Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
In their own words: Polynesian students' perspectives on persistence in an American university
(USC Thesis Other)
In their own words: Polynesian students' perspectives on persistence in an American university
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
IN THEIR OWN WORDS:
POLYNESIAN STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVES ON
PERSISTENCE IN AN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
by
Norman W. Evans
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
May 2001
Copyright 2001 Norman W. Evans
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3027715
Copyright 2001 by
Evans, Norman W.
All rights reserved.
___ ®
UMI
UMI Microform 3027715
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
This dissertation, written by
Norman W. E vans
under the direction of hl*LJ)issertation Committee, and
approved by all members of the Committee, has been
presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School
of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirementsfor
the degree of
D o c to r o f Education
’ .an
Dissertation Committee
Chairperson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dedication
Students in this study reconfirmed something I have always known—
families are central to all that is really meaningful.
It is to my family that I dedicate this work.
My parents gave me vision, encouragement, and confidence at an early age.
My wife, KayLynn, has loved and supported me through it all. This work is as
much hers as it is mine.
And my children Nathan, Mickell, Jamie, and Jason are the principal reasons for
this whole enterprise. I hope I have given you vision, and encouragement.
Of your potential, I am absolutely confident.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One of the first lessons I learned when I moved to Hawaii over 20 years
ago was how giving the Polynesian people are. You must be careful what you ask
for I discovered; they give freely. All the students I interviewed in this study
generously gave of time and self. Their accounts were always personal and often
emotional, yet they willingly gave. This research would not have been possible
without their stories. In large measure, this study belongs to the students who told
it. They may be anonymous to the readers; I will never forget them. Each has
touched me profoundly.
No one gave more freely of themselves than the individuals who helped me
locate the students who had returned to their Pacific island homes. Freddy Riemer
made my work in Tahiti a miraculous success. In three days, I interviewed
seventeen former students —an impossible task without Freddy’s help. Merci
beaucoup. Pita and Lani Hopoate made my return to the Kingdom of Tonga both
memorable and productive. Liahona is exactly that—a Liahona. Malo e aupito.
Those who assisted in Samoa were many. Beth Hunt and Sonny Aiono were
especially helpful. Beth knew all the right numbers to call, and Sonny helped
bring busy teachers to an important conversation. I could not have gathered the
rich Samoan stories I did without their help. Faafatai lava. And finally, I cannot
thank enough those in Fiji who participated in this study. They traveled great
distances at considerable discomfort and expense to meet with me in Nadi at a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
time when it was unsafe for me to travel to Suva. Meli Lesuma made Fiji
accessible in the midst of political strife. Vinaka vaka-levu.
Many others helped. Rick Nelson and his relentless red pen are appreciated
beyond measure. Michelle Campbell’s patience, even temper, and smooth hand
on the computer brought order to disorder in short order. Marie Paongo was
instrumental in finding students who had disappeared. The Tongan “grapevine”
works well. Jack King pushed, pulled and cajoled at the right times. We began
this journey together; it continues.
I am sincerely grateful to BYU Hawaii for its institutional support. The extent
of this research would not have been possible without the resources and support I
received from the institution. More importantly, I appreciate BYU Hawaii’s
commitment to students. Generous support for this project exemplifies that
commitment.
Finally, few students who go through the rigors of graduate school ever have
the rare privilege of learning from a mentor like William Tierney. I consider
myself indeed fortunate to learn from such a fine scholar and teacher.
Thank you all.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION ..... .......................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................. ................. iii
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................ vi
LIST OF APPENDIXES................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT....................................................... ............................... viii
CHAPTERS
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................... 1
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE................... 19
3. RESEARCH DESIGN ............................................. 68
4. POLYNESIAN STUDENTS ON RETENTION 105
5. IMPROVING POLYNESIAN STUDENT
RETENTION................................................................ 170
REFERENCES...................................................................................... 205
APPENDIXES..................................................................................... 217
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1 Fall Semester BYUH International Asian and Polynesian
Student Retention R ates................................................................ 11
2.1 An Overview of Tinto’s Student Retention Model Postulates 31
2.2 Total Student Enrollment 1976 to 1996 Comparison.......................... 47
2.3 Percentage in Higher Education by Racial or Ethnic Group 49
2.4 Percent Enrollment of Racial/Ethnic Groups by Type of
Institution. 1996 to 1986 Comparison ......................................... 51
2.5 International Student Graduation Rates at Selected Bachelor
Institutions........................................................................................ 61
3.1 1996 Cohort Enrollment Status by Country (as of July 2000)............ 86
3.2 1996 Cohort Residence (as of July 2000)............................................. 91
3.3 Interview Participation by Country and Group Type......................... 92
3.4 Focus Group/Interview Distribution by Group.................................... 97
4.1 1996 Cohort Participants’ GPA Profile by Country............................ 121
4.2 Selected Students’ Profiles..................................................... 130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Page
Appendix 1. International Student Data Request Letter.................... 217
Appendix 2. BYU-Hawaii Honor Code.............................................. 218
Appendix 3. Student Invitation to Participate..................................... 221
Appendix 4. Project Description.......................................................... 222
Appendix 5. Human Subjects Review................................................ 223
Appendix 6. Interview Protocol........................................................... 226
Appendix 7. Student Focus Group Protocol... ............... 229
Appendix 8. Faculty/Administrator Focus Group Protocol.............. 231
Appendix 9. Informed Consent Letter................................................ 233
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
Tinto’s interactional model (1975, 1987,1993) has been the focal point for
student retention research in higher education for over two decades. Despite the
volumes of quantitative studies attempting to explain student dropout using
Tinto’s model, results have been inconclusive and only moderately supportive of
the theory’s postulates. This is especially true of research on minority student
populations. What is more, qualitative research on Tinto’s model is almost non
existent in spite of the foundational insight such research can bring to theory, and
despite Tinto’s and other critics’ appeal for it.
This study examined persistence patterns of a cohort of international
Polynesian students that had an unusually high attrition rate. The study is based
on two premises: Understanding fundamental issues is prerequisite to explaining
dropout behavior, and second, that understanding is best gained directly from
those involved. Data were gathered from 89 participants through in-depth
interviews and focus groups. Tinto’s postulates were then evaluated against these
students’ perspectives of the departure puzzle.
Results of this research suggest that other factors not accounted for in Tinto’s
model influence these students’ persistence in college. Predominate among these
other factors is “new-found” freedom.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
"Though it is important to know o f the broad forces that shape persistence in the
aggregate, our knowledge o f attrition must eventually be informed by the particular
person and particular setting with which we are dealing” (Tinto, 1993, p. 69).
Students have been dropping out of colleges and universities almost as long as
there have been colleges and universities. While attrition has not always been the
prominent issue that it is today, its history runs long and deep through the annals
of higher education. Student drop out has been well documented in post
secondary education in the United States for over one hundred years (Gerald,
1992; McConnell Castle, 1993; Noel, Levitz, and Saluri, 1987; Tinto, 1982), and
the literature attempting to explain the problem spans nearly five decades
(McConnell Castle, 1993, 1993; Noel et al., 1987; Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991;
Tinto, 1982). “Few problems in higher education” says Tinto (1987) “have
received as much attention” (p. 36). Indeed, there is no shortage of student
retention literature. Feldman’s and Newcomb’s, The Impact o f College on
Students (1973) reviews more than 1,500 studies related to student retention
issues from the 1920s to the mid-1960s. Pascarella’s and Terenzini’s How
College Affects Students (1991) documents over 3,000 studies on student
development in college between 1967 and the late 1980s. Despite the abundant
research on student attrition in higher education, the root causes remain elusive,
and the solutions inadequate. What follows is a general overview of current
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
retention thinking and how it is brought to bare on a specific retention problem
experienced by a group of international Polynesian students.
Student Retention in Higher Education
While retention research over the past several decades is extensive, the bulk of
the research focuses on mainstream students attending four year institutions
(Gillespie and Nobel, 1992; Krotseng, 1992; Nora & Cabrera, 1993; Pascarella
and Terenzini, 1980). Despite the fact that a substantial literature on community
college students, commuter students, adult students and minority students has
developed within the past decade, our greatest understanding of student
persistence issues in higher education is based on aggregated numbers from four
year institutions (Makuakane-Drechsel, 1999). More to the point, much of the
current research is based on several sophisticated, causal models of student
dropout behavior. Of all the persistence theories and models that have been
posited, none has generated more research and discussion than the work of
Vincent Tinto (1975,1987,1993). Tierney (1992) notes while a variety of
theoretical models exist “with regard to student departure in lower grade levels,
Tinto’s theory has served as the basis for virtually all current research in higher
education” (p. 22). And as is often the case, popular theories tend to drive policies
and practices. Many retention strategies broadly employed in higher education
today are derived from Tinto’s interactional model of student retention.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
Tinto on Retention
Tinto’s original model (1975) has gone through several iterations, which will
be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2, but the basic theory remains intact. The
original model is built on Spady’s (1971) work on retention and Durkheim’s
(1951) theory about suicide and the need for social integration. The central
constructs of the model are that students enter college with individual
characteristics, as well as personal commitments to the institution and to
graduation, and that a student must become academically and socially integrated;
all of these factors influence a student’s departure decision. Among the pre-entry
characteristics are family socioeconomic status, parental educational level, and
parental expectations. Individual qualities include academic ability, race, and
gender. Tinto also acknowledges that pre-college schooling experiences such as
high school achievement and social attainments impact a student's decision to
leave college.
Once a student is in school, both the initial commitment to the institution and
commitment to the goal of graduation affect the level of social and academic
integration. The level of social and academic integration in turn affects a student’s
subsequent commitment to the institution and the goal of graduation. The greater
the levels of commitment and integration a student achieves, the more likely it is
that student will persist in college. An important feature of Tinto’s model is that
the onus of integration rests upon the student. In Tinto’s words, “At the very
outset, persistence in college requires individuals to adjust, both socially and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
intellectually, to the new and sometimes quite strange world of college” (1993,
p. 45).
Tinto’ s Theory and Minorities
Tinto’s is unquestionably the most extensively studied theory to date on
student persistence in college (Braxton et al., 1997), and it has generated our most
mature research on student retention (Peterson, 1985). Despite this high level of
attention and extensive research, the model only moderately accounts for
retention patterns of mainstream, traditional students (Braxton et ah, 1997), and it
is even less accurate when considering non-traditional and minority students’
persistence patterns.
No research to date brings the limitations of Tinto’s model to light more than
the work of Braxton, Sullivan and Johnson (1997). Their work examines some of
the most prolific researchers of student attrition over the past two decades (Bean,
1983; Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Pascarella, 1985; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1983;
Pascarella & Chapman, 1983; Pascarella & Smart; Rootman, 1972; Spady, 1971;
Stage, 1989; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1978; Tinto, 1975,1987,1993). One of the
more significant contributions of Braxton’s work is the finding that most
quantitative support for Tinto’s model has been modest and group-specific—
“traditional types of students.” Said another way, in some cases, the explanations
developed within a specific setting may not be applicable to another (Braxton et
al., 1997; Tierney, 1992a; Tinto, 1993). Tinto (1993) himself notes that, while
conclusions regarding the “roots of attrition may hold for most students, it may
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
not apply equally well for each and every subgroup of students” (p.69). We must
eventually allow “the particular person and particular setting with which we are
dealing” (Tinto, 1993, p. 69) to lead us to understand student departure from
higher education. We now turn to the particular details on which this study is
based.
The “Particulars”
This study focuses on the persistence patterns of international Polynesian
students attending Brigham Young University Hawaii (BYU-Hawaii). Over the
past decade, this particular subset of students has demonstrated retention patterns
quite different from that of other international students at the same institution.
First, the retention rates for these students when looked at statistically are
alarmingly low. What is more, they tend to leave school much later in their
college careers than national statistics suggest is typical. The explanations for this
pattern of leave taking have never been fully investigated. This study will help to
tell the story of those Polynesian students.
International Students
“Nonresident Aliens,” as they are classified in most U.S. government reports
make up approximately three percent of higher education’s total population
(NCES, 1997), and their numbers have increased substantially over the past two
decades. Between 1976 and 1996 the total number of international students
enrolled in U.S. higher education more than doubled from 218,000 to 464,000. At
the end of 1999, the total had climbed to 490,933 (Desuisseaux, 1999). Nearly
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
one third of all international students who leave their countries for post
secondary education come to the United States (Watkins, 1992). Of the nearly
half million international students now studying in the United States,
approximately half of them are enrolled in undergraduate programs.
Despite their significant presence, very little is known about international
students’ retention rates. Government reports provide substantial details about
their pre-entry characteristics (Davis, 1997). However, once students enroll in a
U.S. school, it becomes the sponsoring institution’s responsibility to maintain
records and report progress. Unfortunately, most reporting is done in-house with
limited public access. Whitfield (1993) found, after a thorough review of
international student literature, “that there is extensive research on higher
education retention/attrition, but the literature on international student
retention/attrition appears to be virtually non-existent” (p. 4). Since Whitfield’s
literature survey in 1993, little has changed. Limited information has been
reported publicly on international student retention rates.
Brigham Young University—Hawaii
International students have always been a part of Brigham Young University
Hawaii since it first opened its doors as a two-year junior college (then Church
College of Hawaii) in 1955. Located on the north shore of Oahu, BYU-Hawaii is
a small, four-year liberal arts university privately owned and operated by the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). The school’s recruiting efforts
among international students, primarily from the Pacific Basin and Asian Rim
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
countries, have consistently placed BYU-Hawaii as the liberal arts school with
the highest percentage of international students in the nation (Desuisseaux, 1999).
Approximately forty percent of BYU-Hawaii ’ s 2,000 students come from
between forty and fifty different nations (BYUH, 2000). The Pacific Island and
Asian students have traditionally been the largest international groups; each
represents 20 percent of the total student population (BYUH, 1999). Also of note,
over, 95 percent of all students admitted to BYU-Hawaii are members of the LDS
church. The international student percentage of members is slightly higher than
the school average.
Pacific Island Students at BYU-Hawaii
BYU-Hawaii’s location in the Hawaiian islands has obviously contributed to
its strong Polynesian representation. Furthermore, the limited availability of
higher educational opportunities in the Pacific Basin has added to BYU-Hawaii’s
appeal to the Polynesian students. Most Pacific island students who pursue a post
secondary education have to travel abroad with the most common destinations
being Fiji, New Zealand, Australia, and Hawaii. Over its forty-five year history,
BYU-Hawaii has enrolled students from all of the major Pacific islands as well as
many of the smaller, remote islands and atolls. Most BYU-Hawaii students come
from (in alphabetical order) American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, French
Polynesia, Kiribati, New Zealand, Samoa, and Tonga.
Typically, Pacific Island students at BYU-Hawaii are admitted on a work-study
status which ensures them a job, room and board, medical insurance, and tuition if
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
they maintain good academic standing and continue to work nineteen hours a
week at their jobs. Most of them are first-generation university students who have
far exceeded the education of their parents. Their parents typically dropped out of
school before completing high school. Having at least one parent with less than a
complete elementary education is still quite common. Nearly all of BYU-
Hawaii’s students have been schooled in British or French systems since they
started school as children. BYU-Hawaii is their first exposure to an American
education and a university. Few of them have ever been off their own islands
much less set foot on a university campus. In sum, they generally come from
backgrounds that are culturally, economically, and geographically far removed
from what they experience in Hawaii. Consider this brief glimpse of life in French
Polynesia as it is presented by one of the students we will hear more from in
Chapter 4:
There is one road on my island, twenty cars, and no televisions. It is
such a small place. There is nothing to do there. Usually there is no
electricity. A boat arrives about once a month to deliver supplies. And
people pay for their goods with coconuts and fish because there is very
little money on the island .... When I reached high school, I had to
leave home and live with my auntie on the main island. We don’t
have a high school on [my island].
While this student’s experience is not typical of BYU-Hawaii students, it is
not uncommon either. Another student from a small island, also in French
Polynesia related how she did not understand the concept of cheating in school
until she left home to study in a high school in Tahiti. “I did not understand why
students would do that [cheat]. Back home, [there] was no such a thing. Why
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
would we do that? We had no reason to. Such an idea never crossed my mind."
One faculty member at BYU-Hawaii who earned his bachelor’s degree at BYU-
Hawaii a number of years ago described his experiences as a new student at BYU-
Hawaii as the “biggest adventure” of his life. One has to wonder what “the new
and sometimes quite strange world of college” (Tinto, 1993, p. 45) looks like to
students coming from Polynesia. Do factors that affect college persistence
identified by Tinto and other researchers also apply to Polynesian students? Can
Polynesians more accurately be classified as minority students when it comes to
persistence matters? Such questions prompted this study.
The Problem
Student retention is a challenge at nearly every post-secondary institution in
the country, and considerable resources are allocated to keep students from
dropping out (Noel et al., 1987; Tinto, 1993). When students leave school for
reasons that can be avoided everyone involved loses. The individual who drops
out is losing potential earning power. There is a direct correlation between a
person's level of education and his or her chances of professional and economic
success, not to mention the loss of broader perspectives and opportunities in
today’s rapidly changing world. And the university that loses students is failing to
meet its economic and academic missions. Understandably, universities pay great
attention to student retention. BYU-Hawaii is no exception.
BYU-Hawaii allocates substantial resources to improve retention among all its
student groups. Efforts include freshman-year experiences, new student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
orientations, and enhanced student and academic services. In spite of best
efforts, curbing Polynesian attrition rates has proved to be a daunting task.
Students from the Pacific islands persist at much lower rates than might be
expected of students attending a four-year, private university. Nationally, four-
year private institutions graduate students at a rate of nearly 56 percent (ACT,
2000; Noel Levitiz, Noel et al., 1987; Tinto, 1993). Polynesians at BYU-Hawaii
graduate at a rate somewhere around 30 percent (BYUH, 1999). This pattern has
been consistent for a number of years and is particularly perplexing to university
officials. Statistical analyses have been helpful in understanding the scope of the
problem, but little has been done to understand the problem’s foundational issues.
What follows is a more detailed explanation of the problem and its context.
Contextual Framework
Since 1994 when the university began keeping retention records by cohort, an
average of 71.7 percent of the Polynesian students depart the university by the
beginning of their fourth year. Furthermore, Polynesian students do not follow the
“critical first year” pattern. An abundance of research suggests that the first year
is critical for student retention (Astin, 1977,1993; Noel and Levitz, 1983;
Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1987, 1993). This research implies that
once a student has persisted through the first year, chances of university
completion increase significantly. Polynesians at BYUH do not follow this trend.
For Pacific Islanders, their second year at BYUH is more “critical” than the first.
By the end of the first year, 28 percent have dropped out of school. This is right at
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the national average of four-year public institutions and four percent higher than
private schools (ACT, 2000). An additional 31 percent drop out by the end of the
second year. By the conclusion of year three, 18 percent more are gone. Only 23-
30 percent of the original cohort enters the fourth year.
These numbers are more meaningful when compared with Asians at BYUH
(see Table 1.1) which is the international group most similar to the Polynesians in
enrollment numbers. By the beginning of the third year, 53 percent of the Asian
cohort that entered BYUH in 1994 were still enrolled. This stands in stark contrast
to 33 percent of the Polynesians w ho entered school the same year.
Table 1.1
Fall Semester BYUH International Asian and Polynesian
Student Retention Rates
Cohort End of
First year
Retention
End of
Second Year
Retention
End of
Third Year
Retention
End of
Fourth Year
Retention
1994 Asian (76) 76.3% (58) 53.9% (41) 60.5% (46) 48.7% (37)
1994 Polyn. (62) 62.9 (39) 33.9(21) 21.0(13) 24.2(15)
1995 Asian (104) 67.3 (70) 49.0 (51) 48.1 (50) 40.4 (42)
1995 Polyn. (124) 72.6 (90) 41.9 (52) 31.5 (39) 30.6 (38)
1996 Asian (104) 60.6 (63) 39.4 (41) 34.6 (36)
1996 Polyn. (84) 72.6(61) 44.0 (37) 32.4*
Source: BYU-Hawaii 1999 Factbook
Notes: The number in parenthesis represents actual number of students. Retention
percentage may increase from one year to the next due to students who stop out.
* Third year retention rates for Polynesians were updated from Registrar records.
The 1999 Factbook reported this figure at 36.9%
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
The 1995 cohort percentages are slightly better for Polynesians, but the gap
is still significant and widens by the beginning of the fourth year. At the
beginning of year three, 49 percent of the Asians were still in school in
comparison to 41 percent of the Polynesians. And at the beginning of the fourth
year, 48 percent of the Asians were still enrolled, compared to 31 percent of the
Polynesians.
The 1996 cohort of Polynesian students’ retention rates show an improvement
over previous years. By the end of the third year, the 1996 cohort of Polynesian
students had not only persisted better than the two previous cohorts of
Polynesians, they are only slightly behind the Asians. An important point in this
regard is the Asian retention rate for the 1996 cohort dropped significantly from
previous years. The Polynesians have, nevertheless, made modest increases over
the past several years. These numbers in isolation, however, reveal little about the
scope of the problem. Not until these rates are compared to statistics for students
from similar types of institutions does the problem come into full focus.
National statistics suggest four-year, private universities have the highest rate
of retention of all post-secondary institutions. The latest ACT statistics (2000)
compiled over a twelve-year period (1987-1999) indicate four-year, private
schools have a graduation rate of 55.8 percent within five years of enrollment.
Their public counter-parts graduate only 42.2 percent within the same time frame.
These are aggregated numbers, and individual groups may get lost in averages.
Nevertheless, the numbers serve as baseline data against which Polynesian
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
student persistence can be compared. Polynesians are graduating at half the rate
of other students enrolled in similar institutions.
Because so little data are available on international student retention, it can
only be speculated that their retention rates are at least the same as national
averages for institutional types. In other words, it might be expected that nearly
55 percent of the international students enrolled in a private, four-year university
will graduate within five years. Of the Polynesian students enrolled at BYU-
Hawaii it can be said that only 30 percent will graduate within five years.
Purpose
The primary objective of this study is to determine why Polynesians at BYU-
Hawaii drop out at higher rates than other international students at BYU-Hawaii
and possibly at higher rates than other international students at similar institutions.
Numerous statistical reports describe the scope of Polynesian student attrition,
and despite all that has been done to solve the problem, relatively little has been
done to understand it. Speculations range from language difficulties to poor
academic deficiencies, and dissatisfaction to culture shock. None of these
suppositions, however, has ever been substantiated. Indeed, no direct attempt has
been made to ask Polynesian students what their experiences regarding
persistence have been. The current study approaches this problem from the
students’ perspective.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
Research Design
In order to see the issues related to university persistence from a Polynesian
student’s perspective, this study employs qualitative research methods to gather
much descriptively rich data from a small, intentionally selected sample (Borg
and Gall, 1996; Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Tierney, 1988). Accordingly, this study
focuses on the cohort of Polynesian students who entered BYU-Hawaii as new
students in 1996. Data were gathered by means of focus groups and semi
structured interviews.
Peshkin (1993) classifies qualitative research according to purpose and
desired outcome. He identifies four categories with corresponding outcomes:
description, interpretation, verification, and evaluation. The purposes of this study
are two-fold. The first purpose is to interpret the process of student persistence.
The applicable outcomes suggested by Peshkin include, “explaining and creating
generalizations, developing new concepts, elaborating existing concepts,
providing insights that... refine knowledge, identify problems, [and] clarifying
and understanding complexity ...” (p. 24). The second purpose is to verify
existing theory against the international students’ interpretations of the process.
Specifically, the need is to verify Tinto’s model of retention to the international
students’ interpretations of university persistence. This point is critical and
warrants being said another way. The objective of this study is not to force a
qualitative study into Tinto’s model. The purpose is not so much to prove the
variables of Tinto’s model as to validate them against what students have to say
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
about the persistence process. Tinto will be measured against the students, not
the reverse.
A long-standing debate rages over the merits and advisability of conducting
qualitative research in what has traditionally been a quantitative research “world”
(Smith, 1983; Peshkin, 1993). The issue is not, as Peshkin (1993) points out,
which research method is good and which is bad. The issue is which method best
addresses the needs of the questions under study.
The Questions
The questions asked in this study are intended to help interpret the process and
refine our knowledge of Polynesian students’ persistence in a university as well as
help verify existing theory on student persistence. Accordingly, the research
questions for this study are the following:
1. How do Polynesian students perceive their college-going experience in
relationship to their future plans?
2. What factors do they see as significantly influential in their decision to stay or
leave the university?
3. What background characteristics do Pacific Island students think contribute to
their college persistence or nonpersistence?
4. From the students’ perspectives, what factors, if any, affect their persistence
once they have arrived at BYU-Hawaii?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Implications o f the Study
This study will obviously be advantageous to BYU-Hawaii, but the benefits
have the potential to reach far beyond its campus. For many years, retention
efforts at BYU-Hawaii have been based on what research literature says is
working at other institutions. In large part, these efforts have been driven by
Tinto’s interactional theory (Evans, 1998). The current research offers alternate
views on a complex issue. Difficult admission and retention policy decisions can
now be discussed in a more enlightened way; student’s perspectives can now be
considered. Intervention programs based on data gathered from students who have
experienced persistence and dropout at BYU-Hawaii will ultimately be more
meaningful to the students. Future Polynesian students at BYU-Hawaii also stand
to benefit from this study. A better understanding of issues that lead to high
attrition rates can be discussed openly and early with these students.
An indirect, but no less significant, benefit from this study is the data that are
collected from other institutions regarding their international student retention
rates. The absence of such data heretofore has created a gap in the knowledge
base of a significant group of students on U.S. campuses. Data gathered for this
study can serve as the beginning of a much needed data bank on international
student retention in higher education.
Finally, very little qualitative research has been conducted to test the
hypothesis of Tinto’s model of student retention. Despite the fact that Tinto’s
model has been under investigation for nearly a quarter of a century, it seems
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
peculiar that so little has been done to qualitatively validate it. Retention is a
complex issue, and understanding it will require investigation from a complexity
of angles. The more contrastive the angles, the more our understanding will
develop (Patton, 1990). Each study testing Tinto’s model further clarifies our
understanding of student departure from higher education and, at the same time, it
tests the validity of Tinto’s model. Because the best, current research is often
contradictory and inconclusive (Braxton et al., 1997), it behooves us to continue
to test the constructs of Tinto’s theory in as many settings as possible and with a
variety of inquiry models.
The Organization o f the Dissertation
In part, this study chronicles the educational experience of eighty-nine
students, teachers, counselors, and administrators who have roots firmly planted
in Polynesia. Their stories are in many instances remarkable, sometimes
emotional, yet always extraordinarily insightful. The insights of early research
and background data are presented in Chapter 2. Much of this presentation will be
done not to dissect theories that have been under researchers' microscopes many
times but to lay out the basic tenants of retention research as we understand it
today. Especially important in this review is the discussion of what research has to
say about minority and non-traditional students in higher education. Chapter 3
provides a detailed accounting of how this study was structured and the methods
that were used to capture the students’ insights to college persistence. Chapter 4
belongs to the students. Here Polynesian students relate in their own words their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experiences in the “strange new world” of higher education in the United States.
Particular care is taken to allow the reader to see and feel college as students
experience it. In the words of Geertz (1973) “thick description” is given so that
the reader might see college experiences from the student’s perspective. In the
final chapter, common themes and categories from the students’ experiences are
compiled in an effort to understand the reasons students from the Pacific leave the
university without completing a bachelor’s degree. These reasons are then
extended into conclusions, recommendations, and implications for retention
practice and research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 2
19
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Olivia Fale is painfully aware of the Polynesian students’ high attrition rates at
BYU-Hawaii. Her responsibilities as a BYU-Hawaii admission facilitator in the
South Pacific for five years put her in personal contact with hundreds of students
applying for university studies. “Let me show you something,” she says as she
opens a file cabinet drawer filled with hundreds of worn file folders. Each folder
represents the educational ambitions of a student who was admitted to BYU-
Hawaii while she was facilitator. The stack is nearly 18 inches deep. Reaching
into the drawer, she pulls out approximately four inches of the folders. “This is
how many have managed to graduate. And only half of these [the graduates] have
returned to [their home island].” While Olivia is aware of the scope of the
problem, she is at a loss for an explanation. “It seems to be a highly individual
thing,” she adds as she considers the many students she has seen return home
without a diploma. Retention is not, however, a problem unique to Olivia Fale or
BYU-Hawaii. It is an issue central to all of higher education.
The centrality and size of student retention issues in higher education is
apparent by the subject’s vast literature base (Feldman & Newcomb, 1973;
Gerald, 1992; McConnell Castle, 1993; Noel, Levitz, and Saluri, 1987; Pascarella
& Terenzini, 1991; Tinto, 1982). Nearly a century of retention research is
chronicled in higher education journals. Almost two-thirds of this research has
been conducted over the past three decades, and there are few signs of it
decreasing any time soon (Braxton et al., 1997; Gaither, 1999; Murdock &
Hogue, 1999). Projected population statistics indicate that student profiles in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
higher education will change dramatically within the next twenty years
(Murdock and Hogue, 1999). Minority and non-traditional students are enrolling
in post-secondary institutions in ever-increasing numbers, hence escalating the
need for greater understanding of retention among these groups. Past research
suggests that retention patterns can often be attributed to group characteristics
(Dougherty, 1994; Makuakane-Drechsel, 1999; Noel etal, 1987; Tierney, 1992;
Tinto, 1987,1993). A student’s ethnicity and socioeconomic status for example
can predict, in part, dropout rates in post-secondary institutions. Of consequence,
the need to refine understanding of retention issues increases with the diversity of
students who enroll.
This chapter provides a survey of retention research as it relates to higher
education in general but minority and international students in particular. The
survey follows a chronological path through the significant, early research and
leads to the most current thinking on retention issues with a heavy emphasis on
the work developed around Tinto’s interactional model of student retention. This
then provides a foundation on which to build a discussion central to this study,
namely what we know about the retention of minority and international students.
A significant aspect to this discussion is how minority is defined and what factors
impact minority student persistence in higher education. The discussion then turns
to a consideration of international students, who they are, what we know about
their retention rates, and the parallels we draw between them and minority
students. The principal purpose of all of this is to provide a backdrop against
which we can compare the stories of students like those whose folders are filed in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
Olivia’s drawer. Their stories, which are represented in Chapter 4, will help us
understand why they think so many leave college without completing their
bachelor’s degree. We now turn to an overview of the major retention work from
the past forty years.
