. Such factors include family
and parental influences, as well as parental aspirations, self-efficacy, language
proficiency and academic success. For Latinos, academic achievement, parental factors
and language proficiency consistently predicted their college enrollment, as well as the
unique aspects of a student’s culture, which may affect their learning at school (Galimore
& Goldenberg, 2001). Alternatively, for Latinas, teacher-rated classroom performance
and pursuit of college counseling in high school were consistently significant predictors
for college enrollment.
Mentoring and support.
First-generation, underrepresented, minority college students often do not have
sufficient prior knowledge about college (Engle & O’Brian, 2004). Their parents have
never pursued a higher education and they are not aware of what it takes to succeed. For

24
this reason, they do not know what to truly expect during their first year. Frequent contact
with family has proven beneficial to low-income and educationally-disadvantaged
students, especially to those who live on campus and who attend large institutions
(Barnett, 2004; Herndon & Hirt, 2004), Goldenberg et al. (2001) focused on the
relationship of parent expectations and child performance at school, and the study found
that parents’ expectations do influence student performance at school. Latino children
enter school significantly behind their White and Asian peers. One reason may be
because Latino parents have the lowest overall educational levels of any ethnic group in
the United States; for this reason, Latino students will not typically pursue STEM careers
if they have not had rigorous preparation in math and physics (Scatton et al., 2006).
Herndon and Hirt (2004) stress the importance of the social support students
receive from friends, student clubs or even by living on campus; it is through these means
that a student feels connected to a community. Study groups, peer mentoring, faculty
involvement and family support are additional means of support that many students need
in order to be successful in college. Cole and Espinoza (2008) discern that the more time
a student allocates towards non-academic activities, the less that student will prepare for
class or an exam. Not all students will need this involvement, as argued by Lee (1999), as
the importance of academic and social integration decreases as the student’s level of
family education and commitment to graduation increase. While that may be the case for
well-educated and non-first-generation students, this does not apply to many Latino
students, who are often the first in their families to complete a degree (Lee, 1999).

25
On-campus peer and faculty mentoring and support.
Social and academic integration is crucial to retention amongst freshmen, more
specifically for those who live on campus, as they are away from the comforts of home
for an extended period of time and, possibly, for the first time in their lives (Bonous-
Hammarth, 2000). Since students are more likely to contact parents and friends in times
of need, those who maintain relationships with such support systems during the first year
of college, especially if living on campus, are more likely to form better relationships,
seek out help and will generally be more integrated socially within the university, as well
as within a student center, where time spent socializing with friends is just as important
(Barnett, 2004; Otero et al., 2007).
Research on Latino students suggests that factors that lead to better retention rates
in college are peer and faculty support, as well as co-curricular involvement (Cole &
Espinoza, 2008). First-generation students endure a more difficult transition from
secondary school to college than their peers; their experiences often involve substantial
cultural, as well as social and academic, transitions (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak &
Terenzini, 2004). Many times faculty cannot differentiate between criticizing a student
and giving constructive criticism. Students often take critiques as a form of negative
faculty feedback when, in reality, the teacher intended to give positive feedback, but did
not do so in a timely manner via constructive criticism (Cole, 2008). This may make the
student feel as if he is inferior to his peers, and if a student lacks self-confidence he may
never go back to ask for additional help. Yet, student interaction with faculty is essential
to student retention, particularly during the freshman year (Lee, 1999). Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991) reported that "freshman-to-sophomore persistence was positively and

26
significantly related to total amount of student-faculty non-classroom contact with faculty
and particularly to frequency of interactions with faculty to discuss intellectual matters"
(p. 394).
One method of overcoming the lack of self-confidence that many
underrepresented students display when entering college is to help these students become
involved with a peer mentor during their first year of college. The major idea behind a
Peer Mentoring Program is to improve retention from year one of college to year two
(Salinitri, 2005). Among students of color, attrition is much higher during the first year
than that of non-minority groups (Good et al., 2000). Retention can be increased with a
support program or with the help of an academic advisor. Such collaboration, especially
when a student is paired with another student of the same major and ethnic background,
can greatly improve retention and motivation, as well as remove anxieties about college
(Good et al., 2000). Additionally, longitudinal studies on undergraduate achievement
have shown that peer groups are a major influence on students’ attitudinal change and
development in college (Bonous-Hammarth, 2000). A study by Good, Halpin and Halpin
(2000) shows that successful mentoring relationships made a significant difference in
engineering interest and retention amongst students of color. The study also found that
freshmen felt it was a good way to network with upperclassmen and to ease their
transition into the university environment, especially with regard to dealing with tenured
faculty.
An increase in social integration and support has been positively correlated with
underrepresented students participating in some type of first-year peer mentoring
program. This program not only benefits the freshmen (mentee) students, but also the

27
upper division mentors (Good et al., 2000; Strayhorn, 2008). The intent of such a
program is to improve retention rates among underrepresented students; this interaction
creates a network between the freshmen and those who have matriculated onto upper
division coursework. The type of network that is created between the mentee and the
mentor reinforces to the mentee the idea that he is not alone when dealing with
challenging academic issues. Additionally, such programs have proven to retain students
in STEM programs (Good et al., 2000).
Many professors in the college of engineering have a sink-or-swim philosophy
when it comes to student learning; some call it a “boot-camp” approach (Roach, 2006).
Professors, for many years, have had a sink-or-swim mentality when dealing with
engineering students: if they cannot handle the stress and pressure of the major, then they
should not be in the major (Roach, 2006). This can be a motivator for some, but for those
students who may not possess the mental aptitude or self-confidence to succeed, they are
more likely to fall victim to such a philosophy. Faculty who believe in this philosophy
usually will not desire much interaction with freshmen students, which leads to little or
no contact with faculty and an inability to form personal, supportive relationships with
faculty, which is a fundamental need of students (Roach, 2006; Cole & Espinoza, 2008;
Walden & Foor, 2008).
Another reason STEM students choose to have such little participation with
faculty, Walden and Foor (2008) explain, is the loss of interest in their original major,
pedagogical and curricular issues, disenchantment with perceived future careers and
lifestyle demands. These students often do not have the understanding of what a four-year
university demands, the skills required to remain competitive or the self-efficacy needed

28
to succeed; they see themselves as the minority. Furthermore, minority faculty and staff
serve as role models to underrepresented students; both the faculty and staff are examples
of people who successfully made it through the educational system (Cole & Espinoza,
2008). Student-faculty interaction has proven to have a positive effect on student
satisfaction and retention. Additionally, students’ persistence and achievement in STEM
fields require consistent motivation and strengthening of student interest from their
faculty (Bonous-Hammarth, 2000; Otero et al., 2007).
Working-class minority children arrive to college with different cultural
resources; they are competent, decoders in any number of cultural domains within their
communities, but usually not within college institutions (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). For this
reason, students benefit from peer and faculty support as, they need someone to guide
them through the first year in order to ensure that they do not miss a step along the way.
Family support.
First-generation students endure a more difficult transition from secondary school
to college than their peers; their experiences often involve substantial cultural, as well as
social and academic transitions (Pascarella et al., 2004). Typically, first-generation
students receive less support from parents regarding the commitment to enroll in college
(Olive, 2008). For many ethnic minority students from immigrant backgrounds, the
family expectation is to continue to live at home and to carry out family duties while
attending college (Phinney & Haas, 2003). For the graduating class of 1999, 66 % of non-
Hispanic whites were attending college, while that number was only 42 % for Hispanics
(Jamieson, Curry & Martizen, 1999). Increased family responsibilities among Latinos,
feeling inadequately prepared and lack of awareness of the process to acquire higher

29
education were the main factors in the difference in enrollment. For these reasons,
Latinos were most likely to be enrolled part-time in school, with many continuing to
work full-time (Jamieson et al., 1999).
Cultural Capital theory addresses how students from families with a low level of
parental education, typically low-income minorities, are likely to lack abilities normally
transmitted by the family and valued and rewarded by the schools; such as language and
parental involvement within school settings (Blossfeld & Shavit, 1993). Schools value a
traditional approach to emphasizing education in the home, such as promoting good study
habits, reading to children and praising success in school. Children's home experiences
have a profound effect on their academic achievement, and academic learning activities
at home promote student achievement at school (Goldenberg, Reese & Gallimore, 1992).
Alternatively, it might be more typical to find that traditional, low-income families
emphasize hard work, being a well-mannered student and loyalty to family. Being loyal
to family is a decision many first-generation Latino students face when considering the
pursuit of college or going to work to help support the family (Terenzini, Springer,
Yaeger, Pascarella & Nora, 1996), Hispanic parents consider their children’s moral
education the most important aspect of education at home, while they feel that their
children’s learning of subject areas is the responsibility of teachers at school (Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001). As stated by Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997), poorer families
traditionally have achieved lower educational statuses, which means going to college
constitutes a crossroad between parents and children. Deciding to become the first in their
immediate family to attend college is breaking, not continuing, family tradition
(Terenzini et al., 1996).