Retention Research Overview
Definition o f Terms
Defining student retention terms is an unwieldy task to be sure. Tinto (1982)
declared nearly two decades ago that the “field of dropout research is in a state of
disarray, in large measure because we have been unable to agree about what
behaviors constitute an appropriate definition of dropout” (p. 3). Terms such as
retention, persistence, attrition, dropout, and stopout are often ill-defined and in
some cases erroneously treated as synonyms (Bean, 1982; Noel et al, 1987;
Pascarella, 1982; Tinto, 1989). Each term conveys a different aspect of student
retention, and some of the terms are dramatically different. Dropout and stopout,
for example, are markedly different actions, yet some institutions make no effort
to differentiate between them. Reaching consistent definitions is not an easy
matter. Tinto (1987) points out, “There are many forms of student departure from
higher education . . . Not all forms of student departure deserve the label
‘dropout.’ Nor do they all require institutional action” (p. 28).
Any operative definition of retention, Tinto (1987) contends, must take into
consideration both the institutions’ as well as the student’s purposes. For example,
the student who enters a university for two semesters and then disappears may be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
labeled a drop out by the institution, yet by the student’s standard, nothing could
be less accurate. If the student has taken the courses necessary to be upgraded on
the company pay scale, then the student’s educational goals have been met.
Similarly, the catchall label of dropout may also be inaccurate when describing
someone who enrolls for several semesters and then transfers to another
university closer to home. Such a case may be an example of an institutional but
not a system dropout (Tinto, 1987).
The notion of stopping out further complicates the possibility of reaching
accurate definitions. At what point does stopping out become dropping out? For
instance, should the young mother who takes several years off from school for the
birth of a child be considered a dropout? What about the individual who enters the
work force for ten years and then returns to school? Regardless of the how these
terms are defined, they must be defined clearly before an institution can claim
retention success or bemoan attrition woes.
Another facet of attrition that is tightly intertwined with definitions is the
conditions under which the student leaves school. Tinto (1987) makes an
important distinction between a student leaving voluntarily and being forced to
leave. Not only is this differentiation important in understanding who dropouts
are, it is critical in developing solutions to improve student retention. The
voluntary dropout’s needs are markedly different from the student who has been
dismissed by the institution because of poor academic performance. Combining
these two types of departure together ignores root cause differences. Any research
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
on student retention must have clearly spelled out definitions of key terms such
as drop out, stop out, withdrawal, and academic dismissal. The absence of such
definitions leads to misinterpreted research results and misguided remedies (Noel,
et al., 1987;Tinto, 1982, 1987).
Early Retention Research
According to Tinto (1975) early research on student departure consisted of
two primary weaknesses: 1) it was atheoretical in nature; hence it merely
described rather than explained why students drop out, and 2) definitions of
dropout failed to delineate between different types of leaving. This resulted in the
fact that most research before 1970 lacked theoretical foundation, and studies
tended to be cross-sectional, descriptive studies using univariate statistical
procedures (Whitfield, 1993). Bean (1982) notes that “In the 1960s, the lack of
theoretical models of student attrition was loudly decried” (p. 17). “Such research
[atheoretical] does little to explain the multiple factors that operate concurrently
to affect dropout behavior” (Whitfield, 1993, p. 9). Said another way, descriptive
studies cannot say why a student is likely to drop out of an institution. Pascarella
(1982) summarizes the problem in these terms: “Until recently, most attrition
research was descriptive and atheoretical, resulting in a large number of
individual investigations that were difficult to synthesize into a meaningful body
of knowledge on which to base policy” (p. 89).
Despite their limitations and the seeming lack of direction, the descriptive
studies of the 1960s and 1970s advanced understanding of retention issues. As in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
any science, research is cumulative, and many of the descriptive studies on
retention served as first steps in generating propositions to be examined in
subsequent studies. Several lines of descriptive research attempted to identify the
scope of the retention problem by predicting how many and which students were
leaving college (Bean, 1982; Rootman, 1972). A second line of research
attempted to identify pre-matriculation characteristics of students most likely to
persist in college. These factors fell into three categories, academic, demographic,
and financial (Lenning, Beal, & Sauer, 1980). Tinto (1986) provides perhaps the
most helpful categorization of these early studies. He classifies retention work
into five types: psychological, societal, economic, organizational, and
interactional.
Psychological theories (Summerskill, 1962; Heilbrun, 1965; Hanson &
Taylor, 1970) seek to distinguish “stayers” and “leavers” in terms of attributes of
personality that help account for their differing response to supposedly similar
educational circumstances. Such theories are similar in the regard that the
responsibility for persistence/departure rests with the individual student.
Psychological theories generally ignore organizational impact and as Tinto (1986)
notes they “are not truly explanatory because they ignore the impact situations
may have on student behavior” (p.360).
In contrast, societal theories (Karabel, 1972; Pincus, 1980) focus on attributes
of individuals, institutions, and society that describe the person’s and institution’s
place in society. Such theories argue that status, race, and sex are important
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
predictors of student success. Some see the outcome of schooling as a reflection
of a meritocratic contest among students for social attainment.
Economic theories (Iwai & Churchill, 1982; Jensen, 1981) are generally
insensitive to the social forces inside and outside institutions that affect
individuals’ decisions regarding leave taking. Such theories emphasize the
importance of individual finances and financial aid in student retention. This is, in
short, a cost-benefit approach to the issue of persistence.
Organizational theories (Bean, 1983; Kamens, 1971) are generally concerned
with the impact environmental forces have on student behavior. “The central tenet
has been that departure is as much, if not more, a reflection of institutional
behavior as it is of the individual in it” (p. 364). One of the major weaknesses of
these theories is they failed to explain how organizational attributes impact
students’ decisions to stay or leave; their focus is to identify factors that
contributed to leave taking. They fail to adequately account for the complexities
of student behavior.
This earlier work led to the interactional theories which have come to
dominate current views of student retention. An interactional perspective views
student behavior as being a reflection of both individual and organizational
attributes. It is, however, much more than a compilation of psychological and
organizational theories. “They represent a dynamic, interactive view of student
experience, one that has its origins in social anthropological and
ethnomethodological studies of human behavior” (Tinto, 1986, p. 365). The work
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
of both Tinto and Astin is representative of the interactional model. Much more
will be said about both later in this chapter.
One of the more well known models of the early 1970s that has bearing on our
current line of thinking and has specifically influenced Tinto’s model was that of
Rootman (1972). While his theory is not truly interactive, Rootman used a theory
of person-role-fit to identify students likely to persist in college. The basic
premise of this model was to focus on the relationships between characteristics of
the individual and the requirements of the student role at a particular institution.
Studying freshmen at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, he used a wide range of
indicators to come up with what is essentially a simple causal model of voluntary
withdrawal. While this model was not an interactional theory per se, it advanced
retention work beyond mere description. There was, however, still a need for an
explanatory model that could account for the relationships among multiple
variables that had been found to affect persistence. With some of these
fundamental pieces in place, we turn next to a consideration of the most
prominent interactional models of student retention that will ultimately be used to
help us analyze why Polynesians leave school without graduating.
Current Retention Research
Spady’ s model. Spady’s (1970,1971) “explanatory sociological model of the
drop-out process constitutes the first full-blown theoretical model” (Bean, 1982,
p. 20). His model borrows from Durkheim’s (1961) research on suicide to explain
student departure patterns from higher education. According to Drukheim,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
individuals who are insufficiently integrated into society are more likely to
commit suicide. The analogy drawn by Spady was that shared group values,
friendships, and support would reduce the chance of suicide, or in Spady’s work,
dropout.
Several of the key elements of this theory include the fact that it recognizes
dropping out as a longitudinal process and background characteristics as
important to understanding the process. Specific background qualities identified
by Spady include family background, academic potential, ability, and
socioeconomic status. To these he also added variables developed from the
student’s experience in college, namely, grade performance and intellectual
development.
Spady’s model distinguishes between the social and academic aspects of
college life, but the primary focus is on social integration. “In essence Spady
argued that it was essential for students to become integrated into the
postsecondary institution for persistence to occur” (Tierney, 1992b, p. 22).
Whitfield (1993) notes that unlike earlier models of student departure, “Spady’s
model implies a time sequence and direct causal connections between pairs of
variables” (p. 14). “One of the principle weaknesses of Spady’s model, however,
lies in the fact that it fails to explain how different types of individuals interact
with the college environment over time to adopt various forms of dropout
behavior” (Whitfield, 1993). Spady’s work is the precursor to Vincent Tinto’s
model which is the single most studied model dealing with student retention in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
higher education today (Braxton et al., 1997; Tierney, 1992b). A substantial
portion of this chapter is focused on Tinto’s model. For now, however, we
consider the work of another prominent researcher who has had an enormous
impact on current thinking and retention research—Alexander Astin.
Astin: Impact o f College on Students. No discussion of student retention
would be complete without considering the “landmark” (Tierney, 1992b) work of
Alexander Astin. Astin’s work is not interactional; it is, rather, descriptive in
nature. It has nonetheless had an enormous impact on the interactional models and
retention research in general over the past twenty years (Tierney, 1992b;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). Tierney (1992b) points out that Astin’s research
has “gained particular use by current researchers as they struggled to develop the
root causes for departure from academe” (p. 20). Makuakane-Drechsel (1998)
notes the substantial nature of Astin’s work in student development issues in
higher educational research, “He has over 120 separate references in Pascarella
and Terenzini’s book How College Affects Students, and his book Four Critical
Years has been recognized in the Journal o f Higher Education as the single most
cited work in higher education (p.2).
While Astin has contributed much to our understanding of student attrition,
his primary interests lie in how college experiences impact student development.
His earliest impact model known as “input-process-output” (1970) can be likened
to a medical facility in that the treatment given a patient can only be judged as
successful within the context of knowing the patient’s condition upon entry and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
the diagnosis at discharge. This model has direct influence on his later work and
its similarities to Tinto’s work are apparent (Milem, 1997). Astin suggests that
student retention has three components: input, process, and output; all have
bearing on student persistence. For example, he defines input as “ . . . the talents,
skills, aspirations, and other potentials for growth and learning that a new student
brings with him to college” (Astin, 1970). College environment or “process” are
those aspects of the institution that are capable of influencing the student. Output
are the aspects of student development that the “college either does influence or
attempts to influence” (p. 224).
The data source for his research is significant. Over the past thirty years Astin
has been involved in perhaps the most extensive longitudinal study of higher
education. The Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) at the
University of California at Los Angeles began conducting national surveys of
entering freshmen in 1973 and continues to the present. CIRP collects
longitudinal data from a national sample of hundreds of post-secondary
institutions of all types. The focus of these surveys is to examine what impact the
college experience has on student development and by extension student attrition.
Astin’s 1975 study on attrition found that a student’s chances of persisting to
graduation can be influenced by a wide range of institutional factors such as
financial aid, availability of jobs, grading practices, and residential life. In total,
he identified 55 factors. All of these, says Astin, affect how much and how well a
student becomes involved in college. As a result of this earlier work, Astin has
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
proposed what is known as his theory of involvement. According to Astin (1985,
p. 133), this theory can be stated simply: Students learn by becoming involved
(Pascarella & Terenzini 1991). By extension it is also suggested that those
students who are involved in their institutions will be more likely to persist to
graduation. Despite the fact that his focus on student development has been
descriptive, the volume of data provides valuable predictive insight to student
persistence behavior. His work also has had a strong influence on Tinto’s work.
What follows is an in depth consideration of Tinto’s interactional model and how
it might be helpful in our consideration of Polynesian student retention.
Tinto’ s interactional model o f departure. Several researchers take center stage
when it comes to student retention issues, namely, Spady, Astin, Pascarella,
Terenzini, and Tinto. Of these, however, none has received the level of attention
that has been given to Tinto’s theory of college student departure. Braxton (1997)
notes this level of prominence emphasizing “More than 400 citations to the model
by late 1994 as well as the approximately 170 dissertations addressing it by early
1995 indexes such attention” (p. 109). Several factors contribute to this
distinction: the intuitively sensible approaches it offers to the complex issues
related to departure from school and the fifteen testable propositions that can be
derived from it (See Table 2.1). Furthermore, it was Tinto’s intention to build a
model that could account for individual differences. Unlike Spady’s model which
is a systems model, Tinto was concerned with differences within academic
institutions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Table 2.1.
An Overview of Tinto’s Student Retention Model Postulates
1. Student entry characteristics affect the level of initial commitment to the institution.
2. Student entry characteristics affect the level of initial commitment to the goal of
graduation.
3. Student entry characteristics directly affect the student’s likelihood of persistence.
4. Initial commitment to the goal of graduation from college affects the level of academic
integration.
5. Initial commitment to the goal of graduation from the college affects the level of social
integration.
6. Initial commitment to the institution affects the level of social integration.
7. Initial commitment to the institution affects the level of academic integration.
8. The greater the level of academic integration, the greater the level of subsequent
commitment to the goal of graduation from college.
9. The greater the level of social integration, the greater the level of subsequent commitment
to the institution.
10. The initial level of institutional commitment affects the subsequent level of institutional
commitment.
11. The initial level of commitment to the goal of graduation from college affects the
subsequent level of commitment to the goal of college graduation.
12. The greater the level of subsequent commitment to the goal of college graduation, the
greater the likelihood of student persistence in college.
13. The greater the level of subsequent commitment to the institution, the greater the
likelihood of student persistence in college.
14. A high level of commitment to the goal of graduation from college compensates for a low
level of commitment to the institution, and vice versa, in influencing student persistence in
college.
15. A high level of academic integration compensates for a low level of social integration, and
vice versa, in influencing student persistence in college
Source: Braxton, Sullivan, Johnson, 1997, (p. 112).
Tinto developed his original model (1975) on Spady’s work with Durkhiem’s
concepts of integration and anomie. The central constructs of the model are that
students enter college with individual characteristics as well as personal
commitments to the institution and to graduation, and that a student must become
academically and socially integrated; all of these factors influence a student’s
departure decision. Among the pre-entry characteristics are family socioeconomic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
status, parental educational level, and parental expectations. Individual qualities
include academic ability, race, and gender. He also acknowledges that pre-college
schooling experiences such as high school achievement and social attainments
impact a student's decision to leave college.
Tinto has presented his model in three versions since first being introduced in
1975 (1975,1987,1993). In each iteration, “Tinto pursues one of two goals. He
identifies weaknesses in the theory with the objective of refining and improving
various points, or he points them out in order to clarify the limitations for
applying the theory” (Braxton et al., 1997, p. 109). For example, research on
Tinto’s original model raised concerns about the lack of a time dimension in
student departure. Tinto modified his model (1987) to account for this time factor
by incorporating the theory of Arnold Van Gennep (1960). In this regard, Tinto
notes “ . . . our interest in the notion of rites of passage is that it provides us with a
way of thinking about the longitudinal process of student departure” (Tinto, 1987,
p. 94). Van Gennep’s theory views life as a series of passages from one stage to
another such as childhood to adolescence to adulthood. According to Van
Gennep, each phase in the rites of passage to adulthood consists of a change in
patterns of interaction between the individual and other members of society. Van
Gennep subdivided the various facets of life into three stages: 1) separation from
an individual’s original group, 2) transition into a new group and new roles, and
3) incorporation into a new location. Tinto incorporated these aspects of time into
his 1987 model. Alterations also added greater emphasis to the importance of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
considering the context of a situation. While his first model mentioned only
briefly the impact of external variables on later goals and commitment, the 1987
model places greater importance on this aspect.
In 1993, Tinto introduced yet another revision of the model in the second
edition of Leaving College. While the model remained essentially intact, Tinto
(1993) makes a significant statement about the impact classroom activity can have
on retention—something heretofore missing. His model now addresses “the
critical relationship between the experience of the classroom and student learning
and persistence” (p. x). In this regard, he suggests that the involvement students
experience in the classroom are not only important in their own right but also
affect involvement in the larger communities of the college. This addition to the
model does much, says Tinto, to correct an imbalance of responsibility that has
been placed on student affairs. What goes on outside the classroom, says Tinto,
are not the only factors affecting retention. Accordingly, retention is not
“therefore a matter primarily for those in student affairs” (p. x.).
While the current literature base on student retention in higher education is
extensive, few will argue that the works of Tinto and Astin are the central focus of
almost all research seeking to understand the “departure puzzle” (Braxton et al.,
1997). The following summary offers a point by point consideration of these two
prominent models and why Tinto’s is the more suitable for this study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
Summary o f Astin’ s and Tinto’ s Postulates
Astin (1975,1984,1993a) suggests that student involvement is central to
student retention. By this he means, “It is not so much what the individual thinks
or feels, but what the individual does, how he or she behaves, that defines and
identifies involvement” (1984, p. 298). A highly involved student for example is
one who devotes energy to studying, spends much time on campus, participates
actively in student organizations, and interacts frequently with faculty members
and others. An uninvolved student would demonstrate the converse of these
activities. Astin’s theory consists of five postulates: 1) involvement means the
investment of physical and psychological energy, 2) involvement occurs along a
continuum, with different students investing different degrees of involvement at
different times, 3) involvement has both quantitative and qualitative features (how
many hours are spent studying, whether the student carefully reviews and
comprehends the material assigned to be read), 4) the degree of involvement will
affect the quality and quantity of student learning and development, 5) “the
effectiveness of any educational policy or practice is directly related to the
capacity of that policy or practice to increase involvement” (1984, p. 298). Astin
maintains that the final two postulates should be used for designing more effective
educational programs for students.
Tinto (1975, 1987,1993) also supports the notion that involvement is central
to positive educational outcomes. “Involvement with one’s peers and with the
faculty, both inside and outside the classroom, is itself positively related to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
quality of student effort and in turn to learning and persistence” (Tinto, 1993, p.
71). At the same time, Tinto suggests that integration is key to student persistence.
Integration must occur both socially and academically. The basic tenants of
Tinto’s model suggest that 1) a student’s entry characteristics have a direct
bearing on his/her likelihood of persisting to graduation, 2) initial commitment to
the goal of graduation affects the level of academic and social integration, 3)
initial level of commitment to the institution will affect the level of academic and
social integration, 4) the more a student is integrated academically the greater the
chance the student will have of persisting to graduation, 5) the more a student is
socially integrated the greater his/her commitment to the institution will be, 6) a
high level of commitment to the goal of graduation compensates for a low level of
commitment to the institution and vice versa, 7) a high level of academic
integration compensates for a low level of social integration and vice versa.
“Some degree of social and intellectual integration and therefore membership in
academic and social communities must exist as a condition for continued
persistence” (Tinto, 1993, p. 120).
The similarities between Astin and Tinto are apparent. However, their
purposes mark them as distinctly different. It is this important feature that makes
Tinto’s model more appropriate to this study. Astin’s work is markedly
descriptive and aims to identify the typical features of a college “persister.”
Pascarella & Terenzini (1991) note that “Astin offers a general dynamic, a
principle, rather than any detailed, systematic description of the behaviors ...”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
(p. 51). Tinto, on the other hand, “has advanced the discussion from one of
understanding isolated variables to one of developing causal models” (Tierney,
1993, p.22). Pascarella & Terenzini (1991) suggest that the theoretical structure of
Tinto’s model “offers significant opportunities both to researchers who wish to
study the college student change process and to administrators who seek to design
academic and social programs and experiences intended to promote students’
educational growth” (p. 53). It is this theoretical foundation with its testable
postulates that gives Tinto’s model the appeal to research in general and this study
in particular. What follows is an in-depth look at the model’s strengths and
weaknesses as well as some major research findings that shed light on the
question of Polynesian student retention.
Strengths and Limitations o f Tinto’ s Model
The work of Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson (1997) provides a helpful
overview of the most scholarly research done to date on Tinto’s model. Not only
do they point out the limited support and scope of the research on Tinto’s theory,
they offer a summary of both empirical strengths as well as conceptual criticisms
of Tinto’s theory. Each is considered in turn.
Empirical strengths. Perhaps the greatest strength of this model is the fact that
it can be broken down to fifteen testable hypotheses. This has led to what
Peterson (1985, p. 8) refers to as the “most mature” research done on student
departure issues to date. And as has been mentioned earlier, the volume of this
research is immense. Regardless of whether Tinto’s model proves to be accurate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
or not, its structure has led to sound research which Braxton (1997) suggests will
in the final analysis lead us to a better understanding of an extremely complex
issue.
Another related strength to Tinto’s model is its power to predict and explain
different types of leaving behavior. This is because it is an institutional model
rather than a systems model. In other words, the model is best applied to
individual institutions “rather than across institutions, and is largely dependent
upon the types of students attending the institution” (Makuakane-Drechsel, 1999,
p.29). Furthermore, its variables are in a causal sequence which shows the
interrelationships among them. This allows for a much better understanding of
specific problems rather than viewing them in aggregate. For example, it
distinguishes between the academic and social domains of a college system. This
in turn allows for a more focused view on issues related to retention. Similarly, it
distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary withdrawal. This helps
ameliorate the problems of defining dropout so prevalent in early retention
literature.
Conceptual weaknesses. Braxton (1997) outlines the conceptual weakness to
the model as pointed out by three scholars in higher education—Tinto (1975,
1987, 1983), Attinasi (1989,1992), and Tierney (1992a, 1992b). Their major
concerns are markedly different and warrant consideration here.
Tinto, according to Tierney (1992a, p. 607), is the first to acknowledge that
his model is not “perfect.” His four principal concerns with his first model (1975)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
were that it 1) failed to acknowledge the importance of finances in a student’s
decision to drop out of school, 2) it did not distinguish between a student’s
decision to transfer and drop out, 3) it did not highlight the important difference
among students of different gender, race, and socioeconomic status; 4) it is
insensitive to dropout behaviors among two-year college students. With each
iteration of his model, Tinto has modified the model to address these concerns.
Braxton (1997) suggests that these modifications have not always been made
using existing “research based on an earlier statement of his theory to refine or
extend that statement... Tinto extends the theory that has been empirically tested
without using that research and assumes the validity of the theory as it stands” (p.
148).
Attinasi (1989, 1992) takes issue with the fact that the model’s underpinning
theories borrowed from Durkheim and Van Gennep do not fit the situation to
which they are applied. Attinasi contends that concepts for departure from college
ought to be developed from college student populations, not “alien” tribal
concepts. Attinasi further argues that data gathered and concepts formed from
forced-choice questionnaires strip away the context surrounding a student’s
choice to persist or not. He suggests that more qualitative data are needed to
support the model. Tinto as well as others (Tinto, 1987,1988,1993; Tierney,
1992b) share this view. Attinasi further contends that Tinto’s model performs well
“only when the institutional culture is relatively homogeneous” (Braxton, 1997, p.
150). This is a point Braxton’s (1997) review of the research strongly supports.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Braxton, regarding the differences between Tinto’s and Attinasi’s view of the
theory, continues, “Tinto argues that exceptions are inevitable, and that no theory
can be extended to cover all cases. Attinasi posits, however, that the exceptions
are the most promising grounds for discovery” (p. 150).
As a critical theorist, Tierney (1992a) takes issue with Tinto’s epistemological
approach to student retention. He “questions some of the assumptions that
undergird the story’s [theory] plot” (p.6). Braxton suggests that Tierney and Tinto
seem to be “talking past each other.” Tierney, nevertheless, suggests four valid
concerns—the third point is of particular importance to this study. First, similar to
Attinasi, Tierney argues that Van Gennep’s “rite of passage” was never intended
to be used in a situation where an individual passes from one culture to another.
Second, Tierney takes issue with the idea that an individual may choose to “depart
from a ritual” (pp. 609-10). In traditional cultures, Tierney argues, participants do
not choose to depart from a ritual. Third, “Tierney criticizes Tinto’s theory for its
focus on college attendance as an individual matter rather than examining the role
of groups, which he argues would be more consistent with a cultural theory of
student departure” (Braxton et al., 1997, p. 153). Tinto admits that his theory fails
to “highlight important differences in the educational career experiences of
students of different gender, race, and socioeconomic status” (1982, p. 689).
Braxton acknowledges the validity of Tierney’s point but also notes that he does
not see how the model might be formulated to be more group oriented. Fourth,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
Tinto approaches the issue of student departure as a native to a native problem
using non-native analytical tools.
Two additional weaknesses warrant consideration. First, Tinto’s model does
not take into consideration the “quality of student effort or involvement in
learning” (Whitfield, 1993, p.21). Citing Dr. Myron Dembo of the University of
Southern California, Whitfield notes that a student needs to have appropriate
learning behaviors in order to be successful in college. “These learning behaviors
may also be affected by a student’s cultural background” (p. 21). Tinto’s model
does not take learning behavior into consideration. To some extent, this argument
follows the line of reasoning advanced by Tierney regarding individuals within
group distinctions. The second weakness, which has direct bearing on this study,
is that the model is ill-fitted for minority students.
Tinto (1987, 1993) himself admits that his model is insensitive to group
characteristics. Tierney (1991,1992a, 1993) likewise raises this as one of his
major criticisms of the model. It is a model that is best applied to individual
institutions, “rather than across institutions, and is largely dependent upon the
types of students attending the institution” (Makuakane-Drechsel, 1999, p.29).
This does not, however, preclude research from focusing the model on minority
students. A number of research projects have already focused Tinto’s model on
minority students (Attinasi, 1989; Nora, Attinasi, & Matonak, 1990; Makuakane-
Drechsel, 1999; Pascarella, 1985; Pavel, 1991; Ting, 1998; Whitfield, 1993; Zea,
Reisen, & Beil, 1997). Each study further clarifies our understanding of student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
departure from higher education and, at the same time, it adds to or subtracts
from the validity of Tinto’s model. What follows is an overview of retention
research based on Tinto’s model.
Research on Tinto’ s Model
The high level of interest in student retention and the central role of Tinto’s
model are apparent. What has not been discussed thus far are the methodological
approaches that have been taken to validate Tinto’s assumptions about student
departure. Even a cursory review of the literature over the past twenty years
reveals that quantitative research has been the dominant mode of investigation
(Attinasi, 1992; Braxton, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). This section will
briefly consider the extent and impact quantitative methods of inquiry have had
on the investigation of Tinto’s model. An overview of the qualitative research is
then presented.
Quantitative research. Virtually all research on Tinto’s model since it was
introduced in 1975 has been quantitative (Attinasi, 1992; Whitfield, 1993;
Braxton, 1997; Murguia, Padilla, Pavel, 1991). This can be attributed to several
factors. First, most educational research has been built largely on the traditions
and methods developed in the physical sciences. Only in the past 25 years has the
qualitative paradigm slowly gained acceptance (Borg & Gall, 1989). As Peshkin
(1993) points out, the attitude that has dominated research says that the only
research worth conducting must be “theory driven, hypothesis testing, or
generalization producing” (p.23). Second, Tinto’s model fits well in the world of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4 2
“multivariate statistical techniques of varying sophistication”(Attinasi, 1992, p.
61). Its fifteen postulates are constructed in such a way as to be statistically
testable.
Perhaps the single best evaluation of existing qualitative research on Tinto’s
model is that compiled by Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson (1997). Their work
examines some of the most prolific researchers of student attrition over the past
two decades (Bean, 1983; Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Pascarella, 1985; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1983; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983; Pascarella & Smart; Rootman,
1972; Spady, 1971; Stage, 1989; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1978; Tinto, 1975, 1987,
1993). One of the more significant contributions of Braxton’s work is the finding
that quantitative support for Tinto’s model has been modest and group-specific—
traditional types of students. Murguia, Padilla, and Pavel suggest that
“Quantitative studies based on the model... have accounted for only modest
amounts of explained variance in dropout rates” (p. 433). Similarly, Makuakane-
Drechsel (1999) notes a number of studies have validated aspects of Tinto’s
model. However, those that validate the work have been conducted with
“traditional students, that is students who began college immediately following
high school graduation, enrolled full-time, and attended four-year residential
institutions” (p. 30).
An important point to this discussion is what nearly all reviews of research on
Tinto’s model say about quantitative research on minority groups. “Research
shows that different types of students show varying types of departure behavior,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
particularly according to gender, ethnicity, and major” (Whitfield, 1993, p.22).
Research on Tinto’s model seems to support social integration only “when
referring to members of the dominant culture” (Braxton, 1997, p. 157). “Research
[on Tinto’s model] involving community college students and minority students
found that factors other than those identified by Tinto had a greater impact on
persistence for these students” (Makuakane-Drechsel, 1999). Murguia, Padilla,
and Pavel posit the notion that low levels of variance explained by Tinto’s model
may be due in part to a poor fit between “ . . . [the] model and the social processes
that it is intended to reflect” (p.433). Nearly all quantitative studies support what
Tinto himself has said, that “current theory cannot do or explain everything”
(1982, p. 688).
Qualitative research. Crowson (1987), citing Tierney (1985), makes specific
mention of how limited qualitative research is in higher education in general: “ ..
. qualitative research tradition is not strong in the study of higher education” (p.2).
Consequently, remarkably little qualitative research has been done on Tinto’s
model despite the fact that critics of the theory (Attinasi, 1992; Braxton, 1997;
Tierney, 1992a, 1992b, 1998; Tinto, 1987,1993) suggest that it is needed. What
has been done can be summarized in rather short order.
Attinasi (1989) implemented qualitative methods of inquiry to study first-year
persistence patterns among eighteen Mexican-American students at a large
university in the Southwest. He used phenomenological interviewing to get at the
students’ own views of what it meant to go to college and under what contexts
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
decisions were made to drop out of school. The purpose of his interview was to
gain access to the meanings individuals attached to their own experiences. His
primary method of gathering data was through semi-structured interviews. The
results of his interviews led to two principal themes: “getting in” and “getting
ready.” Getting in included strategies students used when preparing to enter the
university, and getting ready were the strategies used to negotiate the three
identified “geographies” of the university environment—physical, social,
academic/cognitive. One of his more significant findings was that students
considered intervention measures taken by family, high school, and the university
as positive factors that increased their chances of persisting through the first year
of college.
Lyons (1991) attempted to overcome the issue of generalizability, which is
often used to criticize qualitative studies, by integrating qualitative and
quantitative research methods in a longitudinal study. Statistical measures were
used to track and compare persisters from non-persisters over a four-year period.
Of the 701 students who entered in the same year, only 242 students persisted to
graduation. These students were invited to participate in focus groups. Only 14
responded to the invitation. Lyons combined the results of the two focus groups to
create an objective survey that was sent to all fourth-year persisters who did not
participate in the focus groups. According to Lyons, results of the surveys were
generally supportive of Tinto’s notion that academic and social integration were
important factors in developing educational goals and institutional commitment.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Lyons made no attempt to gather non-persisters’ perspectives on dropping out.
What is more, she not only failed to identify sub-groups of persisting and non
persisting students, she filtered out all “special need students” (p. 9).
Murguia, Padilla, and Pavel (1991) used qualitative methods to analyze how
students integrated into the social system of a large university. They were
particularly interested in understanding how a student’s ethnicity affected the
social integration process. Their study included twenty-four junior and senior
Hispanic and Native American students. Data were gathered using open-ended,
structured interviews. Computer software was used to develop grounded concepts
or “chunks.” Results indicated that ethnicity is rooted in students’ lives both by
biological as well as relationship (family and close friends of the same
nationality) factors. Ethnicity helps students to define self-identity, find a sense of
place in the world, and to give and receive affective, emotional support. Murguia,
Padilla, and Pavel contend that Tinto’s model needs to be revised to more
effectively account for ethnicity in the students’ socializing activities.
Of the qualitative work done on student persistence thus far, Tierney’s
(1992b) is the most comprehensive and thorough. His work, based on several
hundred interviews conducted over two year’s time, examines the persistence
patterns of Native Americans. Extensive interviewing of students, faculty, staff,
administrators, and policy analysis from ten institutions served as the source of
data. His central premise, from a critical theorist’s perspective, is that the
traditional approach to the educational “pipeline” theories of Astin and Tinto do
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
not adequately account for the Native American experience in the processes of
getting and staying in school. “A critical analysis,” says Tierney, “tries to make
sense of the perceptions of the students themselves and the way they deal with
their perceived realities” (p. 79). Through the presentation of primary source data
in the form of direct quotes and field observations, Tiemey offers insightful
examples of why institutions need to reconsider their functions in addressing
retention issues. The need for institutions to be responsive to all students and their
various backgrounds is compelling.
Summary
Volumes of studies compiled over the past four decades attempt to explain
what Braxton calls the departure puzzle. None of the work has been more
influential than that of Astin and Tinto. Their work is both thorough and highly
studied. Of the two, Tinto’s is by far the most comprehensive approach to
understanding student departure. The research on Tinto is vast and predominantly
quantitative. While Tinto’s model offers much to our understanding of student
persistence, it is not without weaknesses. Minority students, for instance, are less
than adequately accounted for by his model. This is of particular importance in
this study since international students are in a way minority students. We now
turn our attention to what we know about minority student retention since it has a
direct bearing on the international students under consideration in this study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Retention and Minorities
An overview of the most recent enrollment patterns of minority students will
provide important comparative data with which to evaluate retention rates among
minority and non-minority groups as well as international students. According to
NCES figures (see Table 2.2), the number of college students in the United States
who are minorities has continued to climb. In 1976,16 percent were minorities,
compared with 26 percent in 1996. Estimates suggest that by the year 2020,
nearly 40 percent of the school-aged population in the nation will be ethnic
minorities (American Council on Education, 1988; Murdock & Hogue, 1999).
Table 2.2.
Total Student Enrollments (in thousands) 1976 to 1996 Comparison
Year Black
American
Indian/
Alaskan
Native
Asian or
Pacific
Islander Hispanic White
Nonresident
Alien Total
1996 1,499.4 134.0 823.6 1,152.2 10,226.0 464.9 14,300.3
(11)
(1)
(6)
(8)
(74)
(3)
(100)
1976 1033.0 76.1 197.9 383.8 9,076.1 218.7 10,985.6
(9) (.07) (2) (4) (85)
(2)
(100)
Source: Unpublished data: National Center for Educational Statistics. Extrapolated from Digest of
Educational Statistics 1998. Numbers in parentheses represent percentage of totals.
This increase can be attributed, in large measure, to the rising numbers of
Hispanic and Asian students. The Hispanic proportion rose from 4 percent to 8
percent during this twenty-year period.
The proportion of Asian and Pacific Island students rose from 2 percent to 6
percent. The proportion of Black students fluctuated during the late 1970s and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
early 1980s before rising to 11 percent in 1996. American Indians and Native
Alaskans represented one percent of the total student population in 1996. The
increase of minority students in our schools is significant when we consider the
current demographic trends in the United States. The troubling issue is obviously
not that minority student populations are on the increase; rather, the concern is the
rates at which they drop out of our educational systems.
The National Center for Educational Statistics (1997) provides us with the
most recent and accurate data on minority student persistence patterns. All ethnic
minority students except Asian/Pacific Islanders were less likely than others to
complete some type of post-secondary credential. The 1998 NCES statistics
report that Asian/Pacific Islander students (45.6%) had the highest graduation
rates of all students. Whites (27.5%) had the second highest persistence rates.
They were followed by Blacks (12.2%), Hispanics (9.9%), and American
Indians/Alaskan Natives (7.2%). The full impact of these minority retention
numbers can be seen in comparison to similar statistics reported in 1982 by Astin
(See Table 2.3). Very little progress has been made in the college completion
rates of minority groups. Whites have increased by approximately 4.5 percent and
all other groups remain within a percentage point or two of where they were
sixteen years earlier.
Factors causing minority students to be less successful in attaining an
undergraduate degree are numerous. The work of Astin (1982) and Pascarella
(1985) is extremely helpful in understanding the circumstances contributing to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
minority student persistence. Astin (1982) divides these factors into two
categories: entering student characteristics, and college environment. Key student
characteristics include academic preparation, study habits, family background
(parents’ attained level of education, parents’ income), and high self-esteem.
College environmental factors include institutional characteristics (2-year or 4-
year), field of study (students studying in the sciences had higher attrition rates),
financial aid (holding a full-time job dramatically and consistently reduced a
student’s chance for persistence), and place of residence (students who live away
from home have a greater chance of persistence).
Table 2.3.
Percentage in Higher Education by Racial or Ethnic Group
Percentage
Who:
Group
Complete
High
School
Enter
College
Complete
College
Enter
Graduate or
Professional
School
Complete
Graduate or
Professional
School
Whites 83 38 23 (27.5)* 14 8
Blacks 72 29 12 (12.2) 8 4
Chicanos 55 22 7 (9.9) 4 2
Puerto Ricans 55 25 7 (9.9) 4 2
American
Indians 55 17 6 (7.2) 4 2
Source: Astin, Alexander, 1982. Cited in Tierney, 1992b. *Numbers in parenthesis indicate NCES
1998 figures.
Factors similar to those reported by Astin have been found in the community
college setting (Rendon & Nora, 1989; Nora, 1993). Citing Rendon and Nora
(1989), Nora notes that “Factors such as poverty, unemployment, poor education
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
in the inner cities, lack of role models, the decline of literacy demands,
institutional right-to-fail policies, and the lack of preparation in reading, writing
and mathematics” (p. 219) contribute to a minority student’s chances of not
persisting in higher education.
In her research on Native Hawaiian’s persistence at community colleges in
Hawaii, Makuakane-Drechsel (1999) identified various factors promoting
persistence. Four factors were identified that contributed positively to persistence
among vocational-technical and liberal arts majors, namely cumulative grade
point average, financial aid, average credit hours, and enrollment in one particular
institution in the school system in her study. Reverse transfer and attending an
urban high school were significant factors for liberal arts students only.
A revealing picture of minority student dropout is painted in the type of
institutions they attended (see Table 2.4).. Institutional type is significant because
of what we know about persistence patterns in different types of schools (Horn &
Carroll, 1997; Dougherty, 1994; Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Serra Hagedom, &
Terenzini, 1997; Noel & Levitz, 1987). For example, Noel and Levitz (1987)
reported that the more selective a university is, the higher the retention rate will
be. A highly selective four-year private university averaged a first year dropout
rate of only 7 percent. Yet, an open, public four-year university reported a dropout
rate of nearly 34 percent. Geraghty (1996) reports that private four-year
universities have experienced a 5 to 6 percent better retention rate than their
public counterparts over the past ten years. To further illustrate this point,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
consider the differences in dropout rates between two-year public institutions
and four-year public institutions. Using data from the High School and Beyond
survey of 1982 researchers found that by 1986 nearly 43 percent of those students
who had entered a two-year college had dropped out. This stands in stark contrast
to 30.6 percent of the students who entered four-year institutions (Dougherty,
1994). Numerous studies have suggested that students entering a two-year college
are about 15 percent less likely to complete that degree in the same period of time
as similar students in four-year colleges or universities (Alba & Lavin 1981;
Table 2.4.
Percent Enrollment of Racial/Ethnic Groups by Type of Institution,
1996 to 1986 comparison
Institution Black American
Indian
Asian/Pacific
Island
Hispanic White Nonresident
Alien
2-year Public 39.8 48 38.5 54.6 35.1 19
(40.6) (54.3) (44.7) (56.3) 36.9) (23.4)
2-year Private 2.0 2.0 0.7 1.2 1.5 0.6
(3.7) (3.9) (0.8) (2.3) (2.4)
(1.8)
4-year Public 38.8 38.8 41.4 31.4 41.7 46.3
(39.2) (34.3) (41.4) (31.2) (42.3) (42.9)
4-year Private 19.4 11.2 19.4 12.8 21.7 34.1
(16.5) (7.5) (13.1) (10.2) (18.4) (31.9)
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Unpublished data: National Center for Educational Statistics. Extrapolated from Digest
’98. Numbers in Parenthesis represent figures reported by Tierney (1992b) on 1986-1987 data.
Dougherty, 1987; Lavin & Cook, 1990; Nunley & Breneman, 1988; Pascarella &
Terenzini. 1991). Dougherty (1994) calls the two-year community college
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
experience “lethal” to the hopes of students seeking baccalaureate degrees (p.
85). This notion is amply supported in current research on minority student
retention. When one considers the fact that most minority groups represented in
Table 2.4 send the largest percentage of students to two-year colleges, it should
come as no surprise that attrition rates for those groups are the highest in the
nation.
International Students
We turn now to a central question in this research: Can any useful parallels be
drawn between the retention patterns of minority and international students in
American, post-secondary institutions? At first glance, this may seem to be a
strange comparison. In any number of ways, these students are worlds apart from
each other. Yet, there are a number of similarities between these two groups that
may prove beneficial in advancing our understanding of student leave taking from
higher education. Furthermore, the differences, which admittedly are many, may
also yield insightful information. As is often the case, we learn much from
opposing perspectives. Accordingly, this section will introduce several key terms,
namely, what is meant by minority, at-risk, and international student. These
definitions are followed by a discussion of international student retention patterns
in higher education and how they compare to at-risk and minority students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
Definition o f Terms
Any discussion of minority student attrition patterns must begin with a clear
understanding of what “minority” student means? How do “at-risk” students
differ from minority students; how are they the same? Also a central element to
any definition is a clarification of context. Any definition is meaningless without
an understanding of the setting in which it is used.
To be clear regarding context, this discussion will be limited to students
pursuing undergraduate degrees at two- and four-year post-secondary educational
institutions in the United States. The discussion is confined to this group of
students since it is at this level that nearly all retention research in post-secondary
education is focused. Furthermore, 48 percent of all international students who
come to the United States to study are undergraduates (Davis, 1997; Dodge,
1989).
At-risk students. A working definition of “at-risk” will serve as our point of
departure for defining minority. The need to include “at-risk” in this discussion is
two-fold. First, most definitions of at-risk include non-English-speaking as a
specific category (AACC, 1990), and since international speakers of English as a
second language are central to this study, such a clarification will be helpful.
Second, because there is frequent and significant overlap between at-risk and
minority groups, a better understanding of each will help guide our discussion
about minority and international students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ting (1998) suggests that at-risk students fall into several categories,
namely, the specially admitted, first generation, disadvantaged, and ethnic
minorities. The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) offers a
functional definition of “at-risk” which describes the relations between the
resources a student brings to the educational experience and the demands the
educational program makes on the student (Perez, Leonor, & Xochitl, 1998).
Roueche and Roueche (1994) expand on this definition by suggesting that “at-
risk” students
.. . possess a collage of academic, social, and economic problems that
challenge their success in college—for example, family and
employment responsibilities, financial needs, poor academic
backgrounds, low self-concepts, limited world views, and an absence
of role models or mentors for the college experience. (Usually at-risk
students are first-generation college students) (p. 4).
Minority students. Even though the at-risk and minority categories share
certain common features, they are not the same thing. In one sense, the definition
of “minority” can be as commonsensical as counting numbers—a percentage of
the total. Coupled with the notion of a percentage of the whole is the sense that
minority is typically defined along ethnic lines. For example, the U.S. Office of
Management and Budget’s (OMB) definition of minority includes Blacks (or
African Americans), Hispanics, American Indians/Alaskan Natives, and
Asians/Pacific Islanders (NCES, 1997). In its 1998 report of minority students
attending higher educational institutions, the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES) make reference to exactly the same categories as the OMB. Of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
considerable significance to this discussion, however, the NCES makes the
following distinction: “These percentages [of minority students] exclude foreign
students enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities.” (NCES, 1998). Astin (1982)
in his work on minority students in American higher education uses categories
similar to those mentioned in most government reports. However, he adds the
critical dimensions of access and attainment to his definition of minority. While
attainment can usually be applied to both the at-risk student and the minority
student, the notion of access seems to be an issue most associated with minority
students. Adding the concepts of a numeric percentage, and ethnic classification
with access and attainment provides a functional template with which to measure
and discuss minority student issues.
International students. International students can be defined quite simply.
Most government agencies and reports classify them as nonresident aliens.
Generally these students are in the United States on FI (student) visa status and
are enrolled at educational institutions in the United States, although not all hold
FI visas. Their sole purpose for being here is to further their education. Such a
status dictates how much they can work and how many hours they must be
enrolled in school.
To summarize at-risk, minority, and international student, Horn’s & Carroll’s
(1997) distinction is helpful. “While it is true that college enrollment rates vary
according to racial-ethnic groups [minority students], there are a number of other
factors including socioeconomic status that are associated with these [at-risk]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
trends” (p.27). An at-risk student can be thought of as one who faces such
challenges as financial disadvantages, learning disabilities, or the poor quality of
previous education which make attainment of a higher educational degree
difficult. Furthermore, nearly all minority students are also considered at risk by
virtue of their minority status. Access is typically affected by a student’s being at
risk. Similarly, a minority student’s ability to gain access to educational
opportunities has historically been hampered. How international students are
defined in relation to the definitions of minority and at-risk students is discussed
next.
International Students ’ Profile
How do international students compare to U.S. minority and at-risk students?
Are their challenges and chances of persisting in college the same? Before
considering these questions, an overview of pertinent demographic data will help
frame the discussion of international student performances in the U.S. higher
educational system.
In the twenty year period 1976-1996, the same period in which minority
student populations increased from 16 percent to 28 percent, total international
student populations more than doubled from 218,000 to 464,000 (see Table 2.2).
Almost one-third of all students who study abroad come to the United States
(Watkins, 1992). Of the nearly one half million international students in the
United States in 1997, 59 percent were men, and 21 percent of the total population
were enrolled in business study. More germane to this discussion is the fact that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the largest percentage (48%) of the international students in 1997 was enrolled
at the undergraduate level. Nearly 81 percent attended four-year institutions; of
those, 43 percent were enrolled in private four-year institutions (see Table 2.4).
By far the largest percentage (42%) was enrolled in research institutions (Davis,
1998; Dalton, 1999). Boston University currently has the largest total enrollment
of foreign students with 4,571. “New York University and Columbia University
have more than 4,000 each” (Dalton, 1999, p. 6). Other research university
campuses such as the University of Southern California, the University of
Wisconsin, and Ohio State each enroll more than 3,500 foreign students (Dalton,
1999; Davis, 1996).
The economic influence of international students in the U.S. is substantial.
These students collectively contributed more than seven billion dollars into
America’s economy in tuition alone; moreover, they were responsible for an
estimated 100,000 jobs (Davis, 1996; Dodge, 1989). Funding for these students
comes almost exclusively (76%) from sources outside the U.S. (Dodge, 1989).
What is more, “over two-thirds (67%) of all foreign students receive most of their
funding for U.S. study from personal and family sources ...” (Davis, 1996, p.
79).
Despite their significant presence, we know very little about international
student retention. The Institute of International Education (HE) is the most
reliable and comprehensive source of international student statistics in the United
States today. Yet, none of the annual statistics they request from over 2,428
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
accredited colleges and universities include retention information. The Tenth
Annual edition of “Who Got in? College Bound's 1996 National Survey of
College Admission Trends” contains a section on minority student admission and
retention trends, and international student admission trends. No specific mention
is made of international student retention (1996).
Several reasons can be considered for the absence of retention data on
international students. First, because international students are not supported by
U.S. federal dollars, no government agency is obliged to compile such data. Since
these students are not U.S. citizens, it is reasonable to assume that research
priorities would focus on the citizenry of the United States. Second, the lack of
data on international student retention may be due, in part, to a poor or inaccurate
definition of “international.” Byrd (1991) suggests that many institutions,
especially those in urban areas, have students who are classified as “foreign”
when in reality they may be permanent residents of the United States. It is also
likely that some of the attrition studies simply classify the international students
on F-l visas into the ethnic minority category.
Government agencies keep detailed entry information on these students, but
keeping academic performance statistics apparently becomes the responsibility of
the enrolling institutions. After a thorough review of international student
literature, Whitfield (1993) notes, “While there is extensive research on higher
education retention/attrition, the literature on international student
retention/attrition appears to be virtually non-existent” (p. 4). Since no national
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
figures are kept on foreign student retention, the only reliable source of data will
have to come from individual institutions. Two such sources include Tompson
and Tompson (1996), and Whitfield (1993). Tompson and Tompson note,
“Though national statistics on retention rates are not readily available as
enrollment data, experts in this field speculate that the attrition rate for
international students approximates that ofU.S. students” (p. 53). This statement
comes from an institutional (University of Central Arkansas) annual report, yet it
makes no mention of what “U.S. students” the foreign student rate is approximate
to, the general population or minorities. Nor do they offer any references to which
“experts” in what field make this speculation. Whitfield (1993) reports that a
retention study done at the University of Southern California (U.S.C.) on first-
year students who entered U.S.C. between 1982 and 1988 revealed that after two
years of enrollment, international students persisted at a rate of 75 percent. This
was “comparable to the overall university rate of 75%” (p. 2). She further notes
that the five-year graduation rate for international students of 57.4 percent is
slightly higher than the university average graduation rate of 55.9%.
Recent developments in the National Center for Educational Statistics services
allow for a rough approximation of international student retention rates through
key statistics that peer institutions can use for comparative purposes known as the
Integrated Post-secondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Using IPEDS,
institutions can access key performance information on comparable institutions.
Of note, however, not all data on IPEDS are adjudicated, and there is a substantial
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lag in reporting time. The only graduation data currently available are from
international students who entered as new students in 1991. Consequently, in
attempt to provide more recent and complete data on international students,
contact was made with each of the institutions represented in Table 2.5. These
institutions were identified in The Chronicle o f Higher Education’ s 1999/2000
Almanac as the “bachelor’s degree institutions enrolling the most foreign students
in the 1997-98 academic year.” Only five institutions responded after several
requests for data (see Appendix 1). A response received from one of the
institutions may be indicative of the other non-respondents:
I checked with both the International Student Advisor and our
Registrar [about your request]. Both have indicated it would be
‘difficult’ to get the data since we do not routinely keep this kind
of data on international students and we would have to ‘write’ a program
to extract it off of our student information system. Our registrar thinks it
will be a large job that he is not willing to commit to at the moment.
This response seems to suggest what has been noted earlier, that international
student data are not high on institutional research agenda.
Several key points must be considered when interpreting what little data are
available. First, numbers are averages of all international students’ graduation
rates. No attempt was made to identify the students’ origins. What is more, each
of these schools is markedly different from the others in certain key areas that
have been shown to affect retention. For example, the admissions standards for
new students vary considerably among each of these schools. Some schools may
be feeder institutions to other schools, so graduation rates would logically be low.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Table 2.5.
International Student Graduation Rates at Selected Bachelor Institutions
Institution
*'98-99
Int. student
Enrollment
(average)
Average
enrollment
'93-95 Int.
students
Average
5-year
grad, rate
'93-'95 Int.
students
Average
enrollment
'93-'95 all
students
Average
5-year
grad, rate
'93-'95
all
students
BYU-Hawaii 884 (38.4) 830 42%* 2000 38%*
City U. of NY 566 (9.6)
U. of Dallas 460 (15.9)
Columbia College (111). 370 (4.4) 245 7080
U. O f Houston
(Downtown) 301 (3.7)
Lock Haven U. of Penn 289 (8.5)
U. of Southern
Colorado 265 (6.6)
Mount Holyoke
College 243 (12.2)
Oakwood College 243 (13.5)
Metropolitan State U. 240 (2.8)
Commonwealth Ohio
Wesleyan
220 (7.7)
Wesleyan U. 212 (6.2)
U. of Hawaii, Hilo 209 (7.7)
Macalester College 199(11.5) 107.7 1,740 87% 77.3%
Smith College 196 (7.4) 193 2,643 87% 81%
Eckered College 196(12.9)
Metro. College 196
* Approximation based on incomplete data.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
Caution should also be exercised when drawing conclusions about students who
attend institutions with markedly different admission standards. The fact that data
are still scarce suggests that considerable research is needed in this area.
In the absence of thorough data, we can draw a few general conclusions from
the existing data regarding possible retention rates for international students. First,
when one considers the extreme costs involved in studying abroad, it seems
logical to conclude that those who study here have substantial means. This notion
can certainly be substantiated by the fact that 43 percent of all nonresident alien
students in the U.S. enroll in our most expensive institutions—private four-year
universities and colleges (see Table 2.4). Another safe assumption is that the most
wealthy in society usually have the greatest access to education and are therefore
the most well educated. This would suggest that most international students come
well educated and prepared academically for university work. Finally, since most
international students (80%) attend those institutions with the best retention
records, four-year public and private, then the international students would have a
higher than the national average persistence rate. While these conclusions have
not been substantiated with hard data, the reasoning seems to fit with extant
research.
A word of caution is in order. Care should be taken whenever groups are
looked at in aggregate. Certainly not all international students fit the description
just given. Some students come from countries where the best educational
opportunities compare poorly to average U.S. standards. Other students are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
sponsored by their governments because neither they nor their families have the
financial means to support them.
A final issue remains. How do we view international students in relation to the
terms defined earlier— minority and at-risk?
International Students At-Risk/Minority ?
At-risk. Horn and Carroll’s (1997) discussion and division of at-risk students
provide a useful template for our consideration of international students. They
classify at-risk high school students into categories ranging from low to high
depending on the number of individual, at-risk factors a student may have. For
example, a student with three or more at-risk factors (comes from a single parent
home, from an inner-city school system, and with low grades) can be considered a
“high” risk for dropping out (p. 27). International students might be analyzed
using this same system using at-risk descriptors taken from the work of Roueche
& Roueche (1994) or Astin (1975). For example do the students have family and
employment responsibilities, family from overseas with them, financial needs,
poor academic backgrounds, low self-concepts, limited world views, poor English
language skills, or an absence of role models or mentors for the college
experience?
An important point to keep in mind is international students are, in many
ways, strangers in a strange land. They carry with them a unique set of adjustment
concerns. International student issues cannot be dealt with using strategies that
were developed for students from entirely different backgrounds. There is a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
substantial literature on international student adjustment issues which would be
helpful in building a list of at-risk factors specific to international students (Abe,
Talbot, and Geelhoed, 1998; Eisen, 1986; Kaikai, 1989; Ladd and Ruby, 1999;
Sarkodie-Mensah, 1998; Stoynoff, 1996; Tompson and Tompson, 1996).
Tompson and Tompson (1996) for example, identify ten of the most difficult
adjustments international students face: social isolation, language skills, knowing
rules and regulations, overcoming stereotypes, transportation, clothing norms,
weather differences, food differences, oral presentation assignments, and personal
finances.
Abe, Talbot, and Geelhoed (1998) identified similar adjustment but are quick
to point out that social concerns are the biggest problems international students
face. Citing Baker and Siryk (1998) they reported that international students
scores on the Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire (SACQ) were
significantly lower than for their U.S. counterparts. Schram and Lauver’s (1988)
survey of the literature found that international students least likely to be alienated
were those who have “extensive social contacts with Americans, live with a
spouse, are older, are studying at a graduate level, are male, come from Europe,
and have been in the United States for a relatively longer period of time” (p. 147).
The absence of retention data on international students hampers our ability to
determine with any degree of certainty how many might be considered “at-risk.”
The fact remains, international students do dropout, and certain groups may well
be at a greater risk than others because of particular characteristics.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Minority. Determining the minority status of international students is easier
than the at-risk distinction since most data are available to measure the three
points outlined earlier—numeric (percentage of the whole), ethnic-racial, and
access and attainment. International students clearly fit the first two categories.
They are in the numeric minority. According to 1996-1997 statistics (see Table
2.2) they make up only 3 percent of the total student population in higher
education. They are the second smallest minority in higher education today. They
are also not part of the dominant White population. Barely 20 percent of all
international students come from North America and Europe; nearly three-fourths
of the students come from Asia, Africa, and Latin America with 57 percent of the
total coming from Asia. The issues of access and attainment are not so easily
determined. When these students are compared to the U.S. student population,
they seem to have ready access to any and all universities. Over 40 percent attend
the most selective U.S. post-secondary institutions. In comparison to student
populations in their home countries, these students also seem to have high access
to education. However, because of our lack of data, this is only conjecture. The
work of Ogbu (1998) on voluntary and involuntary minorities provides important
insights into this aspect of international student status as minorities. For the time
being, the question of attainment which is central to this discussion is the most
difficult to determine. We simply do not know much about international student
persistence. Whatever we learn about international student persistence stands to
strengthen our existing knowledge base of retention.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary
The tremendous volume of research on student retention makes it clear that
students taking leave from higher education is a complex problem with many
questions not only unanswered but yet to be asked. Despite this fact, much can be
gleaned from the extant research to guide us in future retention research and help
us in decision making and policy planning. In particular, the work of Tinto and
the extensive research conducted in its wake give us a foundation on which to
build.
The abundant literature on student retention also paints a fairly clear picture of
minority student patterns. Fewer minority students attend our colleges and
universities, and they drop out at higher rates than the non-minority students. The
factors contributing to these lower rates are also quite clear and continue to be
supported in the ongoing research. What is not so clear is how international
students compare to U.S. minority students. What we know seems to suggest that
the international students might be more persistent to graduation than even non
minority students in the U.S. However, the insensitivity to group differences that
aggregated numbers display is critical to keep in mind. International students in
general may have higher than average persistence rates. On the other hand,
specific groups of international students who share similar at-risk and minority
student characteristics with their U.S. counterparts may yield invaluable insight to
retention issues. For this reason, international Polynesians students were selected
for this study. The next chapter presents the methods used to investigate these
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students experiences and extrapolate data that might offer some insight to the
question Olivia Fale could not answer, “Why so many of them are dropping out?”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
Chapter 3
RESEARCH DESIGN
“When your only tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails. ”
As outlined in the previous chapter, Polynesian students are struggling to
remain in college. The institution is unclear about what strategies to enact to
increase retention and which research “tools” are best suited to study the problem.
Consider, for example, Amelia’s recollection of dropping out of school:
When I left [name of her island] to go to BYU[H], I had every
intention of graduating. It was very important to me and especially my
family. My father started university but never finished. I think that was
part of the reason why I wanted to finish college so much. My mother
always stressed the importance of getting an education and coming
back home to get a good job and help the family. That’s what I wanted
to do. I still do. . . . But once I got there [BYU-Hawaii] things got in
the way. Probably after a year, school was not really that important to
me any more. It was like my friends were more important. I lost my
focus of why I was there.
Much can be extracted from this young woman’s brief observation of her
university experience. Her ambitions for a university education and the influence
of friends seem evident. What is not apparent—yet is central to this study—is her
use of the word “things.” Her statement, “things got in the way" generates many
questions: What exactly does she mean by “things”? Were they personal things?
BYU-Hawaii things? Cultural things? Things linguistic? Academic? Was it
friends? The list is long. However, the more critical question to this study is not
what Amelia meant by “things” but how we might best allow her to tell us what
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
she means. Said another way, what research methodology or tool would most
accurately inform us of her interpretation of “things”?
The rationale used to select the methodology for this study was based on two
assumptions and four questions. First the assumptions: 1) as Tinto observed, if we
are ever going to understand retention issues “our knowledge of attrition must
eventually be informed by the particular person and particular setting with which
we are dealing” (Tinto, 1993, p. 69). 2) an understanding of fundamental issues is
prerequisite to explaining dropout behavior, and understanding issues is best
accomplished by speaking directly to those personally involved. In short, our
work with retention has to be informed by the students who have persisted and
those who have dropped out. What is needed are data from more particular
students like Amelia. Tinto’s interactional model (1975, 1987, 1993) has been the
focal point for student retention research in higher education for nearly three
decades. Despite the volumes of quantitative studies his model has generated,
results have been inconclusive and only moderately supportive of the theory’s
postulates. This is especially true of research on minority student populations.
Accordingly, this study focuses on the retention patterns of a particular group
of students: international Polynesian students from American Samoa, the Cook
Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Samoa, and Tonga who entered Brigham Young
University Hawaii during the 1996 calendar year as first-year university students.
Data were derived from the following four questions:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
1. How do Polynesian students perceive their college-going experience in
relationship to their future plans?
2. What factors do they see as significantly influential in their decision to stay or
leave the university?
3. What background characteristics do Pacific Island students think contribute to
their college persistence or nonpersistence?
4. From the students’ perspectives, what factors, if any, affect their persistence
once they have arrived at BYU-Hawaii?
Considerable research in chapter 2 explicates the need for more fundamental
research on student retention in higher education—especially among minority
groups. These four research questions are intended to provide foundational
research by enhancing understanding rather than by demonstrating causation of
the Polynesian students’ drop-out behavior. A discussion of which research tool
will best achieve this focus follows.