30
Tinto (1975) noted that familial background issues and precollege success are
among the most important factors affecting students’ achievement. Arbrona and Nora’s
(2007) and Olive’s (2008) study found that first-generation students tend to have lower
educational aspirations and demonstrate lower retention rates than those whose parents
are college-educated. These findings of parental education among first-generation
students correspond to Gandara’s (2006) statement that Latino parents have the lowest
overall educational levels of any ethnic group in the United States. While many parents
may not have the knowledge needed to help their children pursue college, once they have
been admitted, involving parents and other siblings is crucial, as some students claim it
lessened much of the confusion and stress during their first year (Engle et al., 2006).
Going to college is truly an experience that involves the entire family.
A study conducted by the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute (TRPI) found that a
majority of Latino parents were not familiar with entrance requirements and high school
preparation needed for college (Tornatzky, Cutler & Lee, 2002; Marquez, 2006; Zarate &
Pachon, 2006). The lack of familiarity with college admissions processes and college
costs may be forcing students and parents to reconsider the pursuit of a college education.
Structural support.
Collier and Morgan (2008) claim that many first-year college students lack
cultural capital, which may be the reason for not achieving the “college student” role that
universities feel they lack, yet need. Salinitri (2005) suggests that underrepresented
students pose a particular challenge because they may have poor study habits, study alone
or resist seeking help. Networking and the realization that minority students are not alone
in their academic difficulties can help retain minority students in STEM programs (Good

31
et al., 2000). This allows students with a greater comfort level to utilize the resources of
the support centers. Students who do not utilize the support centers lack, what Clark and
Estes (2002) call, the Three Facets of Motivated Performance: Active Choice, Persistence
and Mental Effort. Lack of active choice is apparent when students choose to go home,
rather than seek out available services to determine if they might help; lack of persistence
is shown when students actually attempt to get help but, because of external factors
(spending time with friends, going out to eat, going home, etc.), they decide not to
continue with the service; and lack of mental effort is displayed when these students are
over-confident about their abilities to succeed and, in turn, decide that they do not want
the extra help. Many times students who feel insecure about their abilities avoid working
with others for fear they will be seen as inadequate.
In order for these students to gain the knowledge needed to efficiently utilize
support services, universities must encourage a fluid transition from high school to
college by providing students with the skills, knowledge and confidence necessary to
succeed (Salinitri, 2005). Herndon and Hirt (2004) claim that students need social support
from friends, student clubs or living on campus, in order to feel connected to a
community. The at-risk students generally are the shy, non-confrontational types who
need the push and a welcoming feeling.
First-generation students have a more difficult transition from secondary school to
college than their peers; their experiences often involve significant cultural, as well as
social and academic, transitions (Pascarella et al., 2004). Successful support centers for
these students need to be more open and welcoming, especially to freshmen and, more so,
at-risk students. The study centers need to be exactly that - study centers. Herndon and

32
Hirt (2004) stress the academic support component for underrepresented students; these
students need the tutoring services, peer mentoring programs and contact with faculty.
It is essential that students get involved while on campus, whether it is through an
on-campus job or a student club. Involvement with specific clubs and organizations or
departments will increase a student’s motivation and attrition. In a study conducted by
Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005), Latino students reported positive interactions with diverse
peers while participating in support programs, as well as an inclusive feeling within the
college. Many colleges have provided programs for underrepresented students to join in
order to feel part of a community (Bernold et al., 2007). There are several STEM support
programs that encourage academic involvement, such as Minority Engineering Programs
(MEPs), Science Education Enhancement Services (SEES) and Mathematics,
Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) (Landis, 2007). Such programs are
implemented knowing that STEM students need the extra support. Though co-curricular
involvement, such as joining a learning community within a program like MEP or an
academic club that unites students from the same discipline, students can improve their
self-efficacy and cultural awareness of the university and to a specific major.
Summary
“College life is supposed to be really fun, as well as really hard” (Barnett, 2004,
p. 60). Student retention is of the utmost importance and the engineering community has
recognized the need for higher retention rates amongst freshman and sophomore
engineering students; yet, first-year dropout rates are at an all-time high for low-income
and educationally-disadvantaged students. Too many students who start degrees in STEM
disciplines never finish college (Carey, 2005; Otero et al., 2007; Veenstra et al., 2008).

33
These numbers represent lost opportunity on a massive scale. What is worse is that the
same low-income and minority students who are finally able to enroll in college are also
the least likely to actually graduate (Carey, 2005).
Peer mentoring programs have shown great success when it comes to retention
and developing social support networks (Good et al., 2000). Time spent socializing with
friends, mentors and classmates in the student centers or other campus areas is just as
important to the student’s academic development as time spent doing homework and
studying for an exam. These are the most academically-prepared minority students that
our educational system has ever produced and yet, while they do attend college, they are
unlikely to obtain their degrees in a timely manner (Carey, 2005).
As the research indicates, mastering mathematics at the high school level has
become more important than ever. The ability to do so may establish a path to higher
education for many students. Researchers have further suggested that parental
involvement has a positive influence in a student’s decision to enroll in advanced
mathematics courses while in high school (Valadez, 2002). Mathematics preparation is at
the core of college success, irrespective of major, and Latino students have access to
fewer sources of information and their parents lack the awareness of the importance of
particular courses. These students may have to rely on institutional agents for advice, and,
often times, high school math and science teachers do not have a degree in the
appropriate STEM field to properly guide these students on to STEM success (Valadez,
2002; Hill, 2006). Lee (1999) says that student retention results from a combination of
students’ entering characteristics, their commitment to the institution, their commitment
to goals and their academic and social experiences in college. Completing any degree

34
takes significant time and effort, but completing a degree in a STEM discipline also
requires a vast amount of social and cultural support.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship of acculturation, college
mentoring and support, utilization of structural support and high school math experience
to retention and GPA in Latino engineering students.
Research questions.
The following research questions and hypotheses are examined in this study:
Research Question 1:
Are there differences in acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization
of structural support and high school math experience by retention group among
Latino engineering students?
Hypothesis 1a: There will be differences between the retained and non-
retained groups in acculturation to American culture.
Hypothesis 1b: There will be differences between the retained and non-
retained groups in college mentoring and support.
Hypothesis 1c: There will be differences between the retained and non-
retained groups in use of structural support (visit professor’s office hours,
tutoring centers, advising centers, study in groups or are involved in a
student club or organization).
Hypothesis 1d: There will be differences between the retained and non-
retained groups according to math experience.

35
Research Question 2:
Do acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization of structural support
and high school math experience predict GPA in Latino engineering students?
Hypothesis 2a: More acculturation to American culture will predict higher
GPA.
Hypothesis 2b: The presence of at least one significant student-mentor
relationship will predict higher GPA.
Hypothesis 2c: Students who often utilize or have some sort of structural
support (visit professor’s office hours, tutoring centers, advising centers,
study in groups or are involved in a student club or organization) are likely
to have a higher GPA.
Hypothesis 2d: Students who placed into higher level math courses
(Calculus I or higher) during their first quarter of college will have a
higher GPA after one year.

36
Chapter III
Methodology
This study investigated the influence of acculturation, mentors, use of on-campus
structural support, and high school math experience on the retention of Latino
engineering students from year one to year three at a four-year university. This chapter
describes the methodology used to answer the research questions.
Participants
Second and third year undergraduate Latino engineering students were recruited
from a public four-year university in Southern California for a one month period during
the fall quarter of 2010. Anonymous, self-reported surveys were completed by
participants online and administered using qualtrics.com. A total of 157 undergraduate
students participated in this study. Of those, 17 were not included in the study because
they were not Latino, not second or third year students or had incomplete responses.
Therefore, a total of 140 survey responses were used in the final data analyses.
Participants in the sample ranged in age from 18 to 21 years old (M = 19.52 years,
SD = .63). Males comprised 76.4 % (n = 107) of the sample, while females comprised
22.9 % (n = 32) of the sample, and one person did not answer this question (See Table 1).
The largest groups of Latino ethnicities who participated in the study were
Mexican (n = 100, 71.4%) followed by multi-ethnic (n = 20, 14.3%) and Central-
American (n = 14, 10.0%). A majority of students (n = 94, 67.1%) indicated that they
were second-generation Latino college students (a person who was born in the United
States and has at least one parent who is foreign born).

37
Table 1
Frequency Distribution of Student Participants
N %
Sex
Male 107 76.4
Female 32 22.9
Did not answer 1 0.7

Age
18 4 2.9
19 65 46.4
20 65 46.4
21 6 4.3

Ethnicity
Mexican 100 71.4
Cuban 1 0.7
South American 5 3.6
Central American 14 10.0
Multi-ethnic 20 14.3

Generational Status
First 17 12.1
Second 94 67.1
Third 19 13.6
Fourth 6 4.3
Above fourth 4 2.9

Parental Marital Status
Currently married to each other 102 72.9
Divorced, remarried to others 14 10.0
Divorced and unmarried 13 9.3
One or both parent(s) deceased 4 2.9
Other 7 5.0

Family Income
Less than $25,000 26 18.6
$25,000-$50,000 26 18.6
$50,001-$75,000 30 21.4
$75,001-$100,000 14 10.0
$100,001-$150,000 16 11.4
Over $150,000 5 3.6
Decline to answer 19 13.6
Financially independent 4 2.9

38
The majority of participants (n = 102, 72.9%) came from households in which
their parents are currently married to each other. When asked about their annual family
income, 30 (21.4%) participants indicated a household income of $50,001-$75,000,
whereas 26 (18.6%) participants indicated an income of either less than $25,000 or
$25,000-$50,000. Information regarding distribution of family income by ethnicity is
presented in Table 2.
Table 2

Frequency Distribution of Family Income by Ethnicity

Under
$50K
$50-75K
$75-
100K
$100-
150K
Over
$150K
Decline
to answer
Financially
independent
Ethnicity N % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Mexican 42 42 21 21% 9 9% 10 10% 2 2% 13 13% 3 3%
South American 2 40% 1 20% 0 0 1 20% 0 0 1 20% 0 0
Central American 6 43% 3 21% 1 7% 3 21% 0 0 1 7% 0 0
Multi-Ethnic 2 10% 5 25% 4 20% 1 5% 3 15% 4 20% 1 5%