No research method is perfect. Warwick (1973) suggests that “every method
of data collection is only an approximation to knowledge. Each provides a
different and usually valid glimpse of reality, and all are limited when used alone”
(p. 190). Goetz and LeCompte (1984) suggest that the primary criterion for
selecting a particular research design is whether the design allows the researcher
to address the questions posed. It therefore behooves the researcher to select that
method best suited to the problem at hand (Peshkin, 1993). A signature feature of
qualitative inquiry is that it allows the researcher an opportunity to gain an
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
understanding of phenomena as seen by those directly involved (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Borg &Gall, 1989; Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Patton, 1990). In the
words of Denzin and Lincoln (1994), .. qualitative researchers study things in
their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in
terms of the meanings people bring to them” (p. 2). This feature alone makes
qualitative research methods particularly relevant to this study. No forced-choice
surveys or statistical analysis could ever approximate what Amelia meant by
“things got in the way.” Similarly her continued open and honest impressions of
her college experiences could never be accurately replicated in a numeric
presentation. Some problems are better managed with words. As Attinasi (1989)
suggests, data derived from statistical analysis of institutional records document
the problem but they also “effectively strip away the context surrounding the
student’s decision to persist in college and exclude from consideration the
student’s own perceptions of the process” (p. 250). To make this study
meaningful, the research design had to make context a central component, and
allow the students’ voices to be heard. For these reasons, qualitative inquiry
methods were selected.
The last half of this chapter presents in detail the research components, design,
and procedures used to give Polynesian students like Amelia an opportunity to
voice their perspectives on persistence in an American university. For the time
being, however, we turn to a general discussion of the strengths and weaknesses
of qualitative research as it relates to this study. An important component of this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
discussion deals with the trustworthiness of the data and how they can and
cannot be generalized.
Qualitative Research
A long-standing debate persists over the merits of qualitative research in a
research environment dominated by quantitative methods. Common criticisms of
qualitative inquiry are reflected in the following critique of Attinasi’s (1989)
research on Mexican-American students’ persistence patterns:
Several limitations are inherent in this type of qualitative design. The
obvious limitation is its lack of generalizability to the student
population under study since only eighteen individuals were
interviewed. Secondly, the close involvement of the researcher as co
creator of the narrative can alter the original meaning of the
experiences due to the intrusion of the researcher into the participant’s
life world. Interpretations may be given that never before existed until
the researcher interacted with the participant. (Whitfield, 1993, p. 31)
Whitfield’s concerns are not uncommon, nor are they entirely accurate. Her
comments are representative of a quantitative researcher trying to fit qualitative
research into a positivist mold. As Marshall and Rossman (1995) caution, one
method cannot be viewed using the “canons” of another entirely different method
(p. 144). At the same time, the concerns expressed by Whitfield and others about
the generalizability and goodness of qualitative data are not altogether unfounded
and warrant commentary. Prior to that discussion, however, the following
comparison of quantitative and qualitative methodology cannons will establish a
framework on which to build a discussion of issues such as generalizability and
the goodness of data in this study.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
The Canons
Crowson’s (1987) review of qualitative methods provides a concise summary
of key points taken from Lincoln and Guba (1985) regarding quantitative research
methods. Quantitative inquiry has at its foundation the positivist assumption that
reality in nature is discoverable, and when reality is known it can be predicted and
controlled. Typically, the researcher and the object of inquiry are separated in this
method of research. What is more, this method of discovery assumes that
“through science, inquiry can proceed toward generalizable truth statements and
toward a knowledge of cause-effect linkages” (p. 3). Smith (1983) offers three
helpful distinctions between qualitative (realist) and quantitative (idealist)
research by how each views 1) the relationship of the investigator to what is
investigated, 2) the relationship between facts and values, and 3) the goal of
investigation. A positivist (or realist to use Smith’s label), sees the relationship of
investigator to object of investigation as a “subject-object position . . . a realist
separates facts from values, and . . . searches for laws” (p. 12).
The underpinnings of qualitative methodology are markedly different from
those of the quantitative approach. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that the
differences are significant and “not reconcilable” (p. 33). Again, Crowson’s
(1987) summary of what Lincoln and Guba (1985) call “naturalistic inquiry” is
helpful. The naturalist suggests that there are “multiple constructed realities which
may or may not be controlled and at best, can be understood”(p. 3). Naturalism
suggests that the researcher and the object being researched are inseparable. And,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
naturalism “argues that working hypothesis (rather than lawlike generalizations)
and ‘mutual simultaneous shaping’ (rather than causation) are at the heart of the
methodology” (p. 3). According to Smith (1983) “the idealist [naturalist] takes a
subject-subject position . . . perceives facts and values as inextricably mixed, and
rather than seeking laws, the idealist seeks understanding” ( p. 12). This contrast
between the outcomes of the two methodologies further clarifies their
distinctiveness. Quantitative research is best at predicting outcomes, whereas
qualitative research seeks to understand.
Morgan and Smircich (1980) offer a useful summation: “Qualitative research
is an approach rather than a particular set of techniques, and its appropriateness
derives from the nature of the social phenomena to be explored” (p. 491). This
approach is outlined in the following generally accepted characteristics of
qualitative methodology (Borg and Gall 1989). In qualitative research 1) holistic
inquiry is carried out in a natural setting; 2) humans are the primary data-
gathering instrument; 3) emphasis is on qualitative methods (use of some
quantitative methods are possible); 4) samples are purposively selected rather than
randomly; 5) data are inductively analyzed; 6) grounded theories are developed;
7) designs emerge as the research progresses; 8) subject plays a role in
interpreting outcomes; 9) intuitive insights are utilized; 10) emphasis is on social
processes (pp. 385-387). Claire Selltiz’s (1959) observation of qualitative
research ties the underlying concept of these characteristics together nicely,
suggesting “social research is a continuing search for truth in which tentative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
answers lead to a refinement of the questions to which they apply” (p. 190). Said
another way, good qualitative research does not necessarily answer the questions;
it leads us to better questions. With these parameters in mind, we turn now to a
discussion of two prominent concerns expressed earlier about the goodness of
qualitative research data and its generalizability.
Goodness o f Data
The advancement of knowledge and understanding through sound
investigation and reasoning is a common goal of all research regardless of its
focus or type. What is not common among research types is how data are derived
and how they are determined to be sound. Terms like reliability, validity, and
generalizability—the “scientific holy trinity”—are usually associated with
quantitative research (Kvale, 1996, p. 229). Can the results be replicated—
reliability? Have we measured what we purported to measure—validity? Are the
results applicable in comparable settings—generalizability? Similar notions exist
in qualitative research; however, terminology, conceptualization, and application
vary significantly between the two research methods. For example, Wolcott
(1990) quoting Goetz and LeCompte (1984) notes that achieving reliability in
naturalistic inquiry is a near impossibility. Validity on the other hand, “may be its
[qualitative research’s] greatest strength” (p. 126).
Trustworthiness is a term commonly used when referring to the soundness or
goodness of qualitative data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tierney, 1992a). Schwandt
(1997) is helpful in clarifying the multiple meanings of trustworthy as it is used in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
qualitative research. It is the central “criteria that [has] been offered forjudging
the quality or goodness of qualitative inquiry” (p. 164). Lincoln and Guba (1985)
identify four qualities of trustworthy data: Credibility (comparable to internal
validity) ensures there is a fit between the responses given and the researchers •
interpretation of those responses; transferability (or external validity) deals with
the generalization of case to case transfer; dependability (reliability) warrants that
the process is logical, traceable, and documented; and confirmability (objectivity)
links the researchers assertions to the data. These distinctions of trustworthy data
are helpful and will be drawn upon in the research design section of this chapter.
The question of how to ensure that data are valid or trustworthy is at the heart
of Whitfield’s criticism. Lincoln and Guba (1985) make a compelling case for the
need to establish trustworthiness of data, for it is on this point that most
qualitative research is attacked. In order to achieve a high level of trustworthiness,
Lincoln and Guba suggest techniques or activities that increase the probability o f
credible findings. Among these activities are prolonged engagement, persistent
observation, and triangulation. Another is peer debriefing with a disinterested
peer to explore “aspects of the inquiry that might otherwise remain implicit within
the inquirer’s mind” (p. 308). A third technique, negative case analysis, is the
process of continuously refining a hypothesis until “it accounts for all known
cases without exception” (p. 309). Referential adequacy is a technique drawn
from the work of Eisner (1975). In this activity, samples of data are collected and
archived. Once preliminary conclusions have been drawn, this archived data can
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
be used to test the preliminary findings against it. Member checking is a
technique wherein interpretations and conclusions are tested with members of the
group from which data were gathered. Each of these techniques has its strengths
and weaknesses, and some are more appropriate to certain studies than other. The
various techniques used in this study—triangulation, referential adequacy, and
member checking—were purposefully selected and will be discussed in detail
later in the chapter. But first a word about generalizability is in order.
Generalizability
On one level, the notion of generalizability cannot be applied to qualitative
research. As Lincoln and Guba (1985) note, “The trouble with generalizations is
that they don’t apply to particulars” (p. 110). A primary function of qualitative
research is to look at people in particular situations. This is certainly the case in
the present study, and in this sense, its findings cannot be generalizable. What
then, the question might be asked by the positivist, is the value of qualitative
research? Here again an understanding of the purpose of various types of research
is helpful. Biddle and Anderson (1986) as quoted in Borg and Gall (1996), make
this point abundantly clear:
[I]t is inappropriate to compare the relative efficacy of these two
traditions [quantitative and qualitative research] since each has
different purposes; broadly these are the generation of insights on the
one hand and the testing of hypotheses on the other. Although
advocates for discovery [qualitative researchers] decry the arid
tautologies of confirmationists [quantitative researchers], and the latter
express disdain for the sloppy subjectivism of discovery research, the
two perspectives have complementary goals. We need them both (p.
239).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
In other words, qualitative research is a process of discovery; it is not its
function to prove that theories are true in all situations. Peshkin (1993) suggests
that qualitative research’s primary outcomes are “ . . . creating generalizations,
developing new concepts, elaborating existing concepts, providing insights th at..
. refine knowledge, identify problems, [and] clarifying and understanding
complexity. . . ” (p.24). In this sense, qualitative research may not be
generalizable; its value lies in its inherent ability to establish generalizations that
can then be proved or disproved by further research. More specifically, it creates
knowledge—knowledge that is “generalizable to concepts, theoretical
propositions of models and not to universes or populations of cases” (Schwandt,
1997, p. 3).
On another level, qualitative researchers constantly strive for what Lincoln
and Guba (1985) term “transferability,” which is parallel to external validity.
Schwandt (1997) summarizes this notion as the “inquirer’s responsibility for
providing readers with sufficient information on the case studied . . . such that
readers could establish the degree of similarity between the case studied and the
case to which finding might be transferred ...” (p. 164). This can be
accomplished in a variety of ways. Seidman (1991) suggests that this is done by
the researcher “going to such depth in the interviews that surface considerations
of representativness and generalizability are replaced by a compelling evocation
of an individuals experience” (p. 42). In many ways it can be considered like a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
fine work of art. Its craftsmanship is so compellingly good in its own right that it
carries validation with it (Kvale, 1996).
The craftsmanship spoken of by Kvale must be built into the research design
at the outset in order for the results to advance our understanding of the issues
under investigation. Accordingly, we now turn to a specific discussion of how this
study was designed, with issues of trustworthiness and generalizability in mind. It
is time to introduce the international students whose experiences are at the core of
this research, and the procedures implemented to give their voices credence.
Research Design
The balance of this chapter focuses on the specifics of how the study was
structured, how and why the site was chosen, and which students were recruited
to participate and how that recruitment took place. Details on how and where the
data were collected with special attention to ethical and trustworthiness issues are
also discussed. The primary objective here is to make the study’s process
transparent and its data trustworthy.
Site Selection
Marshall and Rossman (1995) suggest four characteristics of an ideal site:
1) entry is possible; 2) there is a high probability that a rich mix of the
processes, people, programs, interactions, and structures of interest are
present; 3) the researcher is likely to be able to build trusting
relationships with the participants in the study; and 4) data quality and
credibility of the study are reasonably assured (p. 51).
An important and sometimes unfortunate fact of research is that it can only be
conducted where entry is possible (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). This fact often
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
leads researchers to select sites and samples of convenience (Borg and Gall,
1995; Patton, 1990). Unfortunately, convenient and ideal are seldom the same. In
this study, however, an ideal setting also happened to be convenient.
The need for a location with a large international student population is
obvious. Brigham Young University-Hawaii is a small (enrollment of 2,000)
undergraduate university located on the north shore of Oahu, Hawaii; however, it
has one of the largest percentages of international students of any undergraduate
university in the country (38.4%) as well as the highest total number of
international students (884) enrolled in any institution of its kind (Desruisseaux,
1999). These percentages have been consistent at BYU-Hawaii for over a decade.
Moreover, it has the largest undergraduate population of international Pacific
Island students anywhere in the nation. These factors alone make BYU-Hawaii a
prime location for research on international student issues. Of particular interest to
this study, however, is the fact that the Pacific Island students have demonstrated
retention patterns unlike any other international group at the school. They come in
fairly large numbers (second largest group at the university) and they drop out in
large numbers (only 30 percent graduate). No other international group has a
higher attrition rate at BYU-Hawaii. What is more, these departure patterns have
been consistent over the seven years the university has kept records of cohorts by
region. What adds further to the site’s desirability is the fact that the BYU-Hawaii
administration is keen on finding solutions to this attrition problem and were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8 1
supportive of this research. Records and considerable resources were made
available to facilitate this study.
BYU-Hawaii is a residential campus located in Laie, a small community about
an hour’s drive from Honolulu. This remote location on the north shore of Oahu
makes it almost essential that students live in the school dormitories, the married
student housing complex, or in apartments in the several small, surrounding
communities. Students sponsored by the school are required to live in university
housing.
A word about BYU-Hawaii as a religious institution will further clarify the
nature of the site and who the students were that participated in the study. BYU-
Hawaii is owned and operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(LDS). BYU-Hawaii is one of four post-secondary educational institutions in the
educational system of the LDS church. Over ninety percent of the students who
enroll are members of the LDS church; however, church membership is not an
enrollment requirement. Virtually all of the international Polynesian students who
enter BYU-Hawaii are members of the church. What is more, many of the
students from Tonga, Samoa and to a lesser degree Fiji have attended high
schools owned and operated by the LDS church in those countries.
The church, and by extension the school, plays a large part in these students’
lives while at BYU-Hawaii. Nearly all of these students enter a school
sponsorship agreement that provides them with room and board, health insurance,
and a job. Students work nineteen hours a week at their jobs on campus or at the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
adjacent Polynesian Cultural Center (PCC), which is also owned and operated
by the LDS church. These jobs make it possible for sponsored students to pay for
an education that would otherwise be far beyond their financial means.
In addition to the services offered by the school’s Counseling office, and other
student services, the church provides a religious support system for the students.
The campus is divided into sixteen ecclesiastical units, each with a bishop
(comparable to a pastor or priest). These church leaders serve as spiritual
counselors and confidants to students while at BYU-Hawaii. The support system
has a significant impact on students, as we shall see in the next chapter.
One aspect of religious life at BYU-Hawaii that directly intersects with
retention issues, and in some ways, obscures the true picture of who drops out and
who does not, is the missionary program of the LDS church. Many of the single
young men, and to a lesser degree, the young women voluntarily serve a mission
for the church when they turn 19 and 21 respectively. The men serve for two
years, and the women serve for 18 months. The exact percentage of those who
leave BYU-Hawaii to serve is not known, but it is estimated that two-thirds of the
men go on missions. No estimate has been made of the number of women who
serve. This is significant to this study since BYU-Hawaii currently has no system
for tracking who has left school for missionary purposes and who has left school
for other reasons. To complicate matters, not all students who interrupt their
schooling for a mission return to school.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
Finally, the school’s honor code (see Appendix 2 for full text) needs to be
mentioned. Students and employees of BYU-Hawaii voluntarily sign and agree to
abide by the Honor Code, which stipulates that students are to “maintain the
highest standards of honor, integrity, morality, and consideration for others in
personal behavior” (BYUH, 1999). Compliance with LDS church standards is
expected of all students while enrolled at BYU-Hawaii. A violation of this code
constitutes grounds for dismissal from the school. It should be noted that students
who attended LDS high schools in the Pacific come to BYU-Hawaii well versed
in the honor code. Codes in the several LDS high schools are similar to BYU-
Hawaii’s code.
Sample Selection
Patton (1990) suggests that nothing distinguishes qualitative and quantitative
research from each other more than the methods used for sampling. Quantitative
methods depend on larger samples selected randomly. Therein lies the “... logic
and power of probability sampling... ” (p. 169). Qualitative methods on the other
hand rely on purposeful sampling which “typically focuses in depth on relatively
small samples” (p. 169). Therefore, says Patton, the underling principle when
selecting any sample should be to select information-rich cases where “one can
learn a great deal about matters of importance” (p. 181). A related issue is how
large to make the sample. Here again, Patton offers sound advice: “The sample
must be selected to fit the purpose of the study, the resources available, the
questions being asked and the constraints being faced” (p. 170).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
Accordingly, this study includes an intense, homogeneous sample (Patton,
1990) of Polynesian students who entered BYU-Hawaii in the same calendar year.
Specifically, the entire new student cohort of Pacific Island students who entered
as first-time university students in the fall and winter semesters and spring term of
1996 served as the sample. This cohort meets many of the criteria outlined above.
It is a manageable size— 143 students total. Thus, it was possible to “focus in
depth on relatively few samples” (Patton, 1990). Also, they have demonstrated an
“intense quality” in regards to attrition. Their persistence patterns are typical of
other Polynesian groups at BYU-Hawaii; nearly 60 percent of this cohort had
dropped out of school by the end of their third year and it is projected that an
additional eight percent will drop out before the end of their fifth year (BYUH
1999a). Of note, the retention rate for this group is slightly better than earlier
cohorts. The reasons for this improvement are discussed in the next section, Data
Collection. Finally, since data were collected from persisters as well as non-
persisters, it was necessary to select a group still in school. When data were
gathered (mid 2000), the 1996 cohort was within a few months of starting its
fourth year at the university. Consequently, it was possible to contact students
who were still in school and likely to persist to graduation.
The new student class entering BYU-Hawaii in 1996 from the Pacific Islands
consisted of 143 students, enrollees of Winter 1996 (37), Spring 1996 (29), and
Fall 1996 (77). However, this number was narrowed in the following ways and
for the following reasons. Currently BYUH’s Factbook definition of “Polynesian”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
includes all first and second language English speaking students from the Pacific
islands of Polynesia, Micronesia, and Melanesia as well as New Zealand and
Australia. For purposes of this research, Polynesian was defined more precisely to
include only students from American Samoa, the Cook Islands, Fiji, French
Polynesia, Samoa, and Tonga. This narrower definition of Polynesian excluded a
substantial number of students from Australia which is not Polynesia. It also
eliminated students from New Zealand, which is part of Polynesia but is
dramatically different from the other Polynesian islands economically,
educationally and linguistically. The reason for excluding the New Zealand
students was to make the study group as homogeneous as possible. The more
homogeneous the group, the easier it is to identify common categories and themes
(Geertz, 1973; Marshall and Rossman, 1995; Wolcott, 1975). The Micronesian
and Melanesian students at BYU-Hawaii have similar economic, educational, and
linguistic backgrounds to the Polynesians. They are not, however, Polynesian, and
there are so few of them (8 students from 6 different countries) the added expense
necessary to find the non-persisters within this group could not be justified.
Filtering out these groups left a sample of 92 students from 6 different countries:
American Samoa, 7; Cook Islands, 7; Fiji, 10; French Polynesia, 12; Samoa, 33;
Tonga, 23.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
Table 3.1.
1996 Cohort Enrollment Status by Country (As of July 2000)
Countrv/Status Graduated In School* Mission Dropout** Total
A. Samoa 0 2 0 5 7
Cook Islands 0 3 0 4 7
Fiji 1 2 3 4 10
French
Polynesia 1 3 0 8 12
Samoa 4 9 2 18 33
Tonga 1 5 2 15 23
Total 7 (7.6%) 20(21.7%) 7 (7.6%) 58 (63%) 92
* Students were determined to be in school if they had registered for the Fall 1999 or Winter 2000
semesters.
** Students were classified as “Dropout” if they had been away from BYUH for more than two
years and were known not to be on a church mission.
Persistence numbers reported in Table 3.1 are more encouraging than any of
the previous years’ reports. By the time the 1996 cohort moves through the
system, their graduation rate is likely to be near 37 percent. This is assuming that
nearly all those who are still in school will persist to the next year. Not all will, of
course, but the odds are greater that they will than that they will not. It also
assumes that those students on missions will return and finish school. Not all will.
At any rate, the numbers show a slight increase. Possible reasons for this increase
warrant consideration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
Data Collection
Data collected in this study came from 36 semi-structured interviews and ten
focus groups. The process involved in collecting this data was formidable for a
variety of reasons. One expected challenge was the far reaches to which students
go once they leave BYU-Hawaii. Students in the 1996 cohort could be found at
sites as distant as New York and New Zealand, and everywhere in between. As
big as the distance obstacle was, it was no more troublesome than trying to find
students names amidst inaccurate institutional records. Obtaining accurate lists of
students was challenging.
BYU-Hawaii administration was cooperative in providing institutional records
for this study. Requests for lists of student names and contact information were
always met in a timely fashion. These lists, however, were not accurate. This was
discovered when invitations to participate resulted in such responses as, “I would
love to help, and am very interested in your study, but I entered BYU[H] in
1994,” or “I have never lived in Tonga. I was bom and raised in Utah.” The
problems behind the inaccuracies seemed to be of two types: data entry errors and
computer software conversion glitches. Quite a number of students with
Polynesian surnames but who never lived outside of the U.S. had been
inaccurately entered in the computer system as residents of Polynesia. The second
problem is less transparent but equally problematic: Five years ago, BYU-Hawaii
converted its mainframe computer systems from Prime to Datatel software. This
conversion process has been long and painful, and in some instances it has created
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
inaccurate reports—especially for data entered in the system at or near the time
of the conversion (1996).
Subsequent lists were slightly more accurate but still incomplete. The solution
to these inaccuracies was two-fold: retrieve records from another source, and ask
students who came in 1996 for names of students that came with them. The
English as an International Language department (EIL) tests all international
students who speak English as a second language shortly after they arrive on
campus. Part of this testing process includes entering basic demographic
information for each new student into a computer database that happens to be
independent of the campus mainframe computer system. The EIL files contained
nearly 95 percent of all the international Polynesian students who came in 1996.
Lists of new students generated from the EIL files were then checked for accuracy
by asking all known 1996 new students to identify from memory the names of
other students from their countries that came with them as new students. This
offered a remarkably accurate system check and helped to identify the missing
five percent of the students. Nearly every student remembered the other students
who came from their country at the same time. Many of them traveled to Hawaii
together, or they went through new student activities together such as medical
testing, language and math testing, and new student orientation.
The inaccuracies in the computer system may in part explain why the
retention rates reported in Table 3.1 are higher than those reported in university
documents. Table 3.1 numbers, which are derived from personal contacts with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
nearly every student in the 1996 cohort, suggest a retention rate of about 40
percent at the end of year three. Numbers in Table 1.1 come from the university
computer system and suggest retention rates for the same group at about 33
percent. More will be said about this discrepancy in Chapter 5. For now, however,
we turn to how data were collected from the 1996 students once it was clear who
those students were.
Finding/contacting participants. One of this study’s principal objectives was
to contact personally as many of the 1996 cohort as possible to allow them to give
their perspectives on university persistence. Contacting 92 students scattered
across the Pacific was challenging. Some students had returned to their islands,
others were still in Hawaii but are no longer in school, while others had gone to
the mainland United States. Finding exactly where these students were was
accomplished by process of elimination. The first task was to identify which
students were still at BYU-Hawaii. This was done by checking registration lists
for Fall 1999 and Winter 2000. Lists willingly provided by the university
indicated that 22 students were still in school, and 62 were no longer enrolled.
Contacting and inviting the students who were still in school to participate was a
simple matter of sending an email or dropping a letter dropped in the campus mail
system (see Ethical Issues for invitation details).
Finding the whereabouts of the 63 no longer at BYU-Hawaii required a
system less technical than a computer but more sophisticated. Many of the islands
these students come from are relatively small and can be circled by car in an hour
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
or less. Some islands, like the main island in Fiji, are much larger but they are,
nevertheless, islands which have families who have lived there for many
generations. The combination of an island inhabited by the same families for
many generations with little outside influence creates a tight communication
system sometimes referred to among Polynesians as the “coconut wireless.” This
communication was enhanced even further by the fact that most of the individuals
were members of the LDS church. This narrowed the communication circle even
further. Thus, trying to find the whereabouts of a young man from Tonga who
was once at BYU-Hawaii was usually no more complicated than asking another
Tongan who was still at BYU-Hawaii. If the informant did not know, it was
almost certain that informant knew someone who did. Six informants, five
students and one Student Services employee provided general locations (state or
country) on 50 of the 62 students no longer at BYU-Hawaii. The remainder of the
students were located by consulting with other informants. In some instances the
information even included telephone numbers and addresses.
Former BYU-Hawaii students had relocated to three general areas: Hawaii,
the U.S. mainland, and the South Pacific. Table 3.2 provides details on these
students’ whereabouts. The majority was in Utah or back in their home islands
with the largest groups in Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, and Tahiti.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
Table 3.2
BYUH 1996 New Students' Residence as of July 2000
Student Origin/
Residence
American
Samoa
Cook Islands Fiji French
Polyn.
Samoa Tonga
A. Samoa 1
BYU-Hawaii 3 3 3 4 6 5
Cook Islands 2
Fiji 3
French Polyn. 6
Hawaii 3 1 1
New Zealand 5
Samoa 9
Tonga 3
U.S. mainland 1 1 1 3 5
Mission 3 2 4
Unknown 8 5
The students who left BYU-Hawaii for Utah were all Tongan. There is a
large, close-knit community of Tongans in and around Salt Lake City. Many
migrated there because of the LDS church influence as well as family
connections. Finding students in Utah was simply a matter of tapping into the
“coconut wireless.”
Contacting students who had returned to the South Pacific required the use of
another networking system. As noted earlier, the LDS church owns and operates
high schools in Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji. It also has church administrative offices in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Tahiti. Administrators in these facilities willingly assisted in locating students
who had returned to their countries. The in-country administrators were invaluable
in helping to contact and invite former students to participate in this study.
Students and former students were contacted and invited to participate (see
Ethical Issues below) in either an in-depth interview or a focus group (Marshall &
Rossman 1995; Kvale, 1996). In total 89 individuals participated in the study.
Data came from four different groups of people associated with BYU-Hawaii. A
large majority of the data came from the students in the 1996 cohort—both
persisters (34) and non-persisters (58). Two other groups provided comparative
data: Polynesian students who entered BYU-Hawaii earlier than 1996—both
graduates and nongraduates; and faculty and administrators (both high school and
university) who had worked with the 1996 students (see Table 3.3).
Table 3.3
Demographic of 89 participants in study
Group/Origin
1996
Persisters
1996
Non-persisters
Pre-1996
students Faculty Administrator
A. Samoa 2 1
*BYU-Hawaii 3 3
Cook Islands 2 1 1
Fiji 4 2 5 1
French Poly. 3 5 12
Samoa 9 6 3 2 3
Tonga 4 3 9 5
* Participants from BYU-Hawaii’s staff came from various national origins. Most came from the
South Pacific, and the United States
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
The three non-1996 groups were included for several key reasons. They
served as a means of triangulating data collected from the 1996 students. What is
more, while these individuals are technically not part of the 1996 cohort, they all
have close ties to the university and have first hand-experience at BYU-Hawaii
either as students or as administrators. Their voices are important to consider.
Table 3.3 indicates the number of participants in each group and how they
contributed to the study (focus group or interview). A specific design of this study
was to ensure that at least two-thirds of the data came from 1996 students. This
was purposeful; the story is theirs.
Travel. Travel required to gather data for this study was extensive and
expensive. The data collection process took three months, covered two states
(Hawaii, Utah) five countries (U.S., Tahiti, Fiji, Tonga, Samoa) and 25,000 miles,
most of it open ocean. Since travel in the South Pacific is expensive, the original
intention was to gather data in the three countries least expensive to reach: Tonga,
Samoa, and Fiji. While the number of Tahitian students who had returned to
Tahiti was substantial (7) the travel costs were prohibitive. A trip to Tahiti is
almost as expensive as trips to Tonga, Samoa, and Fiji combined. However, in
May of 2000, a political crisis broke out in Fiji making travel to the capital city of
Suva quite risky. State Department travel advisories warned against all travel to
Suva. After a month and a half standoff and with no resolution to the coupe in
sight, travel to Fiji was cancelled. The funds for the Fiji trip were used to partially
pay for travel to Tahiti. Because original travel plans were delayed by the political
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
crisis in Fiji, rebooking flights to Tonga and Samoa at such a late date was
impossible. The few flights in and out of those countries were full. The only
alternative was to fly into Fiji (because of the political unrest) most flights to Fiji
were nearly empty) with a one-day stop over in Nadi and then fly on to Tonga and
Samoa. Since Nadi is a major city on the opposite side of the island from the city
of Suva, and the risk seemed minimal, the trip to Fiji was made. This stopover
was invaluable to the study. The contact administrator in Fiji made all the
necessary arrangements to transport nine participants from Suva to Nadi. The trip
between these two cities is a four hour drive one way.
By the beginning of August 2000, rich data were collected from students from
all six South Pacific countries—both persisters and non-persisters. Visits had been
made to all but American Samoa and the Cook Islands. Not getting to these two
countries had a minimal impact on the study since only two students (one in each
country) had returned to their home islands.
Two sources of funding made this project possible. First, BYU-Hawaii is
committed to understanding and improving student retention among all students
but especially the Polynesians because of the high attrition rate. Consequently,
institutional research funds were provided to help defray travel costs. The balance
of the expenses was paid for with the researcher’s personal funds.
Ethical issues. Once students had been located, invitations to participate were
extended in several ways depending on where these students lived. Those in
Hawaii but not in school were mailed a letter of invitation (see Appendix 3).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Students still on campus were contacted by e-mail. The contents of the e-mail
message were identical to the postal letter. Participants who had returned to their
home islands were contacted either by phone or in person by the in-country
facilitator who extended an invitation to participate with a message similar to that
written in the letters. At no point were individuals coerced to participate. If
invitations to participate were rejected, no further contact was made. In total, six
individuals refused to participate.