In terms of parental education, the junior high level was the highest reported for
both father (n = 56, 40.0%) and mother (n = 59, 42.1%). Alternatively, participants
reported only 11 (7.9%) fathers and 8 (5.8%) mothers with a college degree or higher.
Information regarding distribution of educational attainment by ethnicity is presented in
Tables 3a and 3b below.
Table 3a

Frequency Distribution of Parental Education by Ethnicity

Elementary Junior High High School

Father Mother Father Mother Father Mother
Ethnicity N % n % n % n % n % n %
Mexican 12 12% 16 16% 38 38% 39 39% 29 29% 29 29%
South
American
0 0 0 0 4 80% 3 60% 0 0 1 20%
Central
American
1 7% 0 0 3 21% 7 50% 4 29% 4 29%
Multi-Ethnic 1 5% 0 0 11 55% 9 45% 8 40% 10 50%
Note: Cuban, Puerto Rican and Spanish excluded due to small sample sizes

39
Table 3b

Frequency Distribution of Parental Education by Ethnicity

College Advanced Degree Do not know

Father Mother Father Mother Father Mother
Ethnicity N % n % n % n % n % n %
Mexican 3 3% 2 2% 4 4% 3 3% 14 14% 11 11%
South
American
1 20% 1 20% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Central
American
1 7% 0 0 2 14% 1 7% 3 21% 2 14%
Multi-Ethnic 0 0 1 5% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Note: Cuban, Puerto Rican and Spanish excluded due to small sample sizes

In terms of entering major of the respondents, the most frequently cited was
Mechanical Engineering (n = 35, 25.0%), which is also the most common current major,
as answered by 34 (24.3%) participants. In addition, 25 (17.9%) students indicated
having transferred out of engineering. Of these students, 15 remain at this university, four
confirmed their disenrollment from this university and six have no confirmed current
major, per the survey. The breakdown of each major is presented in Tables 4 and 5
below.
Table 4
Frequency Distribution of Incoming Majors
Major n %
Aerospace 27 19.1
Chemical 11 7.8
Civil 22 15.6
Computer 18 12.8
Electrical 12 8.5
Industrial 2 1.4
Mechanical 35 24.8
Engineering Technology 12 8.5
Other 2 1.4

40
Table 5

Frequency Distribution of Current Majors
Major n %
Aerospace 18 12.8
Chemical 11 7.8
Civil 17 12.1
Computer 7 5.0
Electrical 15 10.6
Industrial 4 2.8
Mechanical 34 24.1
Engineering Technology 10 7.1
Non-Engr, but in STEM 5 3.5
Non STEM 10 7.1
Not Enrolled at University 4 2.8
No Response 6 4.3

Of the students who indicated college math placement level, the largest group
placed into math 105 (College Algebra) (n = 39, 27.9%) during their first quarter of
college (Table 6). Math placement is determined by a combination of exams and their
various scores; an SAT math exam score of 550 or above or an ACT math score of 24 or
above qualifies for college algebra. For those students who take the AP Calculus AB or
BC exam, their score can place them in a range of calculus courses. Exam scores on the
AB portion of the test of three or higher qualifies for MAT115 (Calculus II), BC exam
scores of 3 qualifies for Mat 116 (Calculus III) and a score of 4 or 5 qualifies for Mat 214
(Calculus IV). For students who did not take or pass AP Calculus, they either take the
Entry Level Math (ELM) exam or the Math Diagnostic Placement Test (MDPT). Based
on scores on one or both of these tests, students can place as low as math 10 (remedial
algebra) or as high as math 114 (Calculus I).

41
Table 6

Frequency Distribution of Math Placement
Math Class n %
No Response 16 11.4

11 8 5.7

12 11 7.9

105 39 27.9

106 17 12.1

112 5 3.6

114 16 11.4

115 16 11.4

116 4 2.9

214 6 4.3

224 2 1.4

Instruments
Before any surveys were conducted, all participants were provided with an
informed consent form (Appendix A) and were notified that all survey responses would
remain confidential. The survey instrument consisted of six sections: 1) Demographic and
background information (Appendix B), 2) Acculturation level (Appendix C), 3)
Mentoring and support (Appendix D), 4) Utilization of structural support (Appendix E)
and 5) High school math experience (Appendix F). Detailed information on the specific
instruments used for each of the sections is described below.
Demographic and background information.
Demographic and background data collected from the participants were as
follows: age, sex, ethnicity, generational status, family income, GPA, parental
educational attainment, incoming declared major, current major and current academic
year.

42
High school math experience and college placement.
The math experience and college placement variable was measured using
questions developed by the researcher. No currently developed measures were deemed
appropriate for the type of information the researcher sought and, for that reason, specific
questions were generated.
The algebra questions developed were used to identify if and when Algebra I was
taken. The college placement portion of the measure was used to identify which math
course the participants placed into during their first quarter of college.
Mentoring and support.
The independent variable of mentoring and support was assessed using two
measures: the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) developed
by Zimet, Dahlem, Zimet and Farley (1988) and the College Student Mentoring Scale
(CSMS) developed by Crisp (2009). The MSPSS was developed to specifically address
the subjective assessment of social support adequacy from three specific sources: family,
friends, and significant other (Zimet et al., 1988). The CSMS was developed to identify
the degree to which undergraduate students had someone in their lives that provided
mentoring experiences while in college.
The CSMS was used to measure the mentor portion of Mentoring and Support,
whereas the MSPSS was used to measure support with the Family and Friends subscale.
The MSPSS was recently validated by the Mexican American Youth population by
Edwards (2004). Previously, the original MSPSS measure focused on the four-year
undergraduate student population; it had no specific race or ethnicity. Edwards (2004)
found a very high reliability with Mexican American Youth in two of the three subscales

43
(Family, .88 and Friends, .90), but when tested against the Significant Other subscale, the
reliability was .61. Since the Significant Other subscale had a below adequate reliability
with the population of this study, the CSMS was used in its place as the on-campus
mentoring factor.
With the questionnaire produced by Zimet et al. (1988), 12 items were divided
into three subscales (four Family, four Friends, and four Significant Other) and were
scored on a seven-point Likert-type scale. The scale was as follows: 1 – very strongly
disagree, 2 – strongly disagree, 3 – mildly disagree, 4 – neutral, 5 - mildly agree, 6 –
strongly agree, 7 – very strongly agree. Sample statements include: “I get the emotional
help and support I need from my family,” “I can count on my friends when things go
wrong” and “My family tries to help me make decisions.”
With Crisp’s (2009) questionnaire, 25 items were divided into four subscales
(eight Psychological and Emotional Support, six Degree and Career Support, five
Academic Subject Knowledge Support, and six Existence of a Role Model) and were
scored on a five-point Likert-type scale. The scale was a follows: 1 – strongly disagree, 2
– disagree, 3 – neutral, 4 – agree, 5 – strongly agree. Sample statements include: “While
in college, I have had someone in my life who I look up to regarding college-related
issues,” “…makes me feel that I belong in college” and “…serves as a model for how to
be successful in college.”
Utilization of structural support.
The utilization of structural support IV was measured using the University
Environment Scale (UES), which was developed by Gloria and Kurpius (1996). The
UES was designed to assess Latina/Latino students’ perceptions of the university

44
environment. After various validation exams the Cronbach’s alpha reliability was .84,
which supported its reliability. Additional questions were also generated by the
researcher.
The questionnaire developed by Gloria and Kurpius (1996) included 14 items that
used a 7-point Likert-type scale. The scale ranged from: 1 – not at all to 7 – very true.
Sample statements included: “Class sizes are so large that I feel like a number,” “There
are tutoring services available for me on campus” and “Faculty have been available to
help me make course choices.”
Additional questions not addressed by the UES were also included as part of the
utilization of structural support scale. Those questions were also based on the same 7-
point scale. A sample of these statements include: “I often use the free tutoring center,” “I
have used the Career Center to build my resume” and “I know where the Learning
Resources Center is located.”
Acculturation.
The acculturation IV was measured using the Bidimensional Acculturation Scale
for Hispanics (BAS) developed by Marin and Gamba (1996). The BAS was developed to
specifically address bidirectional changes in behavior that are central to the individuals in
two cultural domains (Hispanic and non-Hispanic).
With Marin and Gamba’s (1996) questionnaire, 24 items were divided into three
subscales (six Language Use, 12 Linguistic Proficiency, and six Electronic Media) and
were scored on a four-point Likert-type scale. The scale was as follows: 4 – almost
always, 3 – often, 2 – sometimes, 1 – almost never, for questions 1 through 6 and 19
through 24. Questions 7 through 18 (Linguistic Proficiency) had a scale that was a

45
follows: 4 – very well, 3 – well, 2 – poorly, 1 – very poorly. Sample statements include:
“How often do you speak in Spanish with your friends?,” “How well do you speak
English?” and “How often do you listen to radio programs in English?”
The BAS was chosen for this study because it is a bidimensional acculturation
scale and has been found to be valid among Mexican-Americans, as well as Central-
Americans (Marin & Gamba, 1996), where other scales simply focused on
unidimensional or the Mexican-American population only.
GPA.
The second dependant variable was GPA after the first and second year of
college. The GPA was obtained via student self-reported. GPA is calculated on a 4-point
scale where an average below 2.0 places a student on probation.
Procedure
The researcher for this study began by having the Multicultural Engineering
office at the University send an email to its students. This email contained a brief
description of the survey, a link to the survey, and the researchers contact information for
any follow-up questions. The researcher would send his own email reminder every two
weeks. The final week of the survey, a social networking site was used as a final attempt
to remind the participants about the survey. Second and third year, Latino engineering
students were contacted via email and notified about the survey. The average time to
complete the survey was approximately 24 minutes. As an incentive for completing the
survey, students were given the option to enter an opportunity drawing for one of four
Best Buy® gift cards.