The potential for data to be of a confidential and sensitive nature is always
present when conducting interviews and focus groups (Marshall & Rossman,
1995; Kvale, 1996). Such was certainly the case in this study. For example, on a
number of occasions students spoke quite candidly of Honor Code violations they
had committed while still enrolled in school. In order to ensure that students
would be open and candid with their responses, anonymity of their comments was
ensured. Prior to their involvement, each participant was asked to read a copy of
the Project Description (see Appendix 4) which clearly stipulates that all
responses will be completely anonymous. Furthermore, each participant read and
signed a Consent to Participate letter which had been approved by the Human
Subjects Review Board at the University of Southern California (see Appendix 5).
This consent letter also clearly delineates the agreement to keep all responses
completely confidential. As a final measure, just prior to the interview or focus
group, the facilitator restated that all responses would be kept in the strictest of
confidence.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
In order to maintain this promised confidentiality, all names used in this
study are pseudonyms. Where mentioning the participant’s country of origin
might make it possible to attribute comments to a specific individual, the phrase
“from a South Pacific country” is used to mask the person’s identity. In some
instances this created awkward sentences, but it in no way distorted data. Always
when balancing between accuracy and confidentiality, the participants’ anonymity
was prevailed. This allegiance to confidentiality necessitated not highlighting one
case in Chapter 4. One former student left school amidst a great deal of public
conflict and controversy with several administrators. Including this student’s story
was impossible due to the public nature of the departure. However, choosing not
to use this case did not significantly weaken the data.
Interviews
Data for this study were collected by means of interviews. Interviews allow
participants to express their world view in their own words (Seidman, 1991).
Specifically, participants were interviewed either individually in semi-structured
interviews or in small focus groups. The reason for incorporating two forms of
interview into the study was purely a matter of data trustworthiness. Each method
employed allows for data to be triangulated (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In total, 52
participants were interviewed in ten focus groups, and 36 individuals participated
in in-depth interviews. Table 3.4 presents specific demographic details on each of
the participants as well as group sizes and composition. What follows is a
discussion of specific details on both types of interviews.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Table 3.4
Table 3.4 Focus Group/Interview Participant Distribution
Interview Type 1996 cohort Pre-1996 students Faculty Administrators
Personal interviews 27 6 5 4
Focus group 1
(BYU-Hawaii)
5
Focus group 2
(BYU-Hawaii)
6
Focus group 3
(BYU-Hawaii)
3 2
Focus group 4
(Tahiti)
8
Focus group 5
(Fiji)
3
Focus group 6
(Fiji)
3
Focus group 7
(Tonga)
5
Focus group 8
(Tonga)
5
Focus group 9
(Tonga)
6
Focus group 10
(Samoa)
3 1 3
Focus groups. Focus group interviewing is a technique borrowed from
marketing research which allows the participants to openly discuss views on a
specified topic Participants in focus groups are brought together because of shared
characteristics relevant to the topic of study with the number of participants
usually ranging from 4-12 (Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Morgan & Scanned,
1997; Kvale, 1996). The power of focus group interviewing stems from the fact
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
that “an individual’s attitudes and beliefs do not form in a vacuum: People often
need to listen to others’ opinions and understandings in order to form their own”
(Marshall & Rossman, 1995, p. 84).
All ten focus groups in this study were tape recorded, and each followed the
same protocol (see Appendix 7, 8) depending on the group’s composition. Student
focus groups, for example, were guided by questions relevant to their experiences.
Faculty and staff, on the other hand, had similar questions that were delivered in
a manner appropriate to their experiences in counseling and teaching students. It
should be noted that protocols for both the interviews and focus groups were
structured similarly to ensure data uniformity.
Focus groups were segmented to avoid having students in the same groups as
faculty and staff. The rationale behind this segmented structure is that Polynesian
students tend to be reluctant to speak on equal terms when elders are present
(Morgan & Scanned, 1997). Having students in their own focus groups helped
create an environment of openness and security (Kvale, 1996; Morgan &
Scanned). Within groups, participants were broadly mixed with students from
each of the six island nations included in this study. One further measure was
taken when structuring the focus groups to assure data quality. Two of the focus
groups were conducted by individuals not associated with BYU-Hawaii and
unknown to the participants. This was done to allow students to speak openly and
freely about BYU-Hawaii issues. What is more, data from these two groups
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
served as another source of data with which to triangulate responses gathered in
the other focus groups and interviews.
In-depth interviews. Interviews allow us to “understand the world from the
subjects’ point of view” (Kvale, 1996). Furthermore, it is the most common and
potentially most powerful method for gathering qualitative data (Kvale, 1996;
Marshall & Rossman, 1995). Interviews are dialogs between the participants
(Schwandt, 1997), or they are “conversations with a purpose” (Kahn & Cannell,
1957, p. 149). Unlike forced-choice questionnaires or surveys, interviews allow
the individuals to express ideas beyond what is typically collected superficially by
statistics (Attinasi, 1992).
Interviews conducted in this study were all semi-structured. Such an interview
is “neither an open conversation nor a highly structured questionnaire. It is
conducted according to an interview guide that will focus on certain themes”
(Kvale, 1996, p. 27). Accordingly, all interviews were guided by the same
protocols (see Appendix 6). Questions varied only according to a student’s status.
For instance, questions asked of a student who had dropped out of school were
slightly different from those asked of a student still in school. For example, the
question “If you went back to school at BYU-Hawaii, what would you do
differently? would be inappropriate to ask of a student still in school. Participants
from each of the four groups (1996 persisters and non-persisters; p re-1996
graduates; pre-1996 non-graduates; faculty and administration) were interviewed
(see Table 3.4).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
To ensure consistency, all interviews were conducted by the researcher and
followed the same format. Following the request to tape record the interview (all
interviews were tape recorded except two), an introductory statement about the
research was read. Questioning then followed the set protocols. In addition to the
tape recording, the interviewer kept notes of what was said and done during the
interview. Most interviews lasted between 45 minutes and an hour. Interviewing
generates enormous amounts of raw data that require constant and careful analysis
by the researcher. Each forty-five minute interview, for instance generated
between ten and fifteen pages of transcript. We turn now to two final questions
regarding this volume of data, namely how they were analyzed and what
measures were implemented to ensure trustworthiness.
Data Analysis
Patton (1980) correctly points out, “The data generated by qualitative methods
are voluminous.. . . Sitting down to make sense out of pages of interviews and
whole field notes can be overwhelming” ( p. 297). Analyzing the data in a study
such as this is a process of bringing order, structure, and meaning to the collected
data. Marshall and Rossman (1995) suggest the procedures most often used to
analyze data fall into five categories: “organizing the data; generating categories,
themes, and patterns; testing the emergent hypotheses against the data; searching
for alternative explanations of the data; and writing the report” (p. 113).
These data are analyzed inductively in order to reveal unanticipated outcomes.
In other words, the researcher drew generalizations and developed understanding
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
from the students’ perspectives (Borg & Gall, 1989). A key component of
qualitative research according to Geertz (1973) is to “draw large conclusions from
small but very densely textured facts; to support broad assertions about the role of
culture in the construction of collective life by engaging them exactly with
complex specifics” (p. 28).
Sense making of the data gathered in this study focused primarily on the two
purposes mentioned earlier: interpreting the process of student persistence as it
applies to Polynesian students, and verifying existing theory, specifically Tinto’s
interactional theory, against the international students’ interpretations of the
process. The desired outcomes of these purposes were to explain and create
generalizations about this particular population, develop new concepts, elaborate
on existing concepts, and refine knowledge of student retention. These outcomes
were achieved specifically by measuring discovered patterns, categories and
themes from this study against the concepts proposed in Tinto’s interactional
model of student persistence. Chapter 5 offers a full discussion of these findings.
Trustworthiness of Data
Much has already been said regarding what trustworthy data are and what
techniques can be applied to collect them. A summary of the techniques applied in
this study is warranted. Several steps were taken to assure that measures of
trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) were
met. First, data were triangulated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Triangulation is a means of checking the integrity of the inferences one
draws. It can involve the use of multiple data sources, multiple investigators,
multiple theoretical perspectives, multiple methods or all of the these” (Schwandt,
1997, p. 162). In this study data were collected from sources in addition to the
1996 students: persisters, non-persisters, faculty, and administrators. Furthermore,
six national views provided another layer of perspective against which assertions
could be checked. Also, adding two additional investigators to conduct on-campus
focus groups added additional strength to the collected data.
Second, member checking ensured that the criteria of confirmability were met.
Member checking is a technique whereby responses by informants are checked
for accuracy by the informants as well as by members of the group under study
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Crowson, 1987). Various interview participants were
asked to respond to the information reported to confirm the researcher’s findings.
Third, virtually all the data were tape recorded and transcribed for careful and
thorough analysis. In addition, one focus group that was conducted by an outside
facilitator was not transcribed until the end of the project. The tape was archived
until the final report was completed. Responses from the archived focus group
were then used to ensure that reported data were consistent with archived focus
group perspectives.
Finally, in regard to trustworthy data, since the research instrument used in
qualitative research is the researcher (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Patton, 1990; Borg
and Gall 1989), a word about the “instrument” is in order (The brief shift in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
person is purposeful). According to Tierney (1992b), a researcher has to have
some “cultural sensitivity or awareness of those we study to avoid
misunderstanding” (p. 168). At the same time, “one needs a particular distance
from people in order to gain perspective” (p. 168). Kluckhohn (1949) states the
same concern this way, “It would hardly be fish who discovered the existence of
water” (p. 16). I have been teaching international students English for twenty
years. The past eighteen years have been spent at BYU- Hawaii working in
various capacities with international students from over forty different nations.
My relationship to international students has been one of teacher, academic
counselor, language program administrator, and language policy consultant to
South Pacific high school administrators. These roles have taken me into
classrooms at BYU-Hawaii and the South Pacific; I have been to Pacific Island
students’ villages, high schools, and, to a lesser degree, into their homes. This
extensive contact and background experience with the students to be studied may
be perceived as a possible problem to the research. Some may say that it will limit
the study’s objectivity. I kept in mind the possibility of bias as I proceeded
through the study. At the same time, I am not a Pacific Islander, and these past
eighteen years might be viewed as extensive fieldwork which makes me sensitive
to and aware of Pacific Island student issues.
Summary
A great deal of research has been generated over the past quarter of a century
to prove scientifically the validity of contributing variables to student departure as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
expressed in Tinto’s model. Much has been gained from that wealth of research.
Regrettably, little has been done qualitatively to confirm the basic assumptions on
which those variables are founded, yet qualitative research has much to offer
when basic understanding is needed.
This chapter has highlighted the features unique to qualitative research that
make it particularly beneficial to the research questions that drive this study.
However, it must be noted that no single method of inquiry will entirely account
for the complex nature of student departure from higher education. It behooves
researchers to take every caution to design research that yields sound, good data
on which theory can be built.
Research as it has been outlined in this chapter is intended to provide
trustworthy data regarding retention patterns among international students from
Polynesia. The principle objective of the design was to lend credibility to these
students’ voices in the crowded and noisy arena of aggregated numbers. The next
chapter illustrates the significance of such a design; the chapter belongs to 40
students who entered BYU-Hawaii as new students in 1996. It is time to hear
what they have to say about retention.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Chapter 4
POLYNESIAN STUDENTS ON RETENTION
"There are a lot o f distractions for Polynesians when we get to Hawaii. . .you know
we have been living on this little island where we hardly have anything and once we
get to Hawaii we feel like doing everything—things we have never seen before. ”
(Tevita, 1996 new student)
Each participant in this study has a story worth telling. Unfortunately, notes
and transcripts from thirty-six in-depth interviews and ten focus groups fill
hundreds of pages making a retelling of each account impossible (Patton, 1990).
Even relating the experiences of the 40 students from the 1996 cohort would far
exceed this chapter’s capacity. Consequently, six individuals, purposefully
selected from the 1996 cohort, present the major issues that surfaced during the
interview process. These students come from the four largest groups of students in
the study: Samoa (2), Tonga (2), French Polynesian (1), and Fiji (1). This
international cross section establishes a broad base of ideas from multiple
cultures. Also the gender mix of females (4) to males (2) approximates BYU-
Hawaii’s student body. Additionally, the mix of two persisters to four non-
persisters closely matches the overall retention rate for Polynesians at BYU-
Hawaii. Finally and most importantly, these students were selected because of
their rich experiences; each of the major themes and many of the sub-themes that
emerged in the data collection process are embedded in these six stories. Of note,
there may be a tendency to stereotype one student’s behavior with a particular
country. This must be avoided. These students represent common themes not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
countries. Said another way, they were selected because of their experiences not
because of their nationality. Furthermore, while these six individuals have much
to contribute, they fall short of saying everything. Accordingly, the chapter
focuses intensively on six individuals, but much of what they say is buttressed
with additional comments taken from many other participants.
This chapter begins with the presentation of three distinct phases of the
students’ educational careers: early years of education in the Pacific, the “critical”
first year at BYU-Hawaii, and dropping out or/persisting at BYU-Hawaii. This
overview not only allows us to see, if only in part, what these students see, but
also provides a backdrop against which the students’ responses to the four
research questions can be measured.
Understanding the students’ early background is essential to knowing what
happens in the first year at BYU-Hawaii and ultimately what they experience
while struggling to persist. This can be seen best by example. A statement like,
“trying to work and go to school at the same time nearly drove me crazy the first
year I was there [BYU-Hawaii]” may not appear meaningful to most readers.
After all, many students make such claims about working their way through
school. However, this statement is highly significant to a student from Tahiti
when one realizes that many Tahitian children grow up having never had a paying
job. For a student to get a job and work while in high school, which is quite
common in the United States, is unheard of in Tahiti; in fact it is against the law.
For most children in Tahiti their sole, major responsibility is being a student.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
Consequently, learning how to manage time between work and school is not
typically learned before coming to a university. Knowing this about the Tahitian
students’ upbringing and knowing that they agree to keep a twenty-hour per week
job as part of their sponsorship contract at BYU-Hawaii adds considerable
meaning to the student’s comments about work and study nearly driving her crazy
the first year at BYU-Hawaii. This background further clarifies why first-year
adjustments may be difficult and what may be contributing to high drop out rates.
In sum, this overview of the students provides a contextual frame for the
second section of this chapter that is devoted exclusively to the students’
responses to the four research questions. We now turn our attention to the
introductions of Amelia, Isapela, Malia, Tevita, Semisi, and Suli.
In Their Own Words: At School in the Islands
Amelia
Going to a university was something Amelia had looked forward to since she
was a small child growing up in the South Pacific, “all the while I was growing
up, I always thought about going to college. As a member of the church [LDS],
BYUH was my only choice. It was number one in my mind.” What is more, she
had great promise as a university student. She was an honor roll student nearly
every semester of her junior and senior high school years. Yet, as she noted in
Chapter 3, “things” got in her way. She dropped out of BYU-Hawaii halfway
through her second year. Whatever the cause of her dropping out, it was not likely
due to a lack of educational exposure or experience.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
Amelia was exposed to considerable education growing up. Her parents are
both high school graduates. Her father attended a university in the United States
before dropping out in his second year. When the family of three children, small
by Polynesian standards, returned to the South Pacific, Amelia’s mother took
advantage of the University of the South Pacific (based in Fiji) extension courses
and earned secretarial credentials that secured her a stable office job. Moreover,
Amelia also had an opportunity to travel to Hawaii when she was fifteen years old
to visit family. Of that occasion she notes,
While I was in Hawaii I visited with some cousins who were attending
BYU-Hawaii. They showed me around the campus and encouraged
me to study hard in high school so I could go there too. It looked like
so much fun. I liked it there a lot. I really wanted to go.
Few students in the 1996 cohort have had both parents graduate from high
school, and even fewer have had both parents achieve any post-secondary
education. Amelia also has the distinction of being the only student in the 1996
cohort to have visited an American university campus prior to attending as a
student.
This extensive exposure to education seemed to have a positive effect on her
as she was growing up. Going to school was one of her favorite things to do.
I never participated in any sports or anything like that. Education was
always really important to me. I loved studying. I had good friends
too, and that helped. But I just always liked school. It was like
something magical. I just loved it. I love all the subjects except math.
English is my favorite.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
Her love of school showed in her academic achievements. While describing
her performance she noted, “I was one of the okay students. I wasn’t the DUX
[top student in the class], but I was always on the honor rolls and all those lists
concerning academic performance.” And when asked if her parents had insisted
that she do homework while she was growing up she responded, “Not me. I would
just go home and do my school work on my own.”
It was in Form Six (12th grade) when she started getting serious about going
off to college. After passing the required language proficiency exams with high
marks, she was accepted to BYU-Hawaii for the Fall 1996 class. Her experiences
as a first-year student will be discussed after we meet five of her classmates.
Isapela
Isapela grew up in the same country as Amelia. Her story, however, is
somewhat different from Amelia’s. Isapela is now a second semester senior at
BYU-Hawaii. She is scheduled to graduate in 2001. Isapela is the third of eight
children. None of her brothers or sisters has gone on to post-secondary education
“so far.” Furthermore, her father never finished elementary school. “His mother
passed away when he was very young so he moved a lot living with aunts and
uncles. That’s where he learned to work.” Isapela’s mother completed high school
and then went to Fiji to attend the University of the South Pacific where she
earned her elementary education teaching credentials. She returned home and
began teaching in the public elementary schools before meeting her husband and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
getting married. They raised their family with a high priority on education.
Isapela recalls when she was at home:
School work has to come first, then the other activities. My parents are
like very strict. Church and school come first. If you don’t finish that,
then you don’t have a social life. . . it was always that way . . . We had
chores and we went to the bush to work each Saturday, but school
came first. My dad always said you’ve got to finish school first. You
will always have more time to enjoy yourself.
Despite this strict upbringing, Isapela said she liked school, though her
expressions were far less exuberant than Amelia’s. “I liked school okay. I usually
did fine.” Her modest self-appraisal stands in contrast with a high school teacher’s
evaluation and her final standing in the senior class in high school. According to
her high school English teacher, “Amelia was a very bright student.” Her
performance was indicative of this statement. She graduated ninth in a class of
approximately 110 students.
As early as Form 4 (10th grade), she recalls wanting to attend BYU-Hawaii
but was concerned about finances. In a family with eight siblings, she did not
know where her parents would find any extra money to send her to college.
“Friends suggested that I try, plus I wanted to get away from home.” Her mother
tried to persuade her to stay home and attend the Teacher’s College. To that
advice Isapela replied, “I have seen my mom. Teaching is a full-time, 24-hour
job. I have seen her do that ever since I grew up, and I did not want to do it.” Her
father was silent about the subject. “He did not say anything about me going to
college. Nothing pro or con.” Finances became less of an issue when she was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I ll
offered a sponsorship. She entered BYU-Hawaii in the fall of 1996 along with
Amelia, and Semisi, a student from another South Pacific country.
Semisi
Semisi was bom in England while his father was a university student. “Many
in his generation went to England to study ...” His mother was a nurse but he
never recalls seeing her work as a nurse. “There was just talk around the house
about her being one.” Her days were spent caring for seven children.
Much of Semisi’s appreciation for education came from his father’s example.
His father would always emphasize the importance of education to his children.
He was the only child of thirteen to graduate from high school and did so under
difficult circumstances.
He would have to walk miles to school through paddocks, crossing
streams, and up and down hills every day to get to school. I’ve walked
that trail, and it’s not easy. He never had much, usually just some
tapioca [much like a boiled potato] for lunch, and he tells us he used
bamboo sticks for a ruler because he had no money. So every time we
kids would complain we were reminded of his experiences.
Life was good growing up in the South Pacific, Semisi recalls. He grew up in
the capital city “ . . . so we are city kids. We didn’t have it so bad. Not like my
dad. We children had everything we needed. There was always food on the table;
we always had at least three pairs of uniforms for school—each kid.” School fees
were not a problem for him like they were for some families. There was no excuse
for not going to school. Both his parents emphasized school. “We really had to be
bad stricken in order for us to miss school.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Semisi also remembers how hard his dad worked, so he grew up knowing
that he had to do well. This he recalls even from a “very young age.”
School came easy to Semisi, perhaps too easy. “I was pretty much an average
student in my class. I never had to study. I pretty much cruised all the way to
Form Six [12th grade].” In the British school system, which is prevalent in the
South Pacific, moving from one form to the next depends on passing national
exams. Perhaps none of the exams is more critical or rigorous than the Form Six
exam. This exam determines several things, first who passes high school with
basic competency, and second who passes with high enough marks to move on to
Form Seven, a college preparatory year. The whole nation takes the exam on the
same hour of the same day. “It is a government set examination. So if you fail
that, you fail the whole year. There is no way you can just retake the exam.” It is
not uncommon for students to repeat Form Six several times before passing the
exam. To add to the pressure, exam results are announced over the radio and
printed in the newspaper. Semisi recalls not hearing his name announced over the
radio, “It was a great embarrassment to me. For me it was really a blast because
[of the student government position he held.] But most of all I was disappointed
because I had let my parents down.”
Of the experience, Semisi recalls his father telling him he would “pay the fees
for Form Six over and over again as long as he was willing to do it.” Semisi not
only passed Form Six the second year, he passed with Form Seven qualifying
marks. His father was so pleased that “ . . . he sent me to New Zealand to attend
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
Form Seven at the Church College of New Zealand.” From New Zealand,
Semisi was admitted to the Fall 1996 class at BYU-Hawaii. He is currently a first
semester senior at BYU-Hawaii with an anticipated graduation date of June 2001.
Suli
A common feature of South Pacific life is living with extended family.
Growing up in an extended family with sixteen children in the same home
presented its challenges to Suli. Doing well in school did not seem to be one of
them. Despite the fact that most of her brothers, sisters, and cousins dropped out
before completing high school, she was not discouraged from doing what she
loved—going to school. “ I really liked school. I got good grades; it was fun. High
school was my favorite. It was really nice; it was fantastic. I got scholarships and
awards for my efforts.” Her academic rewards did not come without a price,
however. She recalls that her grandmother would meet her at the door as she came
home from primary school to make sure that she did her homework.
My mom would sit with me at the table until my homework was
finished. She was not always able to help, especially when I was in
high school. She did not know how to do the assignments. But I could
not go out with my friends until all I had to do was finished. I didn’t
really like all that pressure but I had to do what I was told.
Strong parental support for school is also apparent by the fact that Suli was
not expected to do any household chores, of which there were many with sixteen
children. School work was her chores. Whenever Suli would slack in school, she
recalls her mother saying
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
You are the smartest in this family, and see what are you doing. You’re
doing nothing. You’re the oldest girl in the family and everyone is
looking up to you because you are smart. You need to go to school to
get a good job and have a good future. You need to study hard to get a
goodjob.
Going to a university did not come into Suli’s plans until her last year of high
school. “I started to think what am I going to do with my future? The only thing I
was thinking of was going overseas. I wanted to get out of [name of her country]
and see something different—a new environment.” Before going to Hawaii, there
was never any thought of what she was going to major in, “I just knew I needed to
further my education.” After completing her senior year in high school, she
applied to BYU-Hawaii and was accepted in the Fall 1996 class. Prior to going to
Hawaii, she spent a semester in the EIL program in her country to bolster her
English language skills. Suli completed two years at BYU-Hawaii before
dropping out.
Tevita
Tevita was bom in Australia while his father was pursuing his bachelor’s
degree in education. The family moved back to their home island when Tevita
was six. Education was central in the family. Three of his elder siblings have
completed or are in the process of completing their bachelors degrees. One was
educated in a university in the Pacific, and two were educated at universities
outside of Tevita’s home island. His mother finished high school but makes the
point that any degree her husband has achieved is her degree as well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
Much like other students in this study, Tevita was taught very clearly and
early in his home that nothing came before schoolwork.
We could not go anywhere until our assignments were finished. That
was a rule of the house. I remember my parents talking to us almost
every week about the importance of getting a good education to get a
good job. My parents were kind of hard on us about school. But
looking back, it was good. Not many kids in Samoa have the kind of
opportunity for an education that we have had.
Despite the coaching and many good examples from siblings and parents,
school was not his favorite thing. “I did ok if I liked the teacher. But If I didn’t, I
did not do well. I guess I was what you call a naughty boy in school.” He
managed to get by in high school but it was far from his best effort. “I often tell
my wife that the one thing I wish is that I could go back and do high school over
again—knowing what I know now.” He did not do his best, but it was good
enough to get him by the senior year exam. Much like other South Pacific
countries, high school performance in his country is determined by the Pacific
Secondary School Certificate exam (PSSC). The PSSC is a regional exam
developed by a consortium of South Pacific Ministries of education and is
administered by all participating nations. Students are tested in the subjects they
have studied in high school. To be admitted to BYU-Hawaii Tevita had to pass all
five subject exams that he took. “I never dreamed that I would pass all five, but I
did.” Many factors then pushed him to BYU-Hawaii. Once he had passing scores
on the PSSC, he realized he had to start making some hard choices.
To be honest, my desire to go to college was really fifty-fifty. On one
hand my dad was bugging me to go to school or go on a mission [for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
the LDS church]. Most of my friends that I hang out with, they were
leaving. And I was like saying man if I don’t go. I had all these things
coming in my mind, and I was saying, man I’ve got to get out of here.
Everyone is leaving going to New Zealand, Australia, going to school
and I am still here. I knew if I didn’t leave it’s natural for everyone to
say ‘what’s wrong with him, why isn’t he going?’ I felt pressure from
all directions. I wanted to go but I didn’t want to go. What really
pushed me was just all this pressure. So finally I just went.
Tevita went to BYU-Hawaii in the Fall 1996 semester. In total, he completed
only one year of school before leaving the university. His ambivalence about
leaving home would prove to have an impact on his persistence and performance
as a new student in his first year at the university as we shall shortly see.
Malia
Malia’s early educational experiences in the South Pacific stand in stark
contrast to the other five students in this group. As the oldest child in her family
she was responsible for all the household chores in addition to her school
responsibilities. Relating the following typical school day was a difficult,
emotional experience for her even eight years after the fact.
On morning time before I got the bus to school, I have to prepare the
breakfast for all my family. At that time there were four brothers and
two sisters. Oh at 5 o’clock in the morning, I would get up; go get the
bread, make breakfast, then get to school by 7:00 [AM]; then go back
home. I would return home at 3:00[PM]—wash dishes, pick up the
leaves in the yard, and fix dinner. Oh it was hard. Sometimes I don’t
have time to make my homework—tired.
School was not a priority to her parents. She attended more because it was
mandated by law than because of parental encouragement. Anything she did
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
academically was on her own accord and only after she had completed her
household responsibilities.
A logical question is how well such a student would perform in school with
heavy responsibilities and general lack of support at home? Malia notes,
It [school] was hard—very hard. I was a good student when I had time
to do my work. I wouldn’t say I was a really good student. But mostly
I was just average—no time. When I had time for school I did well,
but I usually had no time. My last year in school was the worst.
Going to a university never once crossed her mind. “ I never thought about
university until [a local church (LDS) leaders] asked me if I wanted to go to
BYUH. Of course I said yes. Just to get away from home—to get out of [name of
her country].” As soon as she discovered that BYU-Hawaii offered a foundational
year of English study before fully matriculating into the university, she started the
application process. She spoke little English at the time, so she was excited about
the possibilities BYU-Hawaii offered. When her parents discovered her plans they
refused to let her go, “They said that they needed me to stay at home and get a job
to work for the family.” Getting a job after high school graduation put her
university plans on hold for two years. After continued, strong encouragement
from the church leader, “He insisted that I apply.” she finally made the decision to
go to Hawaii even against her parents’ wishes. “Once they [her parents] realized
that I was really going to Hawaii, and nothing could change my mind, they said
okay. I think then they were proud of me.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
Malia’s feelings as she arrived in Honolulu in the fall of 1996 to begin her
first year of university study speak volumes. “I did not feel homesick at all. I felt
relive [relief]. Oh so free. The only thing I think about at first was being free.”
Malia’s “freedom” at BYU-Hawaii lasted nearly two years before she too dropped
out of school.
Summary
All six students in this group entered BYU-Hawaii in the fall of 1996. For the
most part, they came from homes where education was not only a high priority
but it was strictly enforced. Three of the six were honor students in high school.
In every case, at least one of their parents had finished high school and in several
instances, their parents had post-secondary degrees. Of these six students, only
two are still in school, Semisi and Isapela. One will graduate in April 2001 and
the other is scheduled to graduate in June of 2001. Two of the three high school
honor students, Amelia and Suli, are no longer in school.
Much has been written about the “critical first year” in college and how
important it is that students be integrated into the university fabric (Tinto, 1973,
1993). This literature also points out how getting students into their second year is
a significant step toward overall retention (Noel, Levitz, and Saluri, 1987).
Despite these claims, all four students in this group dropped out of BYU-Hawaii
after their second year. The first year was apparently not the challenge. We turn
now to a discussion of these six students’ “critical” first year.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
In Their Own Words: The “Critical” First Year
Tevita found himself in difficulty early. Specifically, trouble started within the
first three weeks of the first semester.
When I got there it was nothing like I thought it would be. I was free
like the little pig just out of the gate. The world is all his. When I first
got to BYU my main focus was doing my school work. It was like two
three weeks there; I was like missing home, missing home like crazy. I
just started losing my focus and hanging out with the wrong crowd. . .
There are a lot of distractions in Hawaii.. . .
This statement is meaningful. Tevita speaks of various challenges: new found
independence (free), homesickness (missing home), losing or lack of focus, and
friends (wrong crowd) or relationships. Each of these factors were not unique.
Many students noted similar issues.
While many had noted similar concerns, not all students were impacted as
deeply as Tevita. By the end of his first semester he had been cited for Honor
Code violations and was suspended for one semester. He spent the suspension
semester living with his parents and returned to BYU-Hawaii the next enrollment
period— Spring term 1997. The time away “ . . . renewed my focus”, only briefly.
By Spring term 1998, he was on a one-year, non-academic suspension. He has not
returned to school since.
Surprisingly, the other five students considered their first year at BYU-Hawaii
as their best. The similarity of their comments about the first year is striking. “My
first year was really good. It was the second year when it got really bad. I guess
maybe the end of the first year things started to slip” (Amelia). My first year was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
good; It was in the second year when I started to drag” (Suli). “My first two
semesters grades were good. And then it started going down. Work was
demanding, and I was frustrated with a lot of things” (Isapela). My first year was
the best. Not until the second year did I get in trouble” (Malia). Semisi sums up
his first year experience nicely.