46
Data Analysis
For the data analysis, acculturation, mentoring and support, utilization of
structural support and high school math experience were used as the independent
variables while retention from year one to year three and students GPA were used as the
two dependent variables. High school math experience was measured using a
questionnaire developed by the researcher. Mentoring and support was measured using
both the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) and the College
Student Mentoring Scale (CSMS). Utilization of structural support was measured using
the UES, along with additional questions generated by the researcher. Finally,
acculturation was measured using the Bidimensioanl Acculturation Scale for Hispanics
(BAS).
To examine the hypotheses for research question 1, ANOVAS and MANOVAS
were used. For research question 2, a simultaneous regression analysis was used.

47
Chapter IV
Results
This chapter presents the findings and results of the study, beginning with
preliminary analyses followed by each research question.
Preliminary Analyses
Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships
between demographic variables (sex, age and generational status), as well as with
acculturation, perceived social support, college mentoring and support, university
environment and high school math experience. Results are summarized in Table 7. For
this study, gender of the student was significantly correlated with both measures of the
college mentoring and support scale: social support (r = .24, p = .01) and college
mentoring scale (r = .210, p = .02). As one might expect, generational status had an
inverse correlation with Hispanic acculturation (r = -.57, p = .00), while there was a
positive correlation with the non-Hispanic acculturation (r = .32, p = .00). Generational
status also had a positive correlation with annual family income (r = .35, p = .00). Annual
family income was inversely correlated with Hispanic acculturated students (r = -.29, p =
.00) and positively correlated with the college mentoring scale (r = .20, p = .03).
Social support was positively correlated with both the college mentoring scale (r
= .59, p = .00) and the use of structural support (r = .36, p = .00). The college mentoring
scale was significantly correlated with the use of structural support (r = .38, p = .00) and
inversely correlated with math placement during the first quarter of college (r = -.22, p =
.03). The latter correlation indicates that those students who place into lower levels of
math are more likely to seek out a college mentor. The grade during which students first

48
took Algebra I was inversely correlated with the first math class they placed into during
the first quarter of college (r = -.26, p = .00). This result supports the theory that the
earlier students learn algebra, the higher the math class they will place into at the start of
college.
Analyses of Research Questions
Research Question 1: Are there differences in acculturation, college mentoring
and support, utilization of structural support and high school math experience by
retention groups among Latino engineering students?
A series of one-way multivariate and univariate analyses were conducted with
retention, retained or non-retained (no longer enrolled in engineering), as the independent
variable and acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization of structural support
and high school math experience as the dependant variables. As shown in Tables 8 and 9,
the multivariate analyses indicated that there was a significant difference in college
mentoring and support by retention (Wilks’s lambda .94, F (2,117) = 3.69, p < .05).
Subsequent one-way ANOVAs for each type of support revealed that college
mentoring was significant (F (1, 117) = 7.35, p < .01), with those who are retained
reporting greater college mentoring support (M = 3.71, SD = 0.87) over those who did not
remain in engineering (M = 3.07, SD = 1.01). Social support approached significance (p =
.08 (F (1, 117) = 3.63, p = .075), with those who are retained reporting greater social
support (M = 5.91, SD = 0.96) than those who did not (M = 5.58, SD = 1.38).
When looking at structural support by retention, the one-way ANOVA analysis
indicated that there was a significant difference (F (1, 120) = 11.23, p < .01), with those

49
who are retained reporting greater structural support (M = 2.74, SD = 0.25) over those
who did not remain in engineering (M = 2.54, SD = 0.21).
Research Question 2: Do student acculturation, college mentoring and support,
utilization of structural support and high school math experience predict a higher earned
GPA in Latino engineering students?
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine whether or not a
student’s GPA was predicted by acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization
of structural support and high school math experience.
The multiple regression analysis indicated that the overall model was significant
in predicting GPA (F (7, 86) = 2.58, p < .05), with 17% of the variance being explained.
Non-Hispanic acculturation (β = -.33, p < .01), college mentoring scale (β = .25, p <.05)
and math placement during the first quarter of college (β = .23, p < .05) were all
significant predictors of GPA. These results suggest that students who had lower scores
on the non-Hispanic acculturation scale had higher GPAs, and those students who had
college mentoring support earn higher GPAs than those who did not. Finally, the higher
the math course a student placed into during the first quarter of college indicated a higher
overall GPA. Table 10 illustrates the regression analysis statistics.

50

Table 7
Means, Standard Deviations and Pearson Product Correlations for Measured Variables
M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Sex .21
*
.02 .11 .02 .02 .24
**
.21
*
.05 .00 -.02
2. Age 19.52 0.63 -- .01 .03 -.06 .00 .00 .02 -.01 -.05 -.05
3. Generational_Status 2.21 0.79 -- .35
**
-.57
**
.32
**
.01 .02 .04 -.03 -.12
4. Annual_Fam_Income 3.56 2.11

-- -.29
**
.04 .15 .20
*
-.04 -.05 .05
BAS
5. HispanicAcc 2.37 0.84 -- -.39
**
-.01 -.11 .16 -.01 -.08
6. NonHispAcc 3.82 0.33 -- .09 .15 .08 -.06 -.10
MSPSS
7. SocialSupport 5.86 1.05 -- .59
**
.36
**
.10 -.15
CSMS
8. CollegMentScl 3.60 0.93 -- .38
**
.13 -.22
*

UES
9. UseStructSup 2.71 0.26 -- .12 -.20
*

10. MathExp1 2.97 0.73 -- -.26
**

11. MathExp2 5.50 2.35

--
Note: All scores are scaled scores. 1. Sex; 2. Age; 3. Generational Status; 4. Annual_fam_incom=Annual family income;
BAS (Bidimensional Acculturation Scale): 5. HispanicAcc=Hispanic Acculturation, 6. NonHispAcc=Non Hispanic Acculturation;
MSPSS (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support): 7. SocialSupport=Social Support; CSMS (College Student Mentoring Scale):
8. CollegMentScl=College Mentoring Scale; UES (University Environment Scale): 9. UseStructSup=Utilization of Structural Support;
10. MathExp1=First took Algebra 1; 11. MathExp2=First math class in college
*p<0.05. **p<0.01.

51
Table 8
Multivariate Analyses of Variance for College Mentoring and Support by Retention
Source λ F df Sig.
College Mentoring and Support 0.94 3.69 2 .03
Social Support 3.63 1 .08
College Mentoring Scale 7.35 1 .01

Table 9
Mean Score on Retention by Use of College Mentoring and Support
Social Support College Mentoring Scale
Retention M SD M SD
Current Engr. Major 5.91 0.96 3.71 0.87
Left Engineering 5.58 1.38 3.07 1.01

Table 10

Summary of Simultaneous Regression Analysis for GPA

R
2
F B SE β p
GPA .174 2.582 .018

Hispanic Acculturation -.043 .067 -.072 .518
Non-Hispanic Acculturation -.476 .159 -.327 .004
Social Support -.053 .064 -.098 .415
College Mentoring Scale .143 .069 .251 .042
Use of Structural Support .009 .221 .004 .969
First took Algebra -.071 .071 -.102 .317

First quarter math placement .049 .023 .225 .034

52
CHAPTER V
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to build upon and expand the body of research, and
explore the retention issues, associated with first- and second-year Latino engineering
students. More specifically, this study investigated how Latino engineering students’
acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization of structural support and high
school math experience predicted retention and GPA during their first and second years
of college. Results of this study suggested that college mentoring and support, as well as
the use of structural support, can be used as important variables in understanding
retention issues among Latino engineering students. Three important variables in the
determination of Latino students’ GPAs were non-Hispanic acculturation, college
mentoring and support and the math class placed into during the first quarter of college.
The following chapter provides a summary and discussion of the results, as well as
theoretical and applied implications. Limitations of this study and possible directions of
future research are also discussed.
Discussion of Primary Findings
Relationship of acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization of
structural support, high school math experience to retention
This study sought to explore retention group differences between acculturation,
college mentoring and support, utilization of structural support and high school math
experience, from year one to year three for Latino engineering students. It was
hypothesized that there would be differences between the retained and non-retained
groups in college mentoring and support. The results show that there was a significant

53
difference in retention group for college mentoring. These findings continue to confirm
research conducted by Good et al. (2000), Marable (1999) and Salinitri (2005), which
support that the major idea behind the Peer Mentoring Program is to improve retention
from year one of college to year two, especially amongst students of color. As indicated
by Good et al. (2000) research, successful mentoring relationships made a significant
difference in engineering interest and retention amongst students of color. A study
conducted by Gershon (1999) concluded that as common interests increased, the peer
mentors and students were more likely to spend time together. Students who met with
their assigned mentors at least once per week scored significantly higher in areas of social
adjustment and college attachment than did other, non-mentored students.
In addition to peer mentoring, the results were also significant with non-peer
mentors, including family, friends, faculty and other individuals who students look up to
or admire. Lee (1999) and Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) reported that student
interaction with faculty is essential to student retention, particularly during the freshman
year. Furthermore, their research reported that freshman-to-sophomore persistence was
positively and significantly correlated with student-faculty interaction. With positive
social and academic college experiences required for students to succeed, Nora (2001)
indicated that both formal and informal interactions with faculty and mentors are
essential. Student-faculty interaction has proven to have a positive effect on student
satisfaction and retention among those in STEM fields (Bonous-Hammarth, 2000; Otero
et al., 2007).
While many parents may not have the knowledge needed to help their children
pursue college, once they have been admitted, familial involvement is crucial, as some