When I first came I was still pumped up. I just barely left home. My
parents’ words of advice were still fresh on my ears. I was still very
excited about school. But then slowly I just kind of lost it... I would
say the second and third years were by far the most difficult.
Academic record checks on all forty participants indicate that the students’
self-reported evaluations of their first-year experiences are accurate (see Tables
4.1, 4.2). Most students did not start getting into academic difficulty until the end
of the first year or the beginning of the second year. Also of significance, the ratio
of positive first years to poor first years as determined by grades among the forty
students in the 1996 cohort was approximately four to one. The second year
seems to be more critical than the first year for Polynesian students. Second year
issues are presented in the next section of this chapter. For now, however, we
remain focused on first-year challenges.
While most students reported that the first year was the best, this is not to
suggest that is was trouble or worry free for them. It was not, as Tevita’s
experience illustrates. Traveling thousands of miles, crossing international borders
and leaving homes and families behind create multiple challenges for these
students. The most commonly mentioned challenges were homesickness, family,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
work, language, peer distractions, culture shock and freedom. Each of these
first-year factors emerged many times in the interview and focus group process
among students and administrators alike. Furthermore, several of these challenges
not only emerged in the students’ first year but also persisted into the next several
years. Those that carry over to the second and third years will be presented more
extensively in the next section. What follows is an overview of the principal
challenges in the students’ first year of university life.
Table 4.1
1996 Cohort Participants Grade Point Average Profile by Country
From/GPA
1st Sem.
GPA
GPA
End of year 1
Final
Cum.
GPA
Average
♦Grade Alert
Semesters
A. Samoa (4) 2.5 2.1 2.64 2.25
Cook Islands (3) 3.02 2.43 2.38 3.66
Fiji (6) 2.53 2.37 2.15 2.2
French Poly. (8) 2.55 2.48 2.56 2.12
Samoa (12) 2.59 2.12 1.93 2.33
Tonga (6) 2.79 2.80 2.43 1.5
♦Grade Alert is defined as any semester with a GPA below 2.0 on a 4.0 scale.
Homesickness. Ioanae was not alone when he said he was “missing home like
crazy.” By far, homesickness was the most frequently mentioned first-year
challenge. Nearly every student interviewed in this study acknowledged the
difficulty of being away from home and family for the first time in his or her life.
Amelia recalls that everything was fine when she first arrived except for
homesickness.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
Everybody was homesick. .. . When I was first there, I was very home
sick because it was my first time to be away from home for a long
time. After about three months it got better. But I mean that feeling of
homesick is always there. I mean you go out and go to classes and
dances but that feeling is always there. It never goes away. When you
go to sleep, that’s when you really feel it.
One Samoan student recalls that the first few weeks were very hard. “The
nights were the worst part. When I went to my dorm room, all I did was cry. I
came [to BYU-Hawaii] with my roommate. We cried together.” It took her
several weeks to get over her homesickness. She recalls Samoan friends helping
her talk through it. Amelia echoes similar sentiments. “After several months I
moved in with my cousin. Every night we would talk about things we used to do
back in our village. That really helped. Talking helped.” When asked how helpful
the new student orientation activities were, a student from the Cook Islands
recalls, “ I never went to them because I was homesick. I had friends who did go.
But I never went. I stayed in my room and cried. I mean this was my first time
away from home.” An administrator in Fiji expressed the scope of the problem in
dollar amounts, “I know of many Fijians who have incurred hundreds of dollars in
phone bills for this [homesickness] very reason.”
The vast majority of the students did not find homesickness to be debilitating
to the point that grades and academic standing were affected. There were,
however, exceptions. One student in the 1996 cohort frankly admitted that she left
BYU-Hawaii because she just could not function away from her family.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
I have never been away from my family. It was really hard for me
to leave. I am really close to my dad. When I got to BYU it was not
what I expected so I really started to miss my family. I drowned in it
for a few weeks until school started. I ran up big phone bills. I called
home collect almost every day. [I] could not get along without my
family, so I finally returned to Samoa.
Her bout with homesickness lasted almost a year and a half. She went home
once during a Christmas break, but that did not help. “Coming back just started
my homesickness all over again.” The excuse she gave everyone for finally
leaving Hawaii was that her father needed her help in the family business. “But it
was really homesickness.” While the degree of homesickness varied from student
to student, practically everyone was affected. Another issue related but not
confined to homesickness was family relationships.
Family. Strong family relationships, a characteristic common in Polynesian
cultures, was both a blessing and a curse to first-year students trying to make
adjustments in their new environment. In many instances, families are the very
reason they came to BYU-Hawaii to study. One student from American Samoa
put it in these terms, “My father said I had to get a college education. There was
no negotiating an education in my family. I had no choice but to do what my
father said.” Students often included in their reasons for getting a university
education the need to help family. It was Amelia who said earlier, “My mother
always stressed the importance of getting an education and coming back home to
get a good job and help the family. That’s what I wanted to do. I still do....”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
While close family ties can be a positive factor they can also lead to
discouragement.
Students found the down side of family ties to be comparable to trying to be
two places at one time. Suli recalls being tom by news from home about family
problems. “My mom would write me letters telling me about problems back
home; that dragged me down.” Being in Hawaii but wanting to be back home to
help my family was hard on many of the students. Other students frequently spoke
of feeling the strain from a family crisis. For instance, a student from Fiji recalled
her first real discouragement came when she received a letter from home telling
her that her parents had been separated for over two months. “All the while I am
trying to manage things here at school, I am trying to figure out what’s going on
at home and what am I trying to do here.” An administrator in Samoa summarized
the homesickness issues in these terms:
Homesickness is a very real problem for our students, and parents here
are not very helpful in getting their students over it. Their letters or
phone calls telling the students about all the problems at home and
how much they are missed make it harder for the students to adjust.
Family, is not just a first-year matter. It was central throughout the
students’ university careers and is discussed in more detail in this chapter.
For now we turn to a first-year adjustment factor that impacts nearly every
international student at BYU-Hawaii—work.
Work. Many students expressed strong sentiments about the difficulty of
balancing time between school and work responsibilities. As sponsored students,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
they were obligated to maintain a twenty-hour a week job in order to pay for
their school expenses. Few of these students have ever been employed. Some like
Suli grew up with school being their only responsibility. Suddenly having to give
a large portion of time to work presented challenges. Suli articulates well just
such a challenge.
One of BYU’s work policies [for sponsored students] is you cannot
change jobs during your first year. When I finally found a job, the only
job available was a custodian in the Canon Activity Center. I had to
work from 7:00 PM to 11:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Because of
my class schedule, I had a hard time finding time to study.
A student from the Cook Islands recalls being surprised that she had to work
while going to school. While visiting the Cook Islands, the BYU-
Hawaii/Polynesian Cultural Center (PCC) representative asked her if she knew
how to dance. They said nothing about what it would be like going to school and
working. “They just assumed that I knew. All I had to do was sign some papers
and hey, I am suddenly employed by PCC.” Another student expressed the
hardest part of her first year in these terms, “Getting a job, looking for a job. I did
not realize that I had to work. It was really hard to do that. I was not used to that.
At the university, I had no choice. No job, no school.” Similar to close family ties,
the work issue was not confined to the first year. Students struggling during their
second and third years also mentioned work as a central issue. Of consequence,
more will be said about the impact of work on the second year students in the next
section of this chapter.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
Language. Difficulty with English was also mentioned by students as a first-
year adjustment issue. However, the extent of this challenge was surprisingly
limited considering that all of the students in this study speak English as a second
language. Those who most frequently expressed language as a concern came from
French Polynesia. One student for example recalls her experience at the new
student orientation activities as an extremely frustrating three days. “I did not
know what they were telling me or what I was supposed to do. Students were
going over here and over there but I did not speak any English so I didn’t know
what to do.” Another student from French Polynesia notes, “When I got here, I
saw people talking in English, I was so scared and I had a hard time at first having
a conversation in English. But as time passed, a few weeks a few months it was
much easier.”
One student from the Cook Islands experienced language challenges in a
different way. She was never taught language structure. There was a lot of spoken
English in the Cook Islands but not much formal language instruction.
I just feel like I did not learn so much in high school. How to write
grammatically. I mean I get over here and the teachers are talking
about verbs and nouns, subject verb agreement. I did not know about
adverbs. I mean all those things. They [high school] didn’t really teach
us like to really know. And with reading you have to read things over
and over again. There are just a lot of things you just don’t understand.
Isapela similarly noted that her biggest challenge as a student was “Grammar;
they didn’t teach that a lot back home.” She clarified what she meant by grammar,
“If I didn’t have any trouble with writing then I would be okay.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
Culture shock. Culture shock was a catchall term often used by the students
to describe their life in a new country. Tevita said it this way, “When I got there it
was nothing like I thought it would be.” Many of the first-year challenges that
have been discussed fall into the category of culture shock. One student from the
Cook Islands expressed culture shock in the following terms,
At first it is so hard to adapt with things, classes, people, and school; I
mean it’s just different. . .. living with a roommate and stuff. I mean
no one told me I was going to live with a roommate. I had no idea. I
thought I was gonna die trying to adjust. It was different, so different.
Some students considered difficulties adjusting to their jobs as culture shock.
“I have never had to work before. In our culture you don’t work and go to school.
That was a real shock to me.” Another student from Fiji recalls arriving at the
Honolulu airport and feeling completely lost in “this huge new culture.” Tevita
was shocked by big city conditions in Honolulu—lights, tall buildings, and
congestion. Semisi remembers having to adjust to an entirely new life style. “I
had to adjust to everything.” A teacher in Tonga noted how he tried to help
students bound for Hawaii and a new culture by teaching them about the different
pace of life. “In Tonga we move at canoe speed. In Hawaii they move at motor
boat speed, and on the mainland [U.S.] they move at jet speed.”
Regardless of its cause, culture shock affects these students. Differences
between life in Hawaii and in their South Pacific islands are significant for these
students. One way students lessened the impact of culture shock was to seek out
friends from home. This solution created challenges of its own.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
Friends. Like family, friends were also a two-edged sword for these first-
year Polynesian students. On one side, friends set good examples, acted as
confidants, and provided solace through the hard, homesick adjustment days. On
the other side, they presented a great temptation to go see the sights of their new
surroundings and culture, or to “just hang out with instead of doing school work.”
Amelia, Isapela, Semisi, Suli, Ioanae, and Malia all acknowledged the strong
influence friends had on pulling them away from their studies.
Tevita, as well as many other study participants, specifically noted the
difficulty of telling a friend no. “It is not in our blood to say no to someone when
they invite you to go with them. It would be considered rude. We just can’t say
no.” Amelia recalls her father frequently telling her that her biggest problem is not
being able to say no when she has to. One student told of the time he was placed
on non-academic warning for allowing friends to stay in his room for several
nights. “I knew I wasn’t supposed to. But what could I tell my friends?”
Independence. “New found freedom” remarked a Fiji administrator and
former BYU-Hawaii student “is the most difficult aspect of new student life our
students have to face. They get to BYU-Hawaii and don’t know how to handle all
that.” Tevita expressed this issue in terms of the little pig outside the gate for the
first time and not knowing what to do with itself. Interestingly, three participants
used similar expressions to illustrate the point that these students have difficulty
with freedom. Semisi expressed it this way:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
There is a saying back home. This saying goes especially for girls. You
know parents get so strict with their daughters they tie them up like a
dog. But when the dog grows up and it’s time to let go; they go crazy.
They just go crazy. And I think in a way we can relate that to what’s
happening to Polynesian students.
The experience of a former student from Fiji illustrates the point of
independence being a challenge. He grew up in a home where he was told what to
do, how to do it, and when to do it. “Once I got to BYU-Hawaii, I did not know
how to make my own decisions. The choices I made were usually bad ones.”
Semisi referred to his freedom as “a disease that tore me apart.” With your parents
gone he continued, “you realize you can do or not do almost anything you want.
Other things soon become more important than school.” Independence, or new
found freedom, was by far the most often mentioned reason for students failing to
persist at BYU-Hawaii. Much more will be said about this in the next section as
well as in Chapter 5.
The “critical” first year at BYU-Hawaii for most of the 1996 students was a
time when their enthusiasm and excitement about their new environment carried
them successfully, at least academically, through the first few semesters. It was a
time when they focused on their studies. Yet it was still a time of emotional upset
and difficult adjustments. Despite it all, nearly 80 percent of the 1996 Polynesians
cohort continued on to their second year of university study.
We have now followed six students through their early educational
experiences in the South Pacific up through their “critical first year” at BYU-
Hawaii. Through their experiences we have seen various problems students
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
encounter during their first year such as homesickness, work requirements, and
language difficulties. Despite the significance of these first-year factors, students’
greatest challenges occurred during the second year.
Table 4.2
Selected Students’ Profile
Name Sex School
Status
Enroll
ments
completed
*
1st Sem.
GPA
Most
Recent
Cum.
GPA
Parents’
Education
Amelia F dropout
w/draw
5 2.51 1.71 Both parents had
some University
Isapela F In school 14 3.77 2.85 Mother completed
university; father
did not complete
primary school
Semisi M In school 12 2.1 2.3 Father completed
university; mother
has a nursing
degree
Suli F dropout
dismiss.
6 2.98 1.78 Mother did not
complete high
school; father
completed
university
Tevita M dropout
dismiss.
1 1.96 1.96 Father completed
university; mother
completed high
school
Malia F Dropout
w/draw
6 2.2 1.35 Mother completed
high school;
father did not
complete high
school
* BYU-Hawaii operates on a two semester/two term system. Enrollments here may include
semesters and terms.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
In Their Own Words: Dropping out/Persisting
Major problems were not generally apparent during these students’ first year,
at least not to the extent that their grades were affected. Problems were, however,
forming just below the surface, and in Suli’s words, “By the beginning of and
through the second year, things started to slip.” Isapela similarly noted, “By the
end of the first year, the newness had worn off. Things started to settle in.” The
following accounts reveal specifically what students think made persisting and
dropping out very real options and consequences. The similarities between first
and second-year issues are immediately apparent in each student’s story. We first
consider the four students that dropped out; this is followed by Semisi’s and
Isapela’s accounts of persisting.
Amelia
Exactly how does an honor roll student who has loved school her entire life
end up dropping out of a university before she has completed her second year?
Amelia’s first response to this question has been noted several times, but warrants
mention here, “ . . . once I got there [BYU-Hawaii] things got in the way.
Probably after a year, school was not really that important to me anymore. It was
like my friends were more important. I lost my focus of why I was there.” This
response, while interesting, raises far more questions than it answers. What
exactly got in her way, what things?
For me it wasn’t because the courses got harder. My social life got in
the way. My friends, who I thought were close to me, and when I got
in trouble they didn’t want to consider me their friend anymore. My
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
self-esteem became very, very low, and I just did not care about school
anymore.
Her response continues to beg the question. What was different in Hawaii from
home that caused a social life to get in the way of her schooling?
Not until Amelia was asked how her social life got in the way did the real
story emerge. “Back home” she notes, “where ever you go, your parents are
always controlling you. You ask them if you can go somewhere and they say,
‘no.’ and that is that.” At home she had very little choice of what she could do
socially. The church dances and school activities were the extent of her social life.
But over there [BYU-Hawaii] you are independent. And there are new
things to do. Like you go out and see new people. You go to new place
that you never went before and you know it’s like nothing. It’s like
you have nobody. You can’t go ask the dorm mom and she’ll say no,
because it’s none of her business. And I think that’s how it started. I
was more independent over there and nobody was controlling me. I
didn’t feel obligated to anybody. When I just want to go out. I just go.
I was in the middle of a research project and friends showed up and
said let’s go; I would just leave it and go. If I was over here I would
ask my parents and they would say no. So I think that’s how it got
started. Yes all that and seeing new things. Over there if you go over
night until morning, it’s nothing. Nobody cares. And you just walk in
the dorms and sleep all day. Over there it’s just more independent. . .
The consequences of her choices were failing marks in four of her five
classes. That says Amelia, “pushed me over the edge. I have never seen an “F” on
my report card. And I had four of them.” She found herself in a situation she had
never experienced before and she did not know how to get out. Talking to school
counselors was not an option. She did not feel like taking a personal problem to
someone she did not know. This is a common response among Polynesian
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
students and will be addressed in the next chapter. She was able to talk to her
bishop, but by that time she felt she was in too deep to get out. “Everything in my
life was all mixed up, not just my self-esteem, but my spiritual life went very low
too. It got my spiritual life as well as my education.” After three months of
struggle, the one-time honor student finally “ . . . packed up and left before they
kicked me out which would be more shameful for me.”
Suli
Another honor student, Suli, came to BYU-Hawaii to “further her education in
a new environment. . . out of [name of her country].” She managed to get passing
grades her first year despite some very real obstacles—work, problems at home,
and a new environment. None of these problems impacted her more, she recalls,
than trying to work and go to school at the same time. She was locked into a
custodial job her first year of school that she really did not enjoy; it restricted her
study time, and tested her abilities to balance time between work and study. Near
the end of her first year, she remembers being asked by her friends when she was
able to study with a job like she had. Her response was, “I don’t study. I don’t
have time.” Her job was so physically demanding that she recalls coming home
and neglecting her school work. “My job became my first priority.” At the end of
the first year she changed jobs just as soon as she was able to find an open
position. By that time, however, she reported that her enthusiasm for school was
wavering. “Things started to drag on me like my job and problems at home. My
mind wasn’t there. I stopped going to class and work.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In addition to her struggles with work, Suli was quick to point out how
discouraged she was to discover she could not start immediately into her study of
accounting, a major she decided on soon after her arrival. She reported that she
had no concept of general education before coming to the United States
Shortly after I arrived, I had decided to major in accounting. I liked
that a lot in high school, so I thought it would be a good major. But I
never got into my major classes. I thought I could go straight into
accounting, but I was stuck in GE classes. Classes I really hated in
high school like biology but had to take because they were GE’s just
killed me at BYU.
The system she had come from in the South Pacific was direct and focused the
students immediately on their selected major. She never really got a grasp of the
need for and structure of general education classes.
Suli realized she was not going to survive school when she returned to BYU-
Hawaii after a summer visit home. “After my visit home in 1997,1 didn’t really
want to go back to school. I had to go back to work again.” Her situation never
improved after that. By the end of the second year, another, honor student, who
“really loved high school” was out of the university. She was academically
suspended.
Tevita
In part, Tevita’s story has been told. His first year was interrupted and ended
on non-academic suspension for violations of the Honor Code. His was not a
voluntary dropout. However, saying a student is out of school for bad grades or
Honor Code violations ignores the real issue. What exactly was at the root of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
Tevita’s being kicked out of school? In part, he admits, he did not want to go to
BYU-Hawaii. “They did not have the major I wanted, civil engineering.” Much of
his motivation for going was external. “My dad pressured me to go . . . I saw all
my friends leaving and decided I should go too.” He was generally not interested
in being in a university. He mentioned how he sees himself as a “hands-on kind of
person.” And he was not sure any university was for him. His motivation and
focus for being at BYU-Hawaii were less than certain.
His lack of focus was soon coupled with the distractions of Waikiki, friends,
girls, and never before experienced freedom—“The little pig out of the gate, and
the world was all his.” The combination was more than he could handle. He never
got a serious start as a university student. He admitted that he wanted to do well
the first semester back from his suspension. “I really tried to do my best. My
grades were okay—average; I got C’s.” Soon after returning, however, he found
himself in a relationship that put him in violation of the Honor Code again. This
time the infraction resulted in a one-year, non-academic suspension. The causes
for Tevita leaving school are, in many ways, similar to Malia’s.
Malia
When asked what the differences were between the first and second year that
caused her to leave school, Malia was direct. “A boyfriend.” Malia is the first to
admit her reasons for going to Hawaii were not to get an education. She just
wanted to “get out of [her country].” At the same time, she reflects, by the
beginning of the second year she was starting to get a “real interest in school” and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
could see some options she had never seen before, but a boyfriend soon won
over her uncertain interest.
She had never been in a serious relationship with a boy. She had never dated
back home. Not only did she not have time at home while caring for all the family
needs and attending school, but also dating is rare in Polynesian culture. One
student remarked, “We never dated at home. In Samoa, if a boy tries to date a girl,
her brothers or cousins will beat him bloody.” Malia continued in her description
of the second year. “We got close, very fast—too fast.” School was no longer
important. More and more time was spent with her boyfriend. The relationship
soon became intimate, and “We were spending weekends in Waikiki.” This went
on, Malia noted, for nearly eight months.
I knew what we were doing was wrong. I told my boyfriend we should
get married. What we are doing is not right. I told him we were taking
the place at BYU of another student who could benefit from an
education. When he said he did not want to get married. I told him I
was leaving school and going back home.
Within two weeks of her decision, Malia had withdrawn from school and was
back in her home island.
The two students still in school, Isapela and Semisi, did not come through the
second year unscathed. In many ways their stories are comparable to the others in
their group. They faced similar challenges. Semisi for instance recalls being
nearly consumed by his “new freedom and forty-dollar pay checks.” So what was
it that kept these two in school when so many others in their cohort were dropping
out?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
Isapela
The third honor student in this group of six, Isapela, faced challenging times
in her second year too. Her grades were good for the first two semester but started
going down thereafter. She recalls two major obstacles: work and homesickness.
She was used to working, but like many other students, working in addition to
going to school was an entirely new experience.
Work was demanding . . . Before I came, I didn’t really know or read
about it [work]. When I first came here the only job openings were
dishwasher or waitress at PCC. It was hard because I had never
worked at home. I mean in a restaurant. I was a temporary receptionist
back home, but that was not that hard physically. So I thought if they
had told us. Well I think they did but it did not really hit me how hard
it is to work here.
Similar to Suli, she recalls hating her first job and not being able to do
anything about it for the first year. Just as soon as the first year was up, she
changed jobs from PCC to an on-campus job. This she reflects made a huge
difference in her attitude. She now works in an office job related to her
accounting major.
When asked why homesickness did not bring her first two semesters grades
down she recalls, “I guess I was more excited to go to school when I first got
here. But I really hated it here when I first came. And I thought about if I had
made the right decision.” She worked her way through homesickness in similar
ways to other students by staying busy and talking to friends. However, the
feelings never really left. She remembers taking only one break in her four years
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
to go back home at Christmas time. “It was a lot of fun being home. I did not
want to return to Hawaii.”
When asked how she had managed to overcome the demands of work and the
discouragement of homesickness she responded in one word, “Fear.” Her
clarification is insightful. “I did not want to get kicked out of school. I knew I
needed to keep up my grades. That’s why I have to study hard.” After a brief
moment to catch her composure, she continued, “ I knew I had to go through
school and finish and go home .. .the first reason why I came here is to help my
family. When there are eight siblings that’s hard for my parents.”
Her academic struggles were apparent in her second year. She was on
academic alert for both of her sophomore semesters. She has never been able to
reach the honor status she achieved in high school. Much to her credit, however,
she has managed to graduate in four years and one semester. Semisi is likely the
only other student in this group of six students that will have the distinction of
graduating.
Semisi
It was not the work that Semisi found difficult when he arrived at BYU-
Hawaii nor the academic material. “The material was pretty much the same. The
material to learn, we are ready. It’s the life. It’s the habit, the lifestyle that you’ve
got to adjust to. There’s a lot of individual freedom.” Independence or “new
freedom” as Semisi calls it was by far his greatest foe. He describes it this way:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
Polynesian culture is a family oriented culture. Parents keep a close eye on
the family. We don’t leave our homes until we are quite old. And you
know coming here we are faced with so much freedom that we have
never had before that we just cannot control it. It’s a disease you know
when we have this freedom and a little bit of money in your pocket,
we just can’t control. .. With a dollar we can get on a bus and go
movie hopping at Pearl Ridge [Mall]. We have never had such
freedom. Some students take several years to get over it. And it cost
them so much. Some lose their student status and never return.
When asked if this “disease” affected him, Semisi was quick to reply. “Oh yes
definitely. I was placed on academic probation and had to go see a counselor.
That was very hard coming from a culture that emphasizes a lot of pride and self-
reliance.”
A surprising consequence of his new-found freedom was that it forced him to
change his major. A situation that he explains best.
When I came here, I loved math. I still love math. That was my major
when I came, but after my second or third semester. You know math is
a subject that you have to apply yourself. It’s one of those subjects you
have to spend the time. And with so much time on my hands, I just did
not put the time that I needed into my subject for a major, so I will be
graduating next year in biology instead. Biology is a reading thing.
He continues to love math and the study of numbers but recognizes that the
consequences of his poor use of independence has taken him down a different
career path.
Semisi is clear on how he overcame the obstacles in school. His family means
too much to him to disappoint them. “It would be a disgrace for me to quit now. I
would not be able to go home and look my dad in the eye.” He further questions
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
how he could possibly quit when he knows that he is capable of doing the work.
His worst semester, he recalls was when he did not apply himself.
I can do the work; I know I can. It has shown up in my grades in
certain semesters. I’ve done it. I just need someone to motivate me.
Like the time I had to see the counselor. That was a real boost for me.
I am like a car, capable of going 100 miles an hour if I just apply
myself. I can’t quit.
Semisi recalls the two greatest motivating factors helping him get over his
hard times. The first was finally going in to see a counselor. “He was a man who
had lived in Fiji and understands Fijian ways. I was impressed when he spoke
some Fijian to me.” The second significant motivator was going to a BYU-Hawaii
graduation and seeing some of his classmates graduate. “I remember saying, ‘Hey
I was in class with that guy. I had a higher grade then he did. If he can do it, so
can I.’ Graduation really pumps you up. You picture yourself walking down
there.” Semisi will be participating in his own graduation exercises in June of
2001—five years after he started at BYU-Hawaii.
Summary and Closure
Following these six students through their educational experiences in the
South Pacific and up through the first few years in a foreign university has been
revealing. Their first- and second-year experiences are especially insightful. The
newness of their surroundings and enthusiasm to please parents seem to carry
them through first-year adjustments. Despite homesickness, new educational
expectations, and language adjustments, they are generally resilient and maintain
satisfactory academic standards. One might assume by the second year that the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
newness of a situation would have worn off and the students would be able to
settle into their studies. Such is not the case with these students. The second year
hits them harder than the first. The newness has worn off; families are far away,
and parents’ advice and the students’ focus have faded. New-found freedom starts
to get the best of them. Social life becomes more important than academic life,
and as one student remarked, “Things start to slip.”
By June of 2001, five years after they entered the university as new students,
65 percent of the 1996 cohort will have let “things slip” to the point that they will
have left BYU Hawaii without graduating. A number of them have moved on to
other activities in the United States; others have returned to their islands in the
South Pacific (see Table 3.2). While it is beyond the scope of this study to recount
what happens to students once they leave the university, there are compelling
reasons to bring some closure to their stories by relating what happens to those
who return home to the families that were so instrumental in getting them to the
university in the first place. Each student’s experience is unique. However, as
with other aspects of this study, common experiences are many and usually
insightful. Accordingly, we consider a few typical examples.
With rare exceptions, the students that returned home without graduating did
so with mixed emotions. Observations like Malia’s were common.
When I got on the plane to return home, I knew I would probably never return
to BYU, and that was hard. Part of me wanted to stay. Still going home was
something I had to do, but I knew my parents would be disappointed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Suli related how tom she was going home because she knew there would be
nothing for her to do. “I knew I would be bored, and I was when I first got back.”
Amelia recounted how the hardest phone call she ever made was to her parents to
tell them that she wanted to leave school and come home. “I know how much my
education meant to them, so it was hard to tell them. But I was not happy with my
situation in school.” She spent many hours on the phone talking to her parents
about what she should do. Several options were discussed, and surprisingly, her
parents finally left the decision up to her, “Whatever you do, we will support you
in your decision.” After three months of agonizing over what she should do, she
finally decided it was time to go home.
In almost every instance, going home was hard, but not a single student
reported any form of rejection by family or friends once they arrived home. The
same strong family influences that compelled them to go to university now
supported them through the difficult transition back. Amelia remembers her first
few weeks back home this way:
.. .it was very hard for me. I didn’t want to come [home]. I wanted to stay
there and finish. But I had to come and get things straightened out especially
my spirituality. My parents told me to think about it because people will talk
about you and say things behind your back. I still knew I had to face it. I
stayed in the house for a few weeks. I cried sometimes but I soon got over it.
I knew I had to get my life straight.
Ioane’s family was very supportive. “I know they were disappointed in me, but
they helped me get my feet back on the ground once I got back. They didn’t ever
tell me they were disappointed.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
Most of the students went through a period of time where they felt
embarrassed or lost, but they soon began filling their lives in meaningful ways.
Many of them have a desire to return to a university to finish their education.
Several expressed an interest in returning to BYU Hawaii. Others realized BYU
was not the best place for them. Some spoke of going to the University of the
South Pacific (USP) in Fiji. Some have not only thought about returning but in
fact have returned. Three students are currently enrolled in correspondence or
extension courses through USP. Several Samoan students have enrolled in the
National University of Samoa. One of these Samoan students is scheduled to
graduate in 2001, five years after entering university for the first time. Those not
enrolled in schools have found jobs in local businesses. In most cases, they have
jobs that pay better than if they only had a high school diploma.
In an attempt to better understand why these students return home without
receiving a university diploma, we will now consider student responses to the four
research questions that drive this study. Faculty and administrators’ responses to
those same questions are also presented for comparative purposes.
In Their Own Words: Responses to the Research Questions
This section has two objectives. First there is a need to hear in a broader sense
what students say about persisting at the university level. Much of what has been
presented thus far has come from students who entered BYU-Hawaii in 1996.
This section will draw data from both groups of student participants, those who
entered BYU-Hawaii before 1996 as well as the 1996 cohort. The second
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
objective is to measure the students’ voices against what others have to say
about persistence. Accordingly, faculty, staff, and administrators’ responses are
also considered.
Questions One: How do Polynesian students perceive their college-going
experience in relationship to their future plans?
Student Responses
Better Job. The majority of the students in this study saw a college education
as a way of achieving a better job in the future. Being able to return home with a
college education typically places them in line for government positions which
are usually the best paying jobs in their countries. One student from Samoa recalls
struggling with her decision during her last year in high school trying to decide to
go to a beauty college in New Zealand or to a university. “ I knew a university
would take me four years and I could be finished in New Zealand in two, but I
knew I would be better off with a [B.A.] degree.” Most students equated a
university degree with a better life. A Cook Islander expressed it in these terms, “I
want to have a good life, a good job, and I think part of that good life means
having an education.”