54
students claim it lessened much of the confusion and stress during their first year (Engle
et al., 2006). Herndon and Hirt (2004) stress the importance of the social support students
receive from friends; it is through these means that a student feels connected to a
community. Since students are more likely to contact parents and friends in times of
need, those who maintain relationships with such support systems during the first year of
college are more likely to form better relationships and more thoroughly enjoy their
college experiences (Barnett, 2004; Otero et al., 2007).
Secondly, it was hypothesized that there would be differences between the
retained and non-retained groups in use of structural support (visit professor’s office
hours, tutoring centers, advising centers, study in groups or are involved in a student club
or organization). The results revealed there was a significant difference in retention
groups for structural support. Herndon and Hirt (2004) discuss the importance of the
academic support component for underrepresented students; these students need the
tutoring services and peer mentoring programs. Students, especially Latinos, tend to
perform better in school when they have cultural congruity with their specific majors.
Therefore, with this fit between values, beliefs and behaviors, it is important to look at
students’ perceptions of the university environment and the establishment of cultural
congruity; they act as mediators in individuals’ persistence at the university (Gloria &
Kurpius, 1996). If a student lacks self-confidence they may never again ask for additional
help. Students often find themselves dropping out during the first year because they are
unable to seek and acquire the necessary tools for success (Salinitri, 2005).
Tinto (1993) realized that critical components of successful first-year programs
included academic advising, orientation, support programs, tutoring, supplemental

55
instruction, seminars, skills development programs, mentoring programs and placement
testing. Salinitri (2005) suggests that underrepresented students pose a particular
challenge because they may have poor study habits, study alone or resist seeking help. It
is these support, skill development, and orientation programs that help structure a well-
balanced educational career. The MEP programs have coordinated “cohort programs” in
which small groups of students take core subjects together, and establish a place where
students can meet and study together (Marable, 1999; Landis, 2007).
Another hypothesis was that there would be retention group differences in
acculturation to American culture. Ethnicity has consistently been a factor that is
investigated as a possible predictor of learning styles. Studies on acculturation have
found mixed results when examining ethnic differences in learning styles. Some studies
(Lopez et al., 2002; Hurtado-Ortiz & Gauvin, 2007) found significant differences,
whereas others (Fuligni et al., 2005) found no significant differences. However, in this
study, there were no differences in either acculturation to European American culture or
acculturation to Latino culture by retention group. The research did show that Hispanic
acculturation had an inverse correlation with both generational status and annual family
income.
One possible explanation for the aforementioned inverse correlation between
acculturation and generational status and income could be the fact that the institution
where these students were surveyed is classified as a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI).
Castillo et al. (2008) state that the university culture is comprised of White American
values and beliefs and, because of this, many Latino college students undergo an
acculturation process in which they have the additional pressure of learning cultural

56
values that differ from their own. This would not be the case for these students, as they
might actually feel more comfortable having other students of their familiar ethnicity as
one of the more common student populations on campus. As students go through the
process of adapting to new educational and social environments, they may feel pressured
to assimilate to the university culture in order to be successful in college (Castillo et al.,
2008). Since this university is a HSI, the pressure may be lessened by the fact that they
view the university as a familiar location, not a new educational endeavor.
The final hypothesis was that there would be retention group differences for
students that place into higher level math courses (Calculus I or higher) during their first
quarter of college. There was no significance difference in retention group by the math
course students place into during the first quarter of college. While placement into a
calculus course or higher was not significant, the underlying factor in this case proved to
be when the participants first took their algebra course. Both Scatton et al. (2006) and
Landis (2007) acknowledge that algebra, which is a prerequisite for all higher-level math
courses, continues to be the major gatekeeper for entry into the college-preparatory track.
Mathematics has become a means of disqualifying students, even before they can get to
college; but without such preparation, these students are not likely to advance to college
at all. Adelman (1999) identified a list of high school courses considered crucial in
preparing a student for postsecondary participation, one of which included math. Those
whose high school curricula included advanced levels of these crucial courses tended to
perform better in college.
Students who are initially assigned to college-preparatory courses such as algebra
and geometry not only learn more, but they are more likely to pursue higher

57
mathematical studies in subsequent years (White, Gamoran, Smithson & Porter, 1996).
Based on the data collected here, the grade during which students first took Algebra I
(Grades 7-10) was inversely correlated with the first math class they placed into during
the first quarter of college. This result supports the theory that the earlier students learn
algebra, 7
th
or 8
th
grade, the higher the math class they will place into at the start of
college. Along with this information, college math placement was inversely correlated
with the use of structural support and college mentoring.
Relationship between acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization of
structural support and high school math experience and GPA
This study also sought to explore whether or not acculturation, college mentoring
and support, utilization of structural support and high school math experience predicted
GPA. It was hypothesized that more acculturation to American culture would predict
higher GPA. The results found that non-Hispanic acculturation was significantly
correlated with GPA, while, Hispanic acculturation was not significant. Since the
majority of the students surveyed were second generation or greater, this supports the
theory by Castillo et al. (2008) that children raised in the United States have a higher
acculturation level than do their parents, and have adopted White American cultural
norms. With these highly integrated and bicultural students, Lopez et al. (2002), claim
they should exhibit higher academic achievement.
Secondly, it was hypothesized that the presence of at least one significant student-
mentor relationship will increase GPA after one year. This study also supported this
hypothesis, as college student mentoring was significantly correlated with GPA. These
findings confirm the research conducted by both Campbell and Campbell (1997) and

58
Salinitri (2005), which investigated the academic benefits for underrepresented students
who utilized the services of a mentor. Their research, like this study, found that the
amount of student-mentor contact was positively correlated with GPA, and those students
who had mentor interaction showed a significantly higher GPA.
A third hypothesis was that students who placed into higher level math courses
(Calculus I or higher) during their first quarter of college would earn a higher GPA after
one year. Results for this hypothesis proved to be statistically significant. As previously
mentioned, there was a correlation found with the grade during which Algebra I was first
taken (Grades 7-10) and the first math class participants placed into during the first
quarter of college.
The final hypothesis surmised that students who often utilize or have some type of
structural support (visit professor’s office hours, tutoring centers, advising centers, study
in groups or involvement in a student club or organization) are likely to have higher
GPAs. In this study, utilization of structural support was not statistically significant with
GPA. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, structural support is correlated with retention,
but not with GPA. One possible reason for the difference in these findings is that,
regardless of grades, students utilize these services. Those students who are doing poorly
may seek help; alternatively, those students who are doing well academically may
continue to use these services to maintain their GPAs.
While not all individual hypotheses were significant with GPA, the overall model
(relationship between acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization of
structural support and high school math experience) did reveal a statistically significant
correlation. As the overall model was found to be significant, this supports the notion that

59
the combination of acculturation, mentoring and support, utilization of structural support
and math experience are all correlated as predictors of GPA.
Additional findings.
For this study, gender of the student was significantly correlated with both
measures of the college mentoring and support scale: social support and college
mentoring scale. As one might expect, generational status had an inverse correlation with
Hispanic acculturation, while there was a positive correlation with the non-Hispanic
acculturation. Generational status also had a positive correlation with annual family
income. Annual family income was inversely correlated with Hispanic acculturated
students and positively correlated with the college mentoring scale. In addition,
demographic variables, such as years of education for the participant’s mother or father
and family income had no significance on Latino student retention or GPA.
Regarding familial descriptive such as education, financial status and marital
status, the majority of the participants’ parents, both mother and father, had no higher
than a junior high education. The majority of participants reported an annual family
income of $50,000 or less, as well as coming from an intact family.
Implications
The results of this study provide important implications for researchers currently
developing theories to explain not only the lack of engineering degrees produced in the
United States, but also the retention and academic achievement issues associated with
Latino engineering students. Students in the United States have weak math and science
skills compared to those in the rest of the world. Even our best academic students who
pursue careers in STEM are at significantly lower rates in the United States than in other

60
countries (Taningco, Mathew & Pachon, 2008). With the importance of these statistics,
few studies have actually been conducted on the specific role of math and mentoring and
support on the retention of these students. More development is needed in this area.
While there have been many critiques using Tinto’s (1975; 1982; 1988; 1993; 1997)
theoretical framework on racial/ethnic minorities, this study supports its continued use,
with an understanding that cultural models and settings play an even more important role
in the retention outcomes of Latino engineering students.
This study provided findings on the effects of acculturation, mentoring and
support, use of structural support and high school math experience in the retention and
academic achievement of Latino college students. While not all measures were
significant, those that were reinforce the literature and highlighted major findings to
continue to support efforts in combating these pitfalls. With the use of the Cultural
Models and Cultural Settings model, results revealed that college mentoring and support
and structural support, each had a positive influence on the retention of Latino
engineering students. However, results revealed that it was only college mentoring and
not social support or structural support that had an influence on the academic
achievement of these students. With these results demonstrating the importance of
college mentoring across both retention and academic achievement, this further supports
the notion that first generation college students need additional help and motivation to
succeed. As previously mentioned, programs such as MEP offer the sense of community
and support and a Peer Mentoring program offers the “big brother” mentality that many
Latino students lack, since their parents often have no formal higher education with
which to support and relate.