Two countries that stand as exceptions to this response are Fiji and French
Polynesia. Students and administrators alike from these countries expressed
concern that an American degree is less marketable in their countries than a
degree from the local universities in Tahiti and Fiji. This was especially true in
French Polynesia. Many participants commented on how they knew students who
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
had returned from America with a degree only to find that they would have to
attend the university in Tahiti or France for several years to get the necessary
credentials to apply for government jobs. “I struggled with my decision to go to
BYU-Hawaii.” Said one Fijian student. “In Fiji, most recognized degrees come
from Fiji, New Zealand, and Australia. The U.S. degree is starting to be
recognized, but it’s not even close to the others yet.” So why did she come to
Hawaii? Her response is revealing.
Financially, my father could not afford to pay for my schooling and my
younger sister’s who will be entering university soon. Since BYU offered me
a sponsorship, I decided to go there. But also my major is IS [Information
Systems]. There are a lot of companies coming into Fiji, so I knew I could get
a good job when I returned to Fiji.
Two significant points stand out in this statement. First, individuals planning
to find jobs in the private sector, like this student, did not consider an American
degree a liability. The consensus of the focus group conducted in Tahiti was that
certain private sector jobs such as computer science or business can be trained for
in the U.S. Otherwise, said one participant, “ .. .you had better have a French
diploma from the university here in Tahiti. They won’t hire you with an American
degree.” The second point is the centrality of family in the student’s decision
making process. She was concerned about her father’s financial well being. For
many of these students, family concerns were paramount in their decision making
process.
Family. For most students, almost in the same breath as they were saying an
education would provide a good job, they expressed the need to help family. They
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
see a college degree as a means of helping parents, brothers, and sisters. Family
ties are strong in Polynesia, and it is obvious from the students’ expressions that
education is seen as a means of helping family. One student from Tonga who had
dropped out was in tears as she expressed her disappointment in not being able to
help her father more. “He has worked so hard for his children.” She now sends
part of each pay check back to Tonga every month to help the family. “It doesn’t
matter that I am in Utah now. I have to care for my parents. They have done so
much for me.”
Many students expressed strong desires to help their families by getting a
college degree and by extension a good job to help the family financially.
However, other factors like honoring the family name were also important. Few
students expressed this sentiment more eloquently than a student from Samoa
while giving advice to a younger brother who was coming to the university.
Don’t you dare give up. You owe it to the family to make them proud.
You may not be able to pay them in monetary terms but you can bring
great pride to the family name and the village. Think about what you
are doing and why you are doing it.
Another familial influence is the need to obey parents’ wishes. Semisi felt an
unspoken need to please his father by getting an education. This was commonly
mentioned among the 1996 participants. A student from American Samoa
mentioned that her father wanted her to get an education and there was no
“negotiating the issue.” Many of the students noted that their parents wanted them
to get an education because they had achieved little education themselves. It was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
quite common to find parents, at least one and sometimes both, without a
complete high school education. Students in the study expressed how their parents
wanted them to get more education than they had, and students felt obligated to
meet that parental demand. Said one Samoan: “The main thing that keeps me
focused is I have to do this for my parents. That’s the main reason why I am doing
this; I am doing it for my parents.”
Students also mentioned their future families. As one student expressed it,
“Someday I will have children of my own and I want them to see my example of
what they can do.” Another student’s motivation was monetary, “I want to be able
to provide for my own family when I get married. An education is the best way
for me to be able to do that.” Still another view was expressed this way, “I have
seen how hard my father works to barely provide for his family. I want something
better for my family. I want to be able to help my parents and my own family to
have a better life.” Regardless of the justification—finances, obedience to parents,
or future planning—family was a central factor in these students’ decisions to go
to college.
A way out. A surprisingly common response to how students saw an education
in relation to their future was they saw an education as a way out of their country.
Malia provided a strong example of this. Another student nearly mirrored Malia’s
situation:
I saw going to BYU as a way to get away from a very stem father. I wanted to
get out not get a career. My plan was to go to Hawaii and find an American
wife. I was never going to return home.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
148
Suli also had a desire to get out. She wanted to “ .. .get away from [home]. ”
to further her education. Another student remarked:
My father expected me to go to college. I wasn’t really sure college was for me. I
wanted to get out and see the world, but my father expected me to get an
education. So, when the chance to go to BYU came up, I was happy because I
was doing what he wanted, and I was getting away from [name of her island].
Students from all six countries mentioned “getting out” as a reason for coming
to BYU-Hawaii. However, a disproportionate number of these responses came
from French Polynesian students. Four of the twelve students from French
Polynesia mentioned this as the primary reason for coming to BYU-Hawaii.
Faculty/Administrator Responses
Faculty and administrators offer considerable support to what the students
have said. Getting a good job, helping the family, and getting out of the country
were the three most common answers given. One administrator at BYU-Hawaii
agreed with the three reasons but added, “The reason students go off to university
depends a great deal on where they come from. To many, it is the only way of
breaking out of the set life pattern living on an island in a small village dictates.”
Students from the larger cities often come for other reasons, he continued. “They
see college as a natural continuation of high school.”
In every case, participants in this group strongly affirmed that family has a
central role in the students’ decisions to go to a university. They also concurred
that getting a good job was directly tied to helping the family. One focus group in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
Tonga added a rather remarkable twist to the effect family has on students’
decisions to continue their education. Said one participant,
Many parents want their children to go abroad to study for a couple of
reasons. Sure they want their children to do well financially, but they also
want them to find a new life outside of Tonga. Once they go to America, this
island becomes too small for them. If they return, great, but we don’t expect it.
They need to find a life for themselves away from Tonga.
This seems to support what the students were saying about education being a way
out.
Prestige was another factor frequently mentioned among the faculty and
administrators. One Samoan administrator was quite direct in her response,
“Students go for three reasons family, money, and prestige.” A faculty member
from Tonga clarified the meaning of prestige. “When a man who makes his living
as a fisherman has a son return with a college degree, the social status of the
entire family greatly improves.” “It’s still a significant event in a Polynesian
family and village when a child gains a college education.” One faculty member
remarked, “It is not like it used to be, but it is still a big deal.”
Question Two: W hat factors do they see as significantly influential
in their decision to stay or leave the university?
Student Responses
Five major categories emerged from the in-depth interviews and focus groups
in response to this question. In order of frequency they are freedom, relationships,
family, focus, and institutional factors. These five categories are not mutually
exclusive. In fact, there is considerable overlap among them, hence making
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
definitions somewhat vague. Perhaps the most effective way to define these
themes is through examples provided by the students. Of note, the six students
introduced earlier in this chapter were singled out because their experiences were
related to these five themes. Reference will be made back to those six students as
each theme is introduce.
Freedom. Without question, freedom or independence was the most often-
cited response students gave for not persisting in college. Semisi called it “new
found freedom” that was nearly “impossible to control.” Many students said that
they had never been away from their parents’ influence. Polynesian parents
typically exercise tight control on their children as noted by a Tahitian student
“When we were at home we had no rights; we had to listen.” One student
reflected back on her first year this way, “I was very young when I went to BYU.
I was seventeen and away from my parents for the first time in my life. I had no
idea how free I could be until I got to BYU.” These comments all sound
surprisingly similar to what Amelia expressed earlier about her social life
consuming her student life.
“Freedom without structure” as one participant called it manifests itself in
various ways in these students’ lives. The most common way is in their
relationships with friends. A student from American Samoa recalls, “ I was
hanging with my friends more than I was in class or at school.” A local
convenience store was frequently mentioned as a common place to spend late
hours with friends rather than doing homework. “We would stay out late, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
come back around three or four in the morning. I would then just go to my dorm
and sleep through classes.” recalls a student from Samoa. As Tevita noted earlier,
an aspect of the Polynesian’s way of life that exacerbates this challenge of
“complete freedom” is the inability to say no. Said one student,
When my friends came by my room and wanted to head into town or
something, I couldn’t say no. If I stayed back to study I would be mocked and
made fun of for making school more important than being Tongan. I couldn’t
do that.
A student from Fiji remembers his first year this way, “I had all this time on
my hands and I am supposed to know how to use it.” He recalled growing up in a
family situation where everything was set out for him. “I had no decision to make
in school; that was decided by the system. My parents controlled the rest of my
life.” Like this student, most were taken aback by the degree and scope of their
independence. They are suddenly faced with opportunities and decisions never
before encountered. A student from Samoa summed this issue this way, “We are
used to having our parents around telling us what to do and when to get up. It’s
been that way our whole life. And all of the sudden we get here and are supposed
to know what to do.”
Relationships. One freedom students quickly encounter is dating. Many of
these students have never dated in their lives. Some remember being shocked
when they first saw boys and girls expressing affection in public, “... that never
happens back home.” These students come to BYU-Hawaii and suddenly find
themselves in a situation where they not only can date but also have school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
functions that encourage it. Weekend dances, and school-sponsored activities
are all wide open to them like never before.
A surprising number of students who did not persist in school cite
relationships as the primary cause of dropping out. Tevita and Malia both started
dating for the first time in their lives while in Hawaii. In both instances, they
found themselves quickly involved in relationships they did not know how to
handle. “If I had it to do over,” recalls Malia, “I would do it without a boyfriend.
That is what finally cause[d] me to leave. I was just starting to be interested] in
school when that all happenfed].” Malia left school before getting kicked out;
Tevita was kicked out. Relationships were the second most frequently cited cause
for leaving school.
Family. Without question, family heavily influences these students’ lives.
Everything they do as they grow up revolves around their role within the family.
As noted in the responses to question one, it is family that they think most about
when deciding to go off to college, and it is family that keeps them in school or
tears them away. One student referred to the Polynesian family as a “ . . . two-
edged sword in a student’s life.” The most often mentioned factor for keeping a
student in school when all seems lost is the specter of disappointing family. Both
Isapela and Semisi unequivocally stated that it was family that kept them in
school through the hard times. More specifically, it was the thought of letting
family down that kept them from giving up. Semisi noted, “When a Polynesian
student returns home empty-handed, it is the family’s failure, not the student’s.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
A student from Tonga who dropped out for relationship reasons expressed with
great emotion her sadness in letting her parents down. “They always taught me
how important education is. I really wanted to graduate for them. I plan on going
back to the university someday.”
Another aspect concerning family needs to be mentioned. Several students,
who are counted as dropouts on university statistics, left for family reasons.
Specifically, they indicated that they would have finished their education at BYU-
Hawaii were it not for a spouse getting a job or graduating before them. One
student was only two semesters away from graduating when her husband got a job
offer. She hopes to complete her degree once they get settled. A student who left
for similar reasons enrolled for a semester at the university where they had
moved, but faced too many time and transportation conflicts to continue. They
were good students pulled away from the university for good family reasons, but
tallied as dropouts all the same.
Just as surely as family keeps these students in school it has equal power to
pull them away. Suli remembers being pulled in two directions when she heard
about a family problem back home. Distance does not diminish these students’
responsibilities to their families. The earlier discussion of homesickness offers
strong evidence in support of just how influential family is. Stated simply,
students find it hard to be away from their families. A student from French
Polynesia noted,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
If a family need arises, we will drop everything and go to any measure to
help out. School is no longer important. If my grandmother gets sick, I will do
everything possible to return home to help. School does not matter then.
One striking example of this is a student in the 1996 cohort who reported his
primary reason for coming to BYU-Hawaii was to get away from his “stem
father.” When he discovered that his father was in serious financial difficulties, he
immediately dropped out of school (he was then in his third year) and went home
to help in the family business. This student has not returned to school and does
not see how he will ever be able to. His reason is revealing to the current
discussion. “My family commitments are too great right now.”
Focus. Lack of focus is not a problem unique to international students. Many
students enter their first year of university unsure of what they want to major in or
if they even want to be in college at all (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini,
1991; Tinto, 1993). Polynesian students certainly share these characteristics. At
the same time, they lack focus for other reasons. For instance, students frequently
expressed how they were confused by the American higher educational system.
Most of these students have never set foot on a university campus much less an
American campus. They find the systems markedly different from what they are
used to. Suli for example, decided to major in accounting and was disillusioned
by “ . . . all the G EI had to take. I thought I could go straight into accounting, but
I was stuck in GE classes.” Other students were unfamiliar with what it meant to
“major in something” This general lack of information, they reported, kept them
from focusing their abilities in the right places and at the right times.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
Nothing distracted the students’ focus more than coming to the university
without a clear, personal aim at something. Malia, and Tevita, for example, came
to get away from pressures at home. School just happened to be the first, best
option. Other students came out of obedience to their parents’ wishes. They too
lacked personal focus. One 1996 student came to school out of spite.
A family member told me I could not make it in school. I decided that I was
going to come to school so I could show her she was wrong. I really did not
want to come to BYU-Hawaii, I was just angry with her.
After three years at school with five grade alert semesters (GPA below 2.0), she
had enough and quit school. When there is no personal commitment or focus
students seldom persist in school.
Institutional Factors. This final category has considerable overlap with the
four already discussed. For example, students identified the Honor Code as an
institutional factor that contributed to their leaving school. When in fact, a
relationship that was in violation of the Honor Code may have been the actual
cause for the dismissal. Another example, already noted was the students’
unfamiliarity with the general education aspect of a liberal arts education. Lack of
information is indeed an institutional factor that can lead to drop out. At the same
time, a student may have been using that as an excuse for lack of focus. There are,
however, several factors that are uniquely institutional that should be considered.
Several students in the 1996 cohort were admitted when they clearly lacked
necessary admission credentials. According to one student she was admitted
without having completed Form Six (high school equivalency). At the end of her
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
first semester, the error was detected and, “They sent me home because I had not
finished high school. I was devastated, but there was nothing I could do. I talked
to everyone I thought could help, but no one was willing to do anything, so I left.”
A review of her academic records revealed that indeed she had not finished high
school and, she had failed all five of her first semester classes at the university.
Cause and effects are difficult to determine in such cases. Regardless, poor
admission screening practices allowed her in the university at a time when she
was academically unprepared. This was the only account of a student being
admitted with no high school diploma. Several other students related, however,
that they were surprised that they had been admitted when their high school
performance had been less than adequate.
Students also voiced frustration over the fact that institutional
representatives had failed to inform them adequately of what to expect prior to
their arrival. For example, one student related her frustration in not being able to
major in languages. She had ambitions of being a translator. A university
representative visiting her country told her that she could. When she arrived at
BYU-Hawaii, advisors told her such options were not available. Her response to
this situation is revealing: “My whole purpose for going to BYU-Hawaii was
gone. I really felt like quitting and coming home.” A fair number of students were
frustrated when they arrived on campus because they were unaware of work
expectations, curricular differences, and campus life in general:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
They showed us nice videos telling about BYU-Hawaii, but the video
was nothing like the real thing when we got there. I mean the dorm rooms
and everything the video showed us was different than what I saw when I
got here.
Students agree that more accurate, honest information is need by the students
prior to their arrival. A similar idea was expressed in these terms, “All I saw of
PCC was the dancers and villages in the videos they showed us. They never really
say much about how it is like to work there. I mean what it is really like.” Better
information prior to their arrival, they determined would make the cultural
adjustments less severe for the new students.
Finally, in these students’ opinions, working a part-time job was a significant
factor contributing to dropout. Much has been said about this challenging aspect
of the new students’ life already. A few more examples are helpful. As one
student commented,
The first time I ever had a job was when I went to BYU. I was not used to that
.... whenever I got discouraged at BYU it was usually because of work at
PCC. Not really school because I have my friends that can help me through
my studies and things. But it was mostly work that I found most difficult.
“What really got me about work,” said one student “was the $20 paychecks. We
work for two weeks and only get $20 after they deduct housing and tuition. That
really struck me hard at first. It took some getting used to.” An important fact to
keep in mind: nearly every student mentioned work as a factor influencing student
persistence.
Also important to remember is the considerable overlap that exists among the
various reasons affecting persistence. Narrowing them down to five categories
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
helps to focus on possible solutions, which will be presented in Chapter 5.
However, a student seldom leaves for one reason. These are complex issues that
require considerable understanding. We now, consider faculty and administrators’
perspectives.
Faculty/Administrator Responses
Faculty and administrators cited all five factors identified by the 1996 students
as principal causes for students dropping out. However, their discussions
frequently centered most often on issues of freedom and prior preparation. A brief
discussion of each is in order.
Various groups expressed strong feelings about the impact independence has
on students once they arrive in Hawaii. A principal from the South Pacific noted
the high level of importance parents place on education as an example.
Education has become so important to parents here that children are
excused from all household chores. They learn how to become
students but they do not learn how to take care of themselves. This
develops a great sense of dependency. They do not learn independence
here, how can we expect them to know how to function there [BYU-
Hawaii]?
Many aspects of the Polynesian culture teach a student not to be independent.
Reasoned one focus group. One teacher saw the independence problem in these
terms, “The nail that stands out gets hammered down in this culture. And once
they get to BYU they are supposed to think just the opposite.” Even the school
systems in the Pacific expect the students to conform. One administrator
expressed this idea as follows:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
Here we follow the British system in school, and we are very exam oriented.
We train our students to be exam takers but not independent thinkers. So
nearly every aspect of these young peoples’ lives here in the Pacific works
against them knowing how to be independent.
Several faculty/administrator groups acknowledged the point students made
earlier: they have difficulty telling friends no. “Our students feel great
embarrassment saying no to their friends. Here we teach our children that not
sharing is mean, and that friends and relationships are more important than
personal needs.” With such an upbringing, it was noted, “ . . . the Polynesians find
it nearly impossible to say no when they have to.” It was Amelia’s father who told
her that her biggest problem was she could not say no when she had to. She is
apparently not alone in this respect.
One faculty member wondered if independence might best be understood
from a religious perspective:
We talk about how important it is to be independent yet these students are
raised in a highly communal culture where young people are tightly fit into a
role they are supposed to maintain . . . Christianity teaches individualism, yet
that runs counter to these cultures. It may well be that those students who do
well here are those that are able to practice the individualism preached by
their church.
A second issue that faculty and administrators felt strongly about was the lack
of preparation the students have prior to going to BYU-Hawaii. This issue was
especially strong in the in-country focus groups. The discussion followed two
veins. First, many participants felt the students lacked the necessary language and
school skills. “We are a non-reading culture, everything is oral,” said one teacher,
“and our students have no concept of what it means to read a book over night for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
an assignment.” Others felt like the geographical isolation put the South Pacific
students at a great disadvantage in several ways. First unlike other university
students, Polynesians are relatively unaware of world issues. “We do the best we
can for our students, but we are very isolated from the world. Our students are so
sheltered here that once they get into the big world they are easily distracted and
lose focus.” Along this same line of reasoning one teacher suggested, “Perhaps
the problem is our students don’t have educational goals. When they have such a
limited view of the world and what an education can do for them, they don’t know
what an education can mean.”
A second line of reasoning suggested that students lack the maturity to
perform well in a university. One principal felt like the students have no sense of
what the world is really like, and they need to grow up before taking such a huge
step out. “We should send our high school graduates off to a local university and
let them get shattered and bruised by the system there for a year before taking on
BYU.” One of the student counselors working in the Pacific suggested that “A
nineteen year old coming out of the Pacific is generally five to six years behind
his American counterpart when it comes to standing on his own and making
decisions. Here they don’t have to stand on their own.” Whatever the reason,
faculty and administrators felt students’ general lack of preparation contributed to
high dropout rates. Of note, the students seldom mentioned this as a factor
affecting their persistence. What little they did express in this regard is discussed
in their responses to the next question.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
Question Three: W hat background characteristics do Pacific Island
students think contribute to their college persistence
nonpersistence?
Students offered little new information in this question. Their responses would
frequently cycle back to answers they had given to question two. The lack of
additional information may be attributed to the fact that questions two and three
are quite similar. Question two asks for factors that “influence students’ decisions
to stay or leave the university.” This question asks them to identify “background
characteristics” that contribute to persistence. The differences between the two
questions are admittedly slight. Students may well have seen this as the same
question being asked in a different way. Consequently, their answers were much
the same as with previous questions. Despite the seeming similarities between the
two questions, students did offer several new insights.
Student Responses
Some students opined that independence, the very feature that caused students
to drop out, also affected their ability to stay in school. A student from Samoa
who graduated in four years attributed her ability to adapt and adjust at the
university to her upbringing. She recalled it this way:
It all comes back to our culture. My parents are both Samoan, but they did not
raise me in the Samoan way. Me, I had a lot of freedom. As long as my
parents knew where I was going and who I was with, I could go. I guess, my
upbringing was more of a European style than Samoan. But most Samoan kids
had no freedom growing up. And when they get here they get freedom they
have never had before. They say, ‘oh ok this is life.’ And they go out and do
everything.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
A classmate, who also graduated in four years, noted that her family was
very open and supportive. “I was raised by my aunt and uncle so I had rules to
follow, but I always remember being quite independent and being allowed to
make my own decisions.” This, she reasoned, made her stay at BYU-Hawaii less
of a struggle than it was for her friends. Another student nearly ready to graduate
echoed these same feelings. He felt like he had more freedom at home than he had
at BYU-Hawaii. “My parents allowed me; no they insisted, that I make my own
decisions. My brother and I had a lot of freedom as we were growing up.” The
contrast between the effects of students being taught independence at home and
learning it for the first time at BYU-Hawaii is striking. It is especially significant
in light of how many participants—students and faculty alike—who mentioned it.
More will be said about this freedom factor in the next chapter.
A second background characteristic noted by students was the type of family
students come from. By this they meant that families that had educated parents
who placed a high emphasis on education were more likely to persist than those
who came from homes were education was given low priority. This was
especially noticeable, they said, when students come from the remote villages. A
student who had attended both a large government school and a small village
school noted the following: “The schools in town are much better than those in
the back villages. We had many more facilities, and better teachers in town.”
Students suggested that those educated in the “back villages” were less likely to
do well in college.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
A student from the Cook Islands felt strongly that the level of educational
preparation offered in her country was not adequate for the challenges university
imposed.
A number of our senior science classes were offered as
correspondence courses because we did not have anyone in the school
qualified to teach them. We never did get books for those classes just
mailed materials. Those classes were really bad. I did not learn a thing,
so that’s one reason I felt inadequate when I arrived at BYU.
Several of the French Polynesian students also expressed an inadequacy with
their language skills. “In Tahiti, the teachers talk about the language [English] but
they do not use it. We use English very little in our English classes in high
school.” The students, who do best here at BYU-Hawaii, in their estimation, are
those students who have good English skills before they get to BYU-Hawaii. In
one student’s j udgment, “The students who have to take a lot of ELI [English
Language Institute] classes once they get to BYU are the ones who struggle most
academically.” This sentiment was most strongly voiced among the Tahitians.
The ideas expressed on this question are not new. Independence, family
influence, and preparation have been mentioned earlier. At the very least these
additional comments affirm the importance of these factors to understanding
Polynesian student persistence.
Faculty/Administrator Responses
Faculty and administrators were quick to point out that factors already
discussed in previous questions affect persistence. However, according to them
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
persistence is also a highly individual matter. Olivia Fale reflected for an answer
to the question of why so many Polynesians dropout:
It is a very individual thing you know. Grades in high school are not good
predictors of success. Some of our top students go to BYUH and never make
it. Some of our less talented students go and make it just fine. Family
background is not a good predictor either. Some who come from very strong
families go to BYU and fall on their faces. Perhaps it’s a tortoise and hare
thing. The tortoise does better because he has to work harder for what he gets.
One faculty member noted the individual nature of persistence by reflecting
on several roommates. He recalled as a student at BYU-Hawaii that he had been a
roommate with Tongan brothers on separate occasions during his undergraduate
experience. “One [brother] was extremely focused and was an extraordinary,
highly focused student.” He not only earned an undergraduate degree but also has
gone on to complete a terminal degree. The other brother never did well as a
university student. “He was what we would now call an ‘at-risk’ student while he
was at BYU-Hawaii.” He never completed his education at BYU-Hawaii.
“Despite being raised in the same home, the educational results were noticeably
different.” It was generally agreed among participants that persistence indeed
must be attributed, in part, to individual factors. At the same time many agreed
that families are perhaps the single biggest factor in determining persistence
characteristics.
Much discussion revolved around the influence of family and the degree of
student independence. Some families seem more willing to break with traditional
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
patterns and allow students greater freedom and responsibility. One
administrator spoke with great confidence when she said:
I can tell by family connections if students are going to make it—if they come
from solid families. Families that are solidly connected to the students send
letters of encouragement. The students feel this. Even if they get a $5
paycheck, they feel they need to send a dollar or two home to support the
family. That kind of connected student will make it here just fine.
She was quick to add, “We still lose some of course” but many will persist
because of their family ties.
Most faculty and administrators also felt that maturity was a significant
characteristic related to persistence. When this issue was raised during the focus
group in Tahiti, one of the participants started calling out by name individuals in
the group and others like them who had graduated from BYU-Hawaii. He then
asked a question somewhat rhetorically, “What do all these graduates have in
common? They are all returned missionaries. When someone serves a two-year
mission for the church, they come back more mature and focused on what an
education really means to them.”
Most of the discussion thus far has focused on the students and what they
bring to the persistence question. What has not been discussed are the institutional
factors that students think contribute to or distract from persistence. That
discussion completes the data presentation.
Question Four: From the students’ perspectives, what factors, if any,
affect their persistence once they have arrived at BYU-Hawaii?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
Student Responses
The final question asked of students was intended to draw their reactions to
institutional factors at BYU-Hawaii that affected their persistence. Their
responses fall into two categories, those features that help, and those that are
intended to help but do not seem to. We will consider each in turn.
Students most often responded to this question by naming people rather than
programs at the university that were instrumental in helping them over difficult
times. The two most often mentioned groups of people were the campus bishops,
and teachers.
Students often mentioned their bishop when asked who or what at BYU-
Hawaii helped them persist. A student from Samoa fondly remembers her bishop
being one of the first to help during her first few homesick weeks in Hawaii. “He
was great. He knew my name at a time when I felt very lost. I learned to love him.
He motivated me so much.” Students like Malia who found themselves in difficult
relationships reported being able to talk to bishops in confidence. Malia
remembers talking to her bishop before making the decision to go home. “He was
very understanding and really made me feel good about myself and my decision.
Yes, he helped a lot.” A student from Fiji echoed these feelings:
I would never have made it through school without the help of other people,
especially the good bishops. They are wonderful. I really wonder what
retention would be like if these good men were not there to help students. I
think it would be much worse than it is.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
In this regard, the church organizations were also helpful. Semisi expressed
this notion in these terms, “Staying active in the church and its activities has
helped me stay in school.” This he said was because it kept him away from
activities on Saturday nights that might have distracted him from being faithful to
the Honor Code commitment he had made. An important aspect to note regarding
the bishops’ help is that students appreciated the fact that the help from bishops
came in many forms not just ecclesiastical. Bishops often offered academic advice
to the students.
Students also expressed gratitude for teachers’ help. They spoke of them as
people who willingly listened to problems and offered advice during hard times.
Students found teachers to be very approachable. Some students were shocked at
how friendly, open, and willing to talk to students the teachers were. Frequent
mention was made of the difference between the way teachers treat students in
Hawaii and in their countries. A student from Tahiti noted, “Over here [Hawaii]
teachers are very helpful, and that has a big impact on my education. In Tahiti you
go to school; teachers talk and then that’s it. There is no interaction between you
and the teacher.” A student from Fiji remembers being laughed at by his
classmates on his first day of class at BYU-Hawaii when he called his teacher
“master” and the teacher jokingly calling him “servant.”
I addressed him as master because that is how we address teachers in
Fiji. In Fiji our teachers would tell us to jump and we would jump.
And now all of the sudden our teacher is our friend. That is new to us,
brand new .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
The sentiment that the teachers were approachable and helpful was expressed
equally among all the nationalities and summed up nicely by a student from
Tahiti, “I remember a very discouraging time in my college career. I was ready to
quit and go home . . . If it wasn’t for several teachers who knew me and
encouraged me to stay, I would never have graduated.”
Two university services noticeable by their absence in this question are the
Counseling Center and the New Student Orientation. Students did not voluntarily
offer these two services as being helpful persistence factors. Several direct lines
of questions were included in the protocol to understand why. The responses are
revealing.
Counseling Services is a feature of education most students from Polynesia
are unfamiliar with. Isapela noted, “I had no idea what a school counselor was
when I got here. We didn’t have such a thing back in Tonga when I was at
school.” Other students made similar observations. Another student from Tonga
added further understanding to this point:
When I have a problem, I never take it to someone I don’t know. I will call a
family member. But I would never talk to a stranger. I have some very big
phone bills to California. I have an older brother who lives there. When I need
help, I always call him.
When students reported seeing counselors it was usually only when they
received letters calling them in because of academic or other school related
problems. Even then, some students reported they would delay as long as possible
before seeing the counselor. There was one noteworthy exception to student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
reluctance about seeing a counselor. One particular counselor’s name was
mentioned in multiple focus groups and interviews. Students viewed this
individual as one who understood Polynesians and who “ . . . would go out of the
way to talk to the students and try to understand their problems. [Name] was a
great listener who would seek us out and ask how we were doing.” The number of
separate reference to this individual was striking.
New student orientation was often referred to as a fun activity that helped
students meet new people and understand how the university operates, but it was
never considered as a factor contributing to student persistence. A surprising
number of students reported that they did not attend many of the activities. Some
students said of orientation, “It was too much information too fast and too soon.”
Not uncommon was one student’s response, “My brother was my orientation. He
came a year before me so he showed me what I needed to know.” Other students
who did not have family to show them around relied on friends for their
“orientation.” Some spoke of orientation as a waste of time. “I did not learn a
thing. I was just one of fifty students being shuffled around from place to place
without a chance to ask questions or interact. The groups were too big.”
In spite of their comments about orientation and counseling, In general,
students were quite praiseworthy of all that BYU-Hawaii did to help them
succeed in school. They often expressed the appreciation for all that BYU-Hawaii
offered, and that it was ultimately a student’s responsibility to succeed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
Faculty/Administrator Responses
There was a noticeable split in responses to this question between those on
BYU-Hawaii campus and those interviewed in country. Those groups and
individuals on the BYU-Hawaii campus generally agreed with the students’
observations about teachers and bishops being significant factors in helping
students adjust. This, it was suggested, was because these individuals are in
frequent contact with students at critical times in their educational careers, and the
students have a high degree of trust in their bishops. The on-campus faculty and
administrators had few observations about counseling and the new student
orientation.