61
While neither sub-scale of acculturation was significant in relation to retention, it
was only the non-Hispanic domain that was relevant with regard to academic
achievement. These results bring to question current literature which suggests that
bidimensional acculturation is the recommended process to be used with Latino students
(Marin & Gamba, 1996), as it is a change in behavior on two cultural domains. The
results from this study do not lend support to Castillo et al’s. (2008) report that students
may feel pressured to assimilate to the university culture in order to be successful in
college. Rather, it may be the fact that engineering study and engineering education is a
culture within itself. For this study, the institution where these students were surveyed is
classified as a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), Castillo et al’s. (2008) claim may not
be supported, simply due to the fact that these students feel at home and welcomed by the
university, as they see many familiar faces around campus. For this particular group of
students, while the university as a whole may seem foreign, their classmates and
surroundings do not. Students, regardless of culture, need to assimilate to the professor’s
expectations and the rigors of the courses, which are different than those of the university
itself. Engineering disciplines have a culture within themselves. Many professors do not
classify these students as one ethnicity or another; rather, they simply see students who
are trying to master a difficult subject. The engineering environment is one that is
organized around numbers and data. The sense of pride within the engineering
community is one without color; professors only see their students as being able to get
through a difficult subject or not.
While high school math experience may be helpful in understanding the career
path of many students, and subsequent STEM retention, considerable further research

62
must be explored with respect to Latino students. Algebra, regardless of when it is
learned, is the key to all engineering study. While calculus is primarily used within the
engineering curriculum, the underling math that is required to fully understand the
complex calculations is basic algebra. Without valid and reliable results as to the
applicability of these instruments for Latino engineering students, high school math
experience should still be considered as a predictor of success in engineering. Failure to
fully grasp a solid math foundation early in a student’s academic career will result in a
delayed start to engineering coursework once enrolled in college.
The findings within this study are important in understanding the role that
acculturation, mentoring and support, use of structural support and math experience have
on the retention and academic achievement of Latino engineering students. While
additional studies must be conducted, these findings should be considered by
practitioners who promote STEM education, particularly those who promote STEM
within underrepresented groups. It takes more than a single variable to determine the
success or failures of Latino students; the rich cultural background, sense of community,
and pride that this population displays contributes to the understanding of various aspects
required for academic achievement.
Limitations of Study
Several limitations and interpretations must be taken into consideration with
regard to this study and should be addressed in future studies. The first item to consider
was the GPAs of the students; these were all self-reported, which means they might have
overestimated or simply guessed, due to actually having a lower GPA.

63
Secondly, the study was limited by the type of students who participated in this
study. The majority of these participants were second generation Mexican-American
students who came from low income, poorly educated households. Researchers should
use caution in generalizing these findings across the entire population of Latino students
who come from different socioeconomic and educational backgrounds. Future studies
should focus on a more diverse group of students from a range of generations and a larger
number of participants from all Latino subgroups.
Finally, another limitation to this study involved the instrumentations used. While
the Bidimensional Acculturation Scale for Hispanics (BAS) (Marin & Gamba, 1996) was
specifically developed for use with the Hispanic population, there have been other studies
that have been conducted using Cuellar et al’s., (1995) Acculturation Rating Scale for
Mexican Americans-II (ARSMA-II) with a similar population. Considering that the
majority of the participants were second generation Mexican-Americans, this scale might
have produced different results. In addition to this scale, there were others, created by the
researcher, to formulate the questions in more detail. Although mixed reliabilities were
found with the questions generated, more empirical research should be conducted on each
of these measures, specifically for high school math experience.
Future Directions
This study provided insight into the relationship between acculturation, mentoring
and support, use of structural support and math experience amongst Latino engineering
students. Future research, utilizing these same variables, remains viable and it would be
ideal to continue this research, utilizing a longitudinal design over the course of the
students’ college careers. In such a study, it would be interesting to note whether or not

64
the effects of these variables continued to influence the retention and academic
achievement of the students. While the use of self-reported GPAs provided an
understanding of the relationships between variables, future research may produce
different results by including a combination of self-reports and interviews to provide an
even greater contextualization regarding the influence of academic achievement among
Latino engineering students.
This study was conducted at a Hispanic Serving Institution, where a student might
feel more acculturated to his peers. Future studies should consider this factor as a
potential reason why acculturation was not significant. In addition to being a Hispanic
Serving Institution, the university that these participants attended is considered a
“commuter” school. In other words, the students tend to live within driving distance and
typically do not live on campus. Future studies might consider this fact as a means to
acculturation and mentoring and support, which could provide an even greater result
amongst students who are living away from home, especially during the first year of
college.
Conclusion
This study sought to bridge the gap in the current literature by investigating the
relationship between acculturation, mentoring and support, use of structural support and
high school math experience on the effects of retention and GPA. Results of this study
indicate that college mentoring and support, and utilization of structural support were
both significant predictors of retention of Latino engineering students, while non-
Hispanic acculturation and math placement during the first quarter of college were

65
significant predictors of GPA. More specifically, college mentoring was found to be an
important influence on all aspects of retention and academic achievement.
Acculturation, which was a major factor of this study, along with high school
math experience, was not found to be significant in relation to Latino engineering student
retention. However, only Hispanic acculturation and the grade during which a student
first took algebra were not correlated with GPA. In an unanticipated finding, utilization
of structural support, in relation to GPA, was surprisingly insignificant, with a .97
significance rating.
Overall, this study has the potential to help STEM educators, specifically those
focused on the retention of underrepresented groups, understand the nuances associated
with Latino engineering students as they maneuver their way through higher education.
In addition, while math experience appears to play an important role in engineering
education, in this study there was no correlation with retention and only partial
correlation when predicting GPA. Future studies may concentrate more on mentoring and
support as this might prove to be an important variable for Latino engineering
educational achievement.

66
References
Adelman, Clifford. (1999). Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance
Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
Arbona, C. & Nora, A. (2007). The influence of academic and environmental factors on
Hispanic college degree attainment. The Review of Higher Education, 30 (3), 247-
269.
Barnett, M. (Winter, 2004). A qualitative analysis of family support and interaction
among black college students at an Ivy League university. The Journal of Negro
Education, 73(1), 53-68.
Bean, J. P. (Nov. – Dec., 1988) Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of
Student Attrition by Vincent Tinto. The Journal of Higher Education, 59 (6), 708-
711.
Bernold, L. E., Spurlin, J. E., & Anson, C. M. (July, 2007). Understanding our students:
A longitudinal study of success and failure in engineering with implications for
increased retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 96 (3), 263-274.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.),
Acculturation: Theory, models and some new findings (pp. 9-25). Boulder, CO:
West view.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, Acculturation and Adaptation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review 46, 5–68.
Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K.M. Chun, P.B.
Organista, & G. Marin (eds.), Acculturation: Advance in theory, measurement,

67
and applied research, 17-37. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Blossfeld, H. & Shavit, Y. (1993). Persisting barriers. In Y. Shavit& H. Blossfeld
(Eds.), Persistent Inequality. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). Pathways to success: affirming opportunities for science,
mathematics, and engineering majors. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2),
92-111.
Braswell, J.S., Lutkus, A.D., Grigg, W.S., Santapau, S.L., Tay-Lim, B., & Johnson, M.
(2001). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2000, Washington, DC: US
Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. (1997). The Effects of Poverty on Children. Future of
Children, 7(2), 55-71.
Bureau of Labor statistics. (2010). College enrollment and work activity of 2009 high
school graduates [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/hsgec.nr0.htm.
California Department of Education (2009). Glossary of terms. Retrieved July 26,
2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/glossary.asp.
Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor programs: Effects on
academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38(6), 727–
742.
Carey, K. (2005). One step from the finish line: Higher college graduation rates are
within our reach. Education Trust, 1-24.

68
Castillo, L., Cano, M., Chen, S., Blucker, R. & Olds, T. (2008). Family conflict and
intragroup marginalization as predictors of acculturative stress in Latino college
students. International Journal of Stress Management, 15 (1), 43-52.
Chapa, J. & De La Rosa, B. (2006). The problematic pipeline: Demographic trends and
Latino participation in graduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics programs. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 5 (3), 203-221.
Chubin, D., Donaldson, K., Olds, B., & Fleming, L. (2008). Educating generation net –
Can U.S. Engineering woo and win the competition for talent? Journal of
Engineering Education, 97 (3), 245-257.
Clark, D., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Cole, D. (2008). Constructive Criticism: The Role of Student-Faculty Interactions on
African American and Hispanic Students' Educational Gains. Journal of College
Student Development, 49(6), 587-605.
Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of Latino students in
science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of
College Student Development, 49(4), 285-300.
College Board (2004). AP and higher education.
Collier, P. J., & Morgan, D. L. (2008). Is this paper really due today?: Differences in
first-generation and traditional college students’ understanding of faulty
expectations. Journal of Higher Education, 55, 425-446.
Colvin, G. 2006. Can Americans compete? Fortune (July 25, 2006).

69
Crisp, G. (2009). Conceptualization and initial validation of the College Student
Mentoring Scale (CSMS). Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 177–
194.
Crockett, L. J., Iturbide, M, I., Torres, R. A., McGinley, M., Raffaelli, M., & Carlo, G.
(2007). Acculturative Stress, Social Support, and Coping: Relations to
psychological adjustment among Mexican American college students. Journal of
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13 (4), 347-355.
Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican
Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275-304.
Education (2010). Glossary of Education. Retrieved July 26, 2010, from
http://www.education.com/definition/educationally-disadvantaged/.
Edwards, L. M., (2004). Measuring perceived social support in Mexican American youth:
Psychometric properties of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social
Support. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 26, 187-194.
Engle, J., & O’Brien, C. (2004). Demography is not destiny: Increasing the graduation
rates of low-income college students at large public universities. The Pell Institute
for the study of opportunity in Higher Education, 1-68.
Engle, J., Bermeo, A., & O’Brien, C. (December 2006). Straight from the Source: What
works for first-generation college students. The Pell Institute for the study of
opportunity in Higher Education, 1-44.