The in-country groups, on the other hand, had strong feelings about what was
happening to their “kids” at BYU-Hawaii. They agreed that bishops were positive
factors in students’ lives. Focus group and interview participants alike appreciated
the efforts of ecclesiastical leaders. The in-country groups had relatively little to
offer regarding other on-campus programs and facilities. This was due primarily
to the fact that most of these participants had not been to BYU-Hawaii in quite
some time if ever. However, they had strong feelings about the counseling
services and the way it was conducted. “They need to be proactive” said one
participant. “Our students are not going to come to them. The counselors are
waiting until our students are ‘dead’ to help them. Then it’s too late.” One teacher
related how the counselors called her son in by means of a warning letter. “He
went to the Counseling Center several times but just could not get through the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
door.” The reason given by the mother was the same point Isapela mentioned
earlier: Polynesian are not generally comfortable taking a problem to someone
they do not know.
Summary
Much has been said by students about persistence in this chapter. Their
accounts have been candid, and of consequence they have provided invaluable
insight to what it means, in part, to be educated in the South Pacific. Of even
greater significance is the window their accounts have opened to what it means to
come to an entirely new educational system in a foreign land. Some clear patterns
have emerged from these students’ experiences. They manage to do quite well in
their first year, despite overwhelming obstacles. However, by the second year
those obstacles become formidable. In some cases they were impossible to
overcome. What is more, both family and independence seem to have enormous
impacts on Polynesian student persistence at the university. Other student voices
and those of teachers and administrators have confirmed the 1996 students’
observations.
The task that remains is to sort through these data and offer possible
conclusions that can then be extended to implications and recommendations for
retention practice and research. Chapter 5 provides that analysis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 5
172
IMPROVING POLYNESIAN STUDENT RETENTION
“ I ’ m happy to help in any way I can with your study. I ’ ve often wondered myself why
so many students from my country come here and never finish” (1996 new student
from American Samoa).
A remarkable number of students who participated in this study expressed
concern and bewilderment over the study’s fundamental question: Why do
Polynesian students leave the university without completing their bachelor’s
degree? It is a seemingly simple question blanketed in manifold and complex
issues. Nothing for example can complicate retention questions more than
context. Without a clear understanding of the university and its students, we can
never hope to understand why those students drop out. Aggregated numbers are
often not helpful when considering specific groups of students, especially students
who differ from the norm-referencing group. For this reason, the fundamental
question of why students drop out was narrowed in this study to focus specifically
on international Polynesian students at BYU-Hawaii. Every effort was taken to
present student responses in context.
An abundance of research discussed in earlier chapters suggests in general
terms why students drop out. However, virtually all of the extant research is
quantitative and the vast majority of it focuses on Tinto’s interactional model
(1975,1987, 1993). While Tinto’s model has advanced our understanding of
retention issues, it too must be evaluated and applied with contextual constraint.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
Tinto (1993) is clear on this point: “Successful institutional action necessarily
entails the assessment of student needs and the fine-tuning of programming to the
specific needs of differing students”(p. 180). Recent research further confirms the
inadvisability of overextending the implications and applications of the model.
For example, a burgeoning field of research suggests that Tinto’s model serves
poorly as a predictor of non-traditional and minority student persistence (Bean &
Metzner, 1985; Braxton et al., 1997; Makuakane-Drechsel, 1999; Pavel, 1991;
Tierney, 1992b). Despite these limitations, the model continues to influence
retention practices in a variety of contexts.
Of particular interest to this study was the question of how Tinto’s model
might apply to international Polynesian students whose backgrounds are markedly
different from the traditional students on whom the model is referenced. In order
to address this broader question, four context-specific research questions were
developed around the basic postulates of Tinto’s model:
1. How do Polynesian students perceive their college-going experience in
relationship to their future plans?
2. What factors do they see as significantly influential in their decision to stay or
leave the university?
3. What background characteristics do Pacific Island students think contribute to
their college persistence or nonpersistence?
4. From the students’ perspectives, what factors, if any, affect their persistence
once they have arrived at BYU-Hawaii?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
Selecting research methods capable of eliciting trustworthy responses to these
questions was a primary consideration in Chapter 3 and bears repeating here.
Two fundamental assumptions governed the methodology selection. First,
because we know so little about Polynesian student retention, the methodology
focused squarely on understanding this particular group of students’ attrition
patterns. It could not be assumed that a model developed and tested on another
population of students would serve in this case. The second assumption is related
to the first. No one understands the process of persistence in a university better
than those who have experienced it first hand. Accordingly, the Polynesian
students who personally experienced what it is like to persist or drop out of a
university were given the opportunity to respond directly in their own words to
the study’s four research questions. This was accomplished by means of semi
structured, in-depth interviews and focus groups. To return to a point made
earlier, qualitative methods were employed in this study because they best fit the
questions asked as well as the intended purpose of the research, namely to better
understand the problem of Polynesian attrition not necessarily to explain it.
The students selected for this study entered BYU-Hawaii in 1996 as new
students. The group was purposefully narrowed to include only those who came
from the Polynesian islands of American Samoa, the Cook Islands, Fiji, French
Polynesian, Samoa, and Tonga and who spoke English as a second language. This
narrowing process resulted in a group of 92 individuals, many of whom had
already left the university for unknown destinations. In total, 40 were located and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
agreed to participate. Additionally, former students, faculty, and administrators
from each of the six countries under study, as well as from BYU-Hawaii, offered
alternate perspectives with which to triangulate the student responses. A total of
89 individuals participated.
Chapter 4 presented data gathered from the 89 participants in the form of
stories, perspectives, and impressions. Not all participants’ responses were
presented. Every effort was made, however, to expose recurring themes and
categories that emerged in the data collection process. The quotes and examples
supplied are representative of many others like them. In nearly every instance, the
data collected provided valuable insights into persistence questions about
Polynesian students. While the stories and quotations in Chapter 4 may be
interesting and insightful, they are not particularly useful in their current format.
Analyzing these data to determine what they say about Polynesian student
persistence is now needed. Data analysis is the primary focus of this final chapter.
Several tasks remain. First, data are analyzed through multiple lenses. Key
responses to research questions are summarized and then examined through the
lenses of Tinto’s interactional model. Said another way, Tinto’s model is
measured against what international Polynesian students have to say about their
retention experiences. After each of the four questions is analyzed in this manner,
they are then examined through a pragmatic lens that allows us to see possible
applications for student services, administrators, and others involved with
retention policy and practice. An additional task of this chapter is to suggest next
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
logical steps that can follow this study. Research should not only seek answers
to questions but also form better questions. While this study has attempted to
answer a few key questions, many other valuable questions have been generated.
These questions have multiple implications for further research. Those
implications will be discussed at some length after the analyses that follow.
Analysis of Research Question Responses
Little has been said thus far about the structure of the research questions that
drive this study. A brief explanation of the questions’ structure and focus will
make the data analyses more meaningful. The questions were crafted so as to
reflect only slightly the basic tenets of Tinto’s model. The questions were kept
general, almost vague, to reduce the risk of response manipulation. The primary
objective was to have participants arrive at specifics on their own and in their own
words. Accordingly, questions, one, three and four, make only general allusions to
Tinto’s model. Question one, for example, allows respondents to discuss pre
matriculation characteristics, commitment to the institution, and graduation in the
context of a question that asks for their view of a university education as new
students. Question three is the most direct; it is intended to elicit students’
perspectives on pre-matriculation skills and characteristics. Question four focuses
on institutional factors that contribute to persistence once students are in the
university. This question says nothing about social or academic integration, the
trademarks of Tinto’s model, but certainly allows for students to respond about
such factors if they were indeed a part of their experience. The second question is
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
quite open-ended and allows for students to express anything they wish
concerning persistence. This question proved to be the most productive in
identifying what happens in Polynesian students’ lives once they arrive at a
university. An intentional degree of redundancy exists among the four questions.
The intent was to provide students with multiple opportunities to express key
issues. With this background in mind, we now turn to an analysis of the combined
student, faculty, and staff responses to the four research questions. The analysis of
each question is prefaced with a brief synopsis of the students’ responses
presented in Chapter 4.
Question One: How do Polynesian students perceive their college-going
experience in relationship to their future plans?
Response summary. Responses to this question revealed much about students’
educational aspirations and commitment to family. The three most common
responses focused on moving up, getting out, and helping family.
Most participants agreed that getting a college education was a method of
moving up both economically as well as socially. In their estimation, an education
is the quickest way to break their family’s economic and social cycles. Faculty
and administrators strongly supported this notion and added that many parents
were quite adamant about their children gaining as much education as possible.
Getting out was a phrase introduced by participants like Malia who wanted a
legal way out of their countries and into the United States. This is not a new
problem at BYU-Hawaii or other universities. Nearly twenty years ago, Reed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
(1983) documented that some students come to school only as a way of
eventually disappearing into the fabric of U.S. society.
Responses to this question also revealed the strength of family ties in
Polynesian culture. With rare exception, students’ desires to improve financially
and socially were not for personal reasons. They felt strong obligations to acquire
an education so they could get a good job to help their families. Even the students
who got out for other than educational reasons expressed strong ties to their
families. Family is a compelling force in a Polynesian student’s life.
Response analysis. Framing the responses of moving up, getting out, and
helping family in Tinto’s model reveals several important points.
First, Tinto suggests that a student’s initial commitment to graduation and the
institution affects persistence. If such is the case, then those students who see
education as a way of moving up should be considered strong persistence
candidates. Their commitment to graduating is solidly founded on the notion that
they will get better jobs, be better off than their parents, and will be in a position
to significantly help their families. Their level of commitment to the institution
was not as apparent, nor as strong as it was to graduation, but there were a number
of students who felt strong ties to BYU-Hawaii by virtue of their membership in
the LDS church. Here again, according to Tinto, this should bode in favor of the
students persisting.
Those students who come to a university to “get out” obviously have little or
no commitment to graduation or the institution. In many cases their commitment
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
was to finding a job in the United States or, in one student’s case, it was to “find
an American wife.” One may logically expect that these students would not likely
persist. The simple fact of the matter is persistence is not a consideration with
these students; school was never their primary intention for coming. They do
nonetheless affect the overall persistence picture for a university. More is said
about this in the Policy Implementation section of this chapter.
A Polynesian student’s desire to help family is unquestionably strong. Family
ties solidify students’ commitments to completing school. Family, after all is one
of the primary reasons many of them entered university in the first place. Both
their desire to help the family financially as well as their strong sense of
obedience to parent’s wishes lend strength to their commitment to graduation and
thereby to persistence. A number of students like Isapela recounted difficult times
in their school careers that were overcome simply by the thought that
disappointing family was worse than any struggle school may present.
Question Two: W hat factors do they see as significantly influential in their
decision to stay or leave the university?
Response summary. This question yielded the most valuable insights into the
Polynesian student experiences at BYU-Hawaii. Students, faculty, and
administrators identified five categories related to student persistence: freedom,
family, relationships, focus, and institutional factors.
Independence was a powerful factor affecting student persistence once they
arrived in Hawaii. Nearly every student commented on the degree of freedom
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
180
they had at college. They spoke of strict controls that their parents and culture
imposed on them at home and then being dropped into a situation where they had
complete freedom over everything they did. It was a freedom that overwhelmed
them. In Semisi’s words he “could not control it.” Among the more obvious
consequences were skipping classes, staying out all night with friends, associating
with friends that distracted them from school, and Honor Code violations. In
almost every instance, the uncontrolled freedom led to academic difficulties the
likes of which they had never encountered before and for which they had few
coping skills. Students often reasoned that their only way out of difficulties was to
drop out completely.
Relationships are a second factor closely related to their new-found freedom.
Many of these students came to Hawaii having never dated, much less been
involved in a serious relationship before. These students find themselves in a new
environment with mores different from anything they have known before, yet they
are somehow expected to understand the underlying nuances and restraints. A
surprising number of students were swept into relationships they could not control
or did not know how to get out of. At least five of the forty participants were
involved in relationships that ultimately led to Honor Code violations and non-
academic dismissals.
Family was identified by students as being an equal influence for good and
bad in their new-student lives. They spoke of homesickness and the emotions of
being away from family for the first time. Similarly, they were distracted by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lei
family problems that were often communicated in letters and phone calls. These
distractions are particularly strong for Polynesians because of the centrality of
family in their lives. Family ties also seem to be a factor in keeping students in
school when the desire to quit is strong. Semisi’s comment about not being able to
face his family if he were to fail as a college student was not uncommon among
these students. The love of family and the desire to bring honor and financial
stability to parents has the potential to pull students through difficult times at
school just as surely as it can pull them away from a successful semester when
times are hard back home.
Focus, both the lack and loss of, is highly related to several of the categories
identified thus far. For example, students who see going off to college as a way of
getting out of their countries lack educational focus once they arrive. A second
type of student who lacked focus is the student like Suli who had no clear idea
what a college education involved. She just wanted to “further her education”
somewhere off her island. This type of student usually did not have a major
clearly in mind when the student applied. A third category of student, and the
most common, had a clear focus when he/she arrived at the university, but lost
that focus because of new independence or institutional distractions.
Institutional distractions most often cited by students included the work study
agreement, curricular obstacles, and poor communication. Students expressed
strong feelings about the difficulty of being full-time students and part-time
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
employees. Students from Tahiti were particularly troubled by these dual
responsibilities.
Curricular impediments can be summarized as differences between the
educational systems they knew in the islands and the American liberal arts model.
These differences were significantly magnified in the general education
requirements. Such a system was entirely new to many of these students and
caused them considerable frustration. They came with high hopes of immediately
starting their major studies only to discover they had many semesters of general
education courses to complete first. What is more, meeting general education
requirements forced students into subjects they had not studied for years if at all.
In the British system students are often tracked into specialized subjects and
seldom take courses outside of that track. A science student, for example, in Fiji
may find a general education literature requirement to be extraordinarily difficult
to handle.
The lack of clear communication manifested itself in what the students called
“the run around.” No one was giving them answers to questions. Others spoke of
getting mixed messages and not knowing how to resolve problems. Their solution
was often to solve the problem by doing nothing. None of these institutional
factors taken individually was overwhelming. However, their impact combined
with other factors created serious obstacles to graduation.
Response analysis. Four of the five elements students identified as persistence
distracters can be readily explained by Tinto’s model: family, relationships, focus,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and institutional factors. Freedom, the one factor that does not seem to fit, is the
most influential in their decision to drop out of school. A discussion of the first
four factors is followed by a more extensive discussion of freedom.
Tinto’s model is direct on the point of commitment to an institution and
graduation. The greater the level of commitment to an institution and graduation,
the greater the likelihood a student will persist in college. Students coming to a
university for a change of scenery or escape from a situation at home are
obviously not likely to persist to graduation. Statistics from the 1996 cohort bear
this point out; not a single participant from the 1996 cohort who suggested in the
interview process that he/she came with a lack of focus is still in school—not one.
Tinto (1993) goes to great length to explain external impacts upon
institutional departure. “Though our model intentionally emphasizes the role of
intra-institutional experiences, it does not exclude the possible impacts of external
events upon persistence” (p. 126). These impacts, says Tinto, include work,
family, and other obligations. Clearly the relationships with families and others
identified by the Polynesian students fit within this explanation. Tinto suggests
that external factors can both contribute to and distract from persistence. This has
been the case with the family factor that has been discussed at some length
already.
Institutional factors singled out by students in this study are not unlike those
identified by Tinto as common distracters to graduation. Work, for example is a
positive predictor of dropout. Students who work and go to school run a higher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
risk of dropping out. (Astin 1993,1997; Tinto, 1997, 1993; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1980; 1991). This, according to Tinto has to do with the student’s level
of focus or commitment to graduation. Students who have significant other
obligations besides school are at risk of not graduating. As has been pointed out,
their first part-time job is a significant factor in a Polynesian student’s life and
likely does contribute to nonpersistence.
Tinto borrows from the work of Attinasi (1989) to explain the challenges
many new students face in their first year. He notes that these students are making
membership transitions between communities. “Students are having to navigate
their way around an unknown remote campus geography”(p. 125). According to
Attinasi that geography is comprised of three elements: the physical, the social,
and the academic/cognitive. Such an explanation perhaps explains in part an
international student’s frustration with a new educational system. However, this
explanation ignores fundamental differences between an international Polynesian
student and the traditional student on whom Tinto’s model was developed. A
more complete discussion of this issue is presented in the Policy Implications
section of this chapter. For now, we turn to a discussion of the most frequently
mentioned factor related to drop out—freedom.
What do we make of the significant freedom factor identified by these
students? Independence has an adverse impact on their university persistence. Just
how Tinto’s model would account for this is not clear. It might be categorized as a
pre-matriculation characteristic that distracts from persistence. It is comparable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
perhaps to new students who are not socially ready for university studies. It may
be explained as one of those “daunting tasks of navigating around an unknown
geography.” Considering it as one of those aspects that a student transitioning
between communities must face is also possible. None of these explanations,
however, is a good fit to the situation at hand. Tinto’s model does not
satisfactorily explain this freedom factor. A point that was made in Chapter 2
bears repeating here. Tinto’s model places the responsibility for adapting and
persisting squarely with the students. It suggests that students must somehow
make the necessary adjustment to the university if they are going to persist. The
notion is if they integrate academically and socially they will persist. Once again,
this may apply to traditional students, it does not fit well with a population of
students whose backgrounds and “geographies” differ dramatically from the
norm.
Question Three: What background characteristics do Pacific Island students
think contribute to their college persistence or nonpersistence?
Response summary. Students’ responses to this question were noticeably
similar to question two responses. The several responses that differed from
question two tended to focus on persister rather than nonpersister qualities. The
three most cited characteristics were independence, quality of high school
education, and language skills.
Students were quick to identify new-found freedom as a cause for dropping
out. They were equally quick to suggest that those students brought up in homes
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186
where they had to make their own choices and were afforded a good deal of
latitude were the students who faired better at the university. Four of the students
in this cohort who had already graduated or were near graduation considered their
“liberal” upbringing to be a definite ingredient contributing to their success at the
university.
Quality of education in high school was a second element students identified
as a positive retention indicator. Unlike the United States, in certain Pacific
nations government schools are considered the most elite and selective. Students
generally sensed that students who graduated from top government schools were
the most successful at university studies because of their educational
backgrounds. Conversely, students educated in the more rural parts of the islands
were thought to be at a disadvantage.
Finally, a weak but noticeable sentiment was expressed suggesting that
students with strong English skills are more inclined to persist. This was
mentioned most often by Tahitians who tend to be strong academically but weak
linguistically. Tahitians generally score lower on the English placement tests at
BYU than any of the other five nationalities.
Response analysis. Two of the student responses to this question line up
nicely with Tinto’s model and are much in agreement with other research. The
quality of high school education and strong language skills have been identified as
definite positive factors contributing to student persistence. These “entry
characteristics” as Tinto calls them directly affect a student’s likelihood of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
persistence. But once again, we are faced with the question of independence.
Students identified this as a positive retention factor when they had grown up in
homes where they had much independence. This seems to argue in favor of the
notion that the more “traditional” a student is the more likely the student is to
persist. Said another way, so long as the student fits the typical student mold we
can account for their persistence using Tinto’s model.
Question Four: From the students’ perspectives, what factors, if any, affect
their persistence once they have arrived at BYU-Hawaii?
Response summary. Institutional factors fell into two categories: those that
help students persist, and those that are intended to help but do not seem to.
Helpful factors most mentioned were people not programs. Students almost
always named individuals who were concerned and wanted to help. Foremost
among these were the campus bishops and faculty. These people, according to
students, were most in touch with their lives and had some sense of what they
were going through. Bishops often helped students through Honor Code related
matters, and relationship difficulties. Teachers were most often cited for their
academic support and motivation. Students were amazed by the fact that faculty
members would take the time to listen and help. Teachers in their countries
generally did not provide feedback, nor were they approachable during or after
class. Having teachers willing to help was “new to [them], brand new.”
According to the students, two campus services that are directly focused on
retention but seemed to be ineffective were the counseling services and new
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
student orientation. The ineffective nature of these services was not due to lack
of professionalism or care so much as it was due to lack of focus on specific
student characteristics. Students generally agreed that new student orientation had
no effect on their staying or leaving the university. As one student noted, “ . . .
they gave us a lot of information, but it didn’t do much to keep me in school.”
The students raised a number of comments about the counseling system on
campus. Their most noticeable concern was cultural. Taking a problem to a
stranger is not done in many of their cultures. Students spoke of going to
counselors only when they were forced to because of Academic Warning letters.
Response analysis.
Student responses to this final question are quite revealing when they are
examined through the “Tinto lens.” The signature feature of Tinto’s interactional
model is the higher the level of social and academic integration, the greater the
likelihood of persisting to graduation. Of significance is the fact that students
found people not programs to be most helpful in their adjustment to university
life. Equally significant is the fact that programs specifically focused on student
retention did little to help students adjust or “integrate.” This is of particular
significance when we consider that one of the primary functions of new student
orientation is to help students integrate socially and academically. Consider some
typical BYU-Hawaii new student orientation activities: students are divided into
small Ohana (family) groups which go on circle island tours together, attend
beach parties and barbecues together, are hosted to dinner and a night show at the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
189
Polynesian Cultural Center. Academic activities included an introductory
session with faculty within majors, academic orientation sessions, academic
discussions with faculty and other students, meetings with academic advisors. All
these activities have clear markings of Tinto’s model. Despite all that is done,
Polynesian students continue to drop out. It cannot be said that students did not
persist because of the university’s lack of effort. The problem may well be that
the wrong efforts are being focused on the wrong student population.
In similar fashion, students saw the counseling office as a place you have to
go when you are already in deep trouble. It was a service not typically found in
their culture. For these students, problems are to be shared only with family or
someone you know and can trust. Keep in mind, these students found people not
programs to be most helpful. Such a notion suggests that student services might
reconsider their perspective and mode of service delivery. If students do not
understand or are threatened by the service offered, then why offer the service?
The issue is straightforward. Student perceptions and perspectives matter, and
they need to be understood by those purporting to serve them.
Analysis Summary
A point made earlier bears repeating here. Tinto’s model has done much to
extend our understanding of student retention. That understanding, however, is
contextually limited. Not all students come to a university with the same
background as those on whom Tinto’s model is developed. Certain aspects of the
model may prove to be applicable to all who step foot on a campus as a new
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
student. For example, the level of student commitment or the quality of high
school education may be factors that affect all students. At the same time, it
cannot be reasonably expected that wholesale application of the model is in
anyone’s best interest, especially the students’ interest. Data collected in this
study from international Polynesian students suggest that certain factors of Tinto’s
model possibly do apply to them. However, the major obstacles in their new-
student experiences in a new country are not directly accounted for in Tinto’s
model. International Polynesian students have unique cultural characteristics that
profoundly affect their persistence both positively and negatively. Family and
freedom for instance are extremely strong influences in these new students’ lives.
While these factors might be squeezed into Tinto’s model, such an attempt for
conformity to the model ignores the fundamental differences these students bring
to a college campus. Despite these differences, international students are often
analyzed and treated with the same retention practices as mainstream, traditional
American students. In retention matters, one size does not fit all. What follows are
some general policy implications and specific program suggestions based on the
unique experiences of the students in this study.
Policy Implications
Quick-fix solutions and panaceas to complex problems like student attrition
are nonexistent. The best solutions are those informed by sound data. For the past
several decades, student retention policies and programs have in large measure
followed data derived from Tinto’s interactional model which is based on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
traditional, four-year university, mainstream, American student experiences.
Increasingly, higher education populations are varying from that mold.
Consequently, policies based on the model will lead to less than effective
solutions. The focus of this section is to offer suggestions that call into question
long-held assumptions about how to best retain students. While some of the
policies and recommendations speak directly to BYU-Hawaii, the underlying
principles may be applicable with other populations at other institutions.
Policies
Definitions. Nothing can be done to curb dropout rates until we clearly
understand what we mean by dropout. Lack of clear definitions plagued retention
research nearly three decades ago, yet universities continue to overlook this vital
point. BYU-Hawaii, for example, makes no distinction between a student like
Malia who drops out of school because she never really intended to graduate and
Amelia who had high ambitions and potential but dropped out before she got
kicked out. You can never hope to treat something until you clearly understand its
nature. Voluntary withdrawal and institutional dismissal are different actions
requiring different solutions. Tinto (1993) makes it clear, for example that his
model accounts for students who voluntarily leave school not those who are
dismissed. Despite this fact, his model continues to be inappropriately applied in
dismissal contexts. When the problem is not clearly defined, we should not expect
remedies to work. Drop out must be defined in order to improve it.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192
Recognize differences. Some differences make a difference. As U.S.
campuses become more diverse the need to understand how those differences
affect retention becomes more important. In some ways, International Polynesian
students’ reasons for leaving the university may be similar to other groups of
students. At the same time, they bring with them cultural backgrounds and
experiences that are markedly different. This study has shown that some of those
differences make a difference in a student’s retention potential. Until universities
recognize those differences and enact policies and programs accordingly, student
departure will continue to puzzle us.
Admission Policies. Retention begins with admission, and admission
guidelines are best established on sound information. Obviously we cannot know
everything about every student we admit. However, there are patterns and trends
within different groups of students that can be used to better inform admission
policies. Data gathered in this study stand in support of this point. BYU-Hawaii
and other institutions would be well advised to understand as much as possible
about the different major groups of students they admit. This understanding could
then be used to screen students more effectively and to better inform prospective
students.
Screening applicants is a critical step in retaining them. Perhaps the most
salient example from this study is the group of students who see a higher
education as a way out of the country—those seeking passage to the United
States. Accurately screening such students is never easy. It is a difficult, long-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
standing problem that will require the best efforts of many to at least minimize
its effects. Until something is done, these students will continue to adversely
affect retention.
Screening for the best possible candidates for admission only addresses half
the issue. Individuals who are thinking about applying need to be able to make
well-informed decisions. They need to know what they are getting in to. Students
do not fully understand what awaits them at BYU-Hawaii. For example, they
identified work, and general education as some aspects of their new life that they
really did not understand before they arrived. Students suggested that the
materials they are sent should be more informative and less persuasive. Similarly,
the promotional videos they were shown of BYU-Hawaii glamorize too much.
They do not show “how it really is.” Coming to a new country, in a new
educational environment poses many surprises. Having more accurate information
before they come would help students make thoughtful initial decisions about
coming and it would also make the adjustments once they arrive less jolting.
Institutional Adaptation. Tinto’s model places the onus of change and
integration directly on the students. In a sense it is the academic equivalent of
when in Rome, do as the Romans do. The recommendation here is similar to
Tierney’s (1992). “Rather than change a student, the suggestion has been made to
change the organization” (p. 159). It is obviously impossible for an institution like
BYU-Hawaii to become 60 different schools to accommodate all the nationalities
it admits. It could at the very least implement policies and practices that are
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
194
sensitive to the diversity of students it admits. For example, student services
based on an American model such as Tinto’s or others may not be the most
helpful to international students. Meeting students half way will go a long way to
smoothing out their transition and retention in their new surroundings. The
following specific programs suggest several ways to make a smoother transition
possible.
Programs
Data collection. Programs and policies are often based on too little data and
too much assumption. Many institutions, BYU-Hawaii included, have a wealth of
untapped retention data. The simple process of an exit interview with all
graduating students could provide rich data at a relatively low cost. Many
universities do this at the department level already. Unfortunately, they seldom
ask anything about retention related issues. A short, well-designed protocol would
yield invaluable insight for student retention committees. Similar, valuable but
inexpensive data could also be collected from students at the ends of critical
semesters and other junctures in students’ university careers. The resources
required would more than be repaid in improved retention rates.
New student orientation. Any program implemented with the intent to
improve student retention ought to be based on a clear understanding of purpose
and audience. New student orientation has long been a part of American higher
education. Its purposes are usually multiple with the overarching objective of
helping students adjust to their new college life. Administrators and student
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
services often translate this to mean better retention. With the international
students in this study, something got lost in the translation. The many activities
described earlier did not significantly impact retention. This is due to at least two
factors. First, as noted earlier, the model on which most orientation activities are
built may not fit the intended audience needs. In this study, many students found
BYU-Hawaii’s orientation to be fun but not particularly useful. Many students
reported that they did not attend orientation activities. They relied on friends or
other student to inform them of what they needed to know. The second drawback
is related to the first. The orientation may be trying to do too much for too many
students in too short of a time. A “shotgun” approach to orientations does not
address specific student needs. A more effective method would be to have several
different activities each with specific goals and audiences identified. Said another
way, and to continue the metaphor, if you intend to hit a target, you need to aim
before you fire. The following is an example of how this “aiming” can happen.
The suggestion comes from a focus group in Fiji.
In addition to or in lieu of dividing new students into Ohana (family) groups
of mixed nationalities, why not group students from the same countries together
with several senior student leaders from the same country? Let these groups meet
together to discuss issues and concerns they are experiencing in their “strange
new world.” The suggestion was carried one step further to make it a first-
semester class for which the new students receive credit and the senior students
are paid a stipend or receive seminar credit. One faculty member could be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
assigned as the advisor to the group to provide group supervision. Such an
approach would allow students to speak openly with people that understand the
challenges they are facing. Curriculum could include discussions of what is
happening to them, being away from family, relationships, and independence. The
intervention would also come in the first semester before they are completely
consumed by their problems.
Mentoring. BYU-Hawaii has made many attempts to establish a mentoring
program without much measured success. The most common model has been to
assign faculty as mentors to a certain number of new students. While the idea has
merit, the application is flawed. The main shortcoming stems from the fact that
Polynesian students find it difficult to take problems to someone they do not
know. This was their principal concern with counseling services on campus. An
assigned mentor may be as difficult to approach as a counselor. A second concern
is that it is done by assignment. Most meaningful relationships develop through
natural interaction not planned or mandated assignments. We draw closer to
people because they care not because they are assigned. Students said that caring
people made a difference in their new-student lives. A more effective approach to
mentoring might be to educate faculty and staff of the potential they have in
students’ lives and to establish more activities where faculty and new students can
meaningfully interact. The following offers one possible way