70
Fuligni, A. J., Witkow, M. & Garcia, C. (2005). Ethnic identity and the academic
adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds.
Developmental Psychology, 41(5), 799-811.
Gallimore, R. & Goldenberg, C. (2001) Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36, 45-56.
Gandara, P. (2006). Strengthening the academic pipeline leading to careers in Math,
Science, and Technology for Latino students. Journal of Hispanic Higher
Education, 5 (3), 222-237.
Gershon, A. J. (1999). The perceived effectiveness of a peer-mentoring program and peer
mentors' influence on first-year student adjustment. Retrieved March 6, 2011,
from Dissertation Abstracts: WorldCat File: OCLC FirstSearch Item: 43972803.
Gibson, M. (2010). Profiles of Engineering and Engineering technology colleges. ASEE
publication.
Gloria, A.M., & Kurpius, R., (1996). The validation of the Cultural Congruity Scale and
the university Environment Scale with Chicano/a students. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 18, 533-549.
Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause of Effect? A
longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents’ aspirations and expectations, and
their children’s school performance, American Educational Research Journal,
38(3), 547-582.

71
Goldenberg, C., Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (1992). Effects of literacy materials from
school on Latino children's home experiences and early reading achievement.
American Journal of Education, 100, 497-536.
Gonyea, N. E. (2010). The impact of acculturation on Hispanic students' learning styles.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 9, 73-81.
Good, J., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. (2000). A promising prospect for minority retention:
students becoming peer mentors. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(4), 375-83.
Gutierrez, M. A., Franco, L. M., Powell, K. G., Peterson, N. A. & Reid, R. J. (2009).
Psychometric properties of the acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans
II: Exploring dimensions of marginality among a diverse Latino population.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 31, 340-356.
Herndon, M., Hirt, J. (2004). Black students and their families: What leads to success in
college. Journal of Black Studies, 34 (4), 489-513.
Hill, R. O. (2006). On the transition in mathematics from high school to Michigan State
University. Paper presented at Michigan State University, 1-21.
Holme, J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: school choice and the social
construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177-205.
Hurtado, A. (1997). Understanding multiple group identities: Inserting women into
cultural transformations. Journal of Social Issues, 53 (2), 299-328.
Hurtado, S. (1994). Latino Consciousness and Academic Success. In A. Hurtado, E. E.
García & R. Buriel (Eds.), The educational achievement of Latinos : barriers and
successes. Santa Cruz, CA: Regents of the University of California.

72
Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino Educational Outcomes and the Campus
Climate. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235-51.
Hurtado-Ortiz, M. T. & Gauvain, M. (2007). Postsecondary education among Mexican
American Youth: Contributions of parents, siblings, acculturation, and
generational status. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29, 181-191.
Jamieson, A., Curry, A., & Martizen, G. (1999). School enrollment in the United States –
Social and economic characteristics of students. Current Population Report No.
P20-533. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Kuh, G.D., & Love, P.G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In J. M.
Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 196-212). Nashville:
Vanderbilt University Press.
Laden, B. V. (2001). Hispanic-Serving institutions: Myths and realities. Peabody Journal
of Education, 76 (1), 73-92.
Landis, R. (2007). Studying Engineering. Los Angeles, CA: Discovery Press.
Lee, R. M., & Liu, H. T. (2001). Coping with intergenerational family conflict:
Comparison of Asian American, Hispanic, and European American college
students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 410–419.
Lee, W. (1999). Striving toward effective retention: the effect of race on mentoring
African American students. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 27-43.
Lopez, E. J., Ehly, S., Garcia-Vazquez, E. (2002). Acculturation, social support and
academic achievement of Mexican and Mexican American high school students:
An exploratory study. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 245-257.

73
Marable, T. (1999). The role of student mentors in a precollege engineering program.
Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 44-54.
Marin, G. & Gamba, R. J., (1996). A new measurement of Acculturation for Hispanics:
The bidimensional Acculturation scale for Hispanics (BAS). Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 18(3), 298-316.
Marin, G., & Marin, B. V. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Marquez, A. (2006). College scholarships for Latino students: Are opportunities being
missed? The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, 1-22.
Muraskin, L. & Lee, J., (2004). Raising the graduation rates of low-income college
students. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, 1-
87.
National Report Card. (2005). Retrieved from
http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2005/.
Niemann, Y. F., Romero, A., & Arbona, C. (2000). Effects of cultural orientation on the
perception of conflict between relationship and education goals for Mexican
American college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22, 46–63.
Nora, A. (2001). The depiction of significant others in Tinto's "rites of passage": A
reconceptualization of the influence of family and community in the persistence
process. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 41-56.
Olive, T. (2008). Desire for Higher Education in first-generation Hispanic college
students enrolled in an academic support program: A Phenomenological analysis.
Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 39 (2008), 81-110.

74
Otero, R., Rivas, O., & Rivera R. (2007). Predicting persistence of Hispanic students in
their 1
st
year of college. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 6(2), 163-173.
Pascarella, E., Pierson, C., Wolniak, G., & Terenzini, P. (2004). First-generation college
students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal
of Higher Education, 75 (3), 249-284.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Phinney. J. S., & Haas, K. (2003). The process of coping among ethnic minority first-
generation college freshmen: A narrative approach. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 143 (6), 707-726.
Rendon, L., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of
minority student retention in higher education. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking
the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Roach, R. (2006). Under Construction: Building the engineering pipeline. Diverse Issues
in Higher Education, 24-27.
Rogler, L. (1994). International migrations: A framework for directing research.
American Psychologist, 49,701-708.
Salinitri, G. (2005). The effects of formal mentoring on the retention rates for first-year,
low achieving students. Canadian Journal of Education, 28 (4), 853-873.
Santiago, D. A., & Cunningham, A. F. (2005). How Latino students pay for college:
Patterns of financial aid in 2003–2004. Excelencia in Education and the Institute
for Higher Education Policy, 1-52.

75
Scatton, L H., Ed., Coley, R. J., & McBride, A. (2006, Summer). Latino Achievement in
the Sciences, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. ETS Policy Notes, 14
(2), 1-12.
Stage, F. K. (1989). Motivation, academic and social integration, and the early dropout.
American Educational Research Journal, 26 (3), 385-402.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review,
67, 1-40.
Strayhorn, T. (2008). The role of supportive relationships in facilitating African
American males’ success in college. NASPA Journal, 45 (1), 26-48.
Taningco, M., Mathew, A., Pachon, H. (2008). STEM professions: Opportunities and
challenges for Latinos in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The
Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, 1-16.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P.M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive
development. Research in Higher Education, 37 (1), 1-22.
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college.
The Journal of Higher Education, 63, 603-618.
Tierney, W. G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. Journal of
Higher Education, 68 (1), 1-16.
Tierney, W. G. (2000). Power, identity, and the dilemma of college student departure. In
J. M.Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 213-234).
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

76
The White House (2009). Education to Innovate. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
Tinto, V., (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. The Journal of Higher
Education, 53(6), 687-700.
Tinto, V., (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character
of student leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438-455.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2
nd
ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V., (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of
student persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
Tornatzky, L. G., Cutler, R. H., & Lee, J. (2002). College knowledge: What Latino
parents need to know and why they don’t know it. Los Angeles, CA: Thomas
Rivera Policy Institute.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/usinterimproj/.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S.
higher education. Washington, D.C.
Valadez, J. R. (2002). The influence of social capital on mathematics course selection by
Latino high school students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 24 (3),
319-339.

77
Veenstra, C., Dey, E., & Herrin, G. (2008). Is Modeling of Freshman Engineering
Success Different from Modeling of Non-Engineering Success? Journal of
Engineering Education (Washington, D.C.), 97(4), 467-79.
Walden, S., & Foor, C. (2008). "What's to keep you from dropping out?" Student
Immigration into and within Engineering. Journal of Engineering Education
(Washington, D.C.), 97(2), 191-205.
White, P.A., Gamoran, A., Smithson, J., & Porter, A. C. (1996). Upgrading the high
school math curriculum: Math course-taking patterns in seven high schools in
California and New York. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 285-
307.
Wolters, C. A. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 224-235.
Zarate, M. E., & Gallimore, R. (2005). Gender differences in factors leading to college
enrollment: A longitudinal analysis of Latina and Latino students. Harvard
Educational Review, 75(4), 383-489.
Zarate, M.E., & Pachon, H.P. (2006). Perceptions of college financial aid among
California Latino youth. The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, 1-7.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, D. S. & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional
scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52 (1), 30-
41.

78
Appendix A
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
FAMILIAL AND CULTURAL VARIABLES AS PREDICTORS OF RETENTION OF
LATINO ENGINEERING STUDENTS
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore the retention issues associated with first- and
second-year Latino engineering students by investigating the students’ acculturation,
college mentoring and support, utilization of structural support and high school math
experience among Latino Engineering students during their first and second year of
college. This study aims to investigate the following two research questions: (1) Are there
differences in acculturation, college mentoring and support, utilization of structural
support, and high school math experience in predicting retention rates of Latino
engineering students?, and (2) Does acculturation, college mentoring and support,
utilization of structural support and high school math experience predict a higher earned
GPA in Latino engineering students?

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
This survey is completely voluntary, and you may choose to terminate this survey at any
time. If you volunteer to participate in this study, you may withdraw at any time without
consequence. You may also refuse to answer any questions that you do not want to
answer and still remain in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this
research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
By participating in this survey, you will have the opportunity to enter a raffle to win one
of four $25 Best Buy® gift cards. In order to participate in the raffle, you will need to
provide your name and e-mail address in a separate survey that you will be given linked
to at the end of this survey. You will be notified at the e-mail address you provide if you
are chosen as a raffle winner.

CONFIDENTIALITY
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your
name, address or other identifiable information will not be collected. Information
obtained in the survey will only be reported in an aggregated form without any
potentially identifiable descriptions connected to individuals. The names and emails
collected for the raffle portion of this study, will not be used for any other purposes, nor
will they be attached to the survey results.

When the results of the research are published, no identifiable information will be
included. Your responses to the online survey will be downloaded directly by the
researcher. The data will be stored for three years after the study has been completed and
then destroyed.

79
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Eric
Lara, M.A. at elara@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

80
Appendix B

Demographic and Background Information

Directions: Please provide the following information.
1. Age: _____

2. Gender: ____Male ____Female

3. What year did you enter CPP? ____2008 _____2009 _____Other

4. How many units have you completed? _______CPP _____ Total

5. What is your racial/ethnic background (check all that apply)?
_____ Mexican _____ Cuban____ Puerto Rican _______ South American _____ Central
American _____Spanish _____Other
(specify)_____________________________________

6. In what country were you born? _________________________
7. How long have you lived in the U.S.?
__ Less than 1 year
__ 1-5 years
__ 5-10 years
__ 10-15 years
__ 15-20 years
__ More than 20 years

8. What generation are you?
____ 1st generation (if you are NOT born in the U.S.)
____ 2nd generation (if you are born in the U.S. but at least 1 parent is not)
____ 3rd generation (if at least one grandparent is born in the U.S.)
____ 4th generation (if at least one great-grandparent is born in the U.S.)
____ above 4th generation

9. Please describe the marital status of your biological parents?
____ Currently married to each other
____ Divorced remarried to others
____ Divorced and unmarried
____ One or both parent deceased
____ Other

10. What is your annual family income?
_____ less than $25,000
_____ $25,001-50,000
_____ $50,001-75,000

81
_____ $75,001-100,000
_____ $100,001-150,000
_____ Over $150,000
_____ I am financially independent and do not receive much support from my family

11. How many years of education does your father have?
Note: Please complete this information based on the person who was most involved in parenting you as a
father whether it be your biological father, stepfather, grandfather, or some other significant father figure.
__ Elementary
__ Jr high
__ High school
__ College
__ Masters
__ Advanced degree (Such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.)
__ Do not know

12. How many years of education does your mother have?
Note: Please complete this information based on the person who was most involved in parenting you as a
mother whether it be your biological mother, stepmother, grandmother, or some other significant mother
figure.
__Elementary
__Jr high
__ High school
__ College
__ Masters
__ Advanced degree (Such as M.D., J.D., Ph.D.)
__Do not know

13. What major did you declare when you entered college?: _________________
14. Are you currently enrolled at CPP? ____Yes _____No
If Yes:
14A. Current major:_____________________
14B. Current overall GPA (For example, 2.35 or 3.25):___________
If No:
15A. NOT currently enrolled in school: ________
Currently enrolled at: ________ (school)
15B. What is your most recent CPP GPA?:_____________

82
Appendix C

Acculturation

Bidimensional Acculturation Scale (BAS)
Language Use Subscale
Directions: Please use the following scale to answer the questions below:

almost always (4); often (3); sometimes. (2); almost never (1)

1. How often do you speak English?
2. How often do you speak in English with your friends?
3. How often do you think in English?
4. How often do you speak Spanish?
5. How often do you speak in Spanish with your friends?
6. How often do you think in Spanish?
Linguistic Proficiency Subscale
very well (4); well (3); poorly (2); very poorly (1)
7. How well do you speak English?
8. How well do you read in English?
9. How well do you understand television programs in English?
10. How well do you understand radio programs in English?
11. How well do you write in English?
12. How well do you understand music in English?
13. How well do you speak Spanish?
14. How well do you read in Spanish?
15. How well do you understand television programs in Spanish?

83
16. How well do you understand radio programs in Spanish?
17. How well do you write in Spanish?
18. How well do you understand music in Spanish?
Electronic Media Subscale
almost always (4); often (3); sometimes. (2); almost never (1)

19. How often do you watch television programs in English?
20. How often do you listen to radio programs in English?
21. How often do you listen to music in English?
22. How often do you watch television programs in Spanish?
23. How often do you listen to radio programs in Spanish?
24. How often do you listen to music in Spanish?

84

Appendix D

Mentoring and Support

Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS)
Directions: We are interested in how you feel about the following statements. Read each statement carefully.
Indicate how you feel about each statement.
Mark the “1” if you Very Strongly Disagree Mark the “2” if you Strongly Disagree
Mark the “3” if you Mildly Disagree Mark the “4” if you are Neutral
Mark the “5” if you Mildly Agree Mark the “6” if you Strongly Agree
Mark the “7” if you Very Strongly Agree

1. There is a special person who is around
when I am in need.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
2. There is a special person with whom I
can share my joys and sorrows.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
3. My family really tries to help me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
4. I get the emotional help and support I
need from my family.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
5. I have a special person who is a real
source of comfort to me.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
6. My friends really try to help me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri

85

7. I can count on my friends when things
go wrong.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri
8. I can talk about my problems with my
family.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
9. I have friends with whom I can share my
joys and sorrows.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri
10. There is a special person in my life who
cares about my feelings.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SO
11. My family is willing to help me make
decisions.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fam
12. I can talk about my problems with my
friends.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fri

86

College Student Mentoring Scale (CSMS)
Directions: We are interested in how you feel about the following statements. Read each
statement carefully. Indicate how you feel about each statement.
While in college, I have had someone in my life who. . . .
(strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, neutral = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1)
1. I look up to regarding college-related issues
2. helps me work toward achieving my academic aspirations
3. helps me realistically examine my degree or certificate options
4. I can talk with openly about social issues related to being in college
5. I admire
6. helps me perform to the best of my abilities in my classes
7. encourages me to consider educational opportunities beyond my current
plans
8. I want to copy their behaviors as they relate to college-going
9. provides ongoing support about the work I do in my classes
10. gives me emotional support
11. encourages me to talk about problems I am having in my social life
12. sets a good example about how to relate to other people
13. helps me to consider the sacrifices associated with my chosen degree
14. expresses confidence in my ability to succeed academically
15. serves as a model for how to be successful in college
16. discusses the implications of my degree choice
17. makes me feel that I belong in college
18. encourages me to use him or her as a sounding board to explore what I
want
19. shares personal examples of difficulties they have had to overcome to
accomplish academic goals
20. helps me carefully examine my degree or certificate options

87

21. I can talk with openly about personal issues related to being in college
22. encourages me to discuss problems I am having with my coursework
23. questions my assumptions by guiding me through a realistic appraisal of
my skills
24. recognizes my academic accomplishments
25. provides practical suggestions for improving my academic performance

88

Appendix E

Utilization of Structural Support

University Environment Scale (UES)
Directions: Please respond to these next statements using the following scale:

Not at all Very True
1 2 3 4

1. Class sizes are so large that I feel like a number.
2. The library staff is willing to help me find materials/books.
3. University staff have been warm and friendly.
4. I do not feel valued as a student on campus.
5. Faculty have not been available to discuss my academic concerns.
6. Financial aid staff has been willing to help me with financial concerns.
7. The university encourages/sponsors ethnic groups on campus.
8. There are tutoring services available for me on campus.
9. The university seems to value minority students.
10. Faculty have been available for help outside of class.
11. The university seems like a cold, uncaring place to me.
12. Faculty have been available to help me make course choices.
13. I feel as if no one cares about me personally on this campus.
14. I feel comfortable in the university environment.

89

Researcher generated questions

Directions: Please respond to these next statements using the following scale to describe
how much each statement applies to you.

Not at all Very True
1 2 3 4

1. I often use the free tutoring center
2. I have used the Career Center
3. I know where the Learning Resources Center is located
4. I have utilized the writing center
5. I see my faculty advisor on a regular basis
6. I am actively involved in a student club or organization
7. I am actively involved in a sorority or fraternity
8. I tend to study in groups
9. I tend to study and do homework on campus

90

Appendix F

High School Math Experience

Directions: Please answer the following questions based on your math experience.

a. High School
1. In which grade did you take Algebra I?
7
th
8
th
9
th
10
th
Did not take Algebra I

b. Incoming math placement - College
1. Based on the placement test or AP score, which was your first math class in
college?
Math: 10 11 12 105 106 112 114 115 116
214 215 216 224

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship among the nurturance and monitoring dimensions of parenting, academic self-concept, and acculturation, in the academic achievement of Latino college students

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

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

PDF

Engineering my community cultural wealth: testimonios of male Latino community college engineering students

PDF

The college labyrinth: the educational journey of first-generation Latino students in engineering

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

Sex-role orientation, gender role attitudes, and acculturation as predictors of psychological well-being

PDF

Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students

PDF

Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates

PDF

African American engineering students at River City Community College: Factors that improve transfer to four-year engineering degree programs

PDF

Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions

PDF

The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

Latine college belonging: influences and differences of immigration and college generation

PDF

The relationship of ethnicity, gender, acculturation, intergenerational relations, and sense of belonging in the institution to academic success among Asian American undergraduates

PDF

Nursing students' perceptions of formal faculty mentoring

PDF

The impact of learning communities on the retention and social integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

The 21st-century principal: the recruitment, mentoring, and retention of principals

PDF

How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?

PDF

Assessing the impact of the Puente Project on Latino males in California community colleges

Asset Metadata

Creator Lara, Eric (author)

Core Title Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/25/2011

Defense Date 03/23/2011

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

Tag acculturation,GPA,high school math,Latino engineering,mentoring,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,STEM,underrepresented

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth, H. (committee chair), Cole, Darnell (committee member), Maddox, Anthony (committee member)

Creator Email elara@usc.edu,ericlara2@aim.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3771

Unique identifier UC1434710

Identifier etd-Lara-4528 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-444104 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3771 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Lara-4528.pdf

Dmrecord 444104

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Lara, Eric

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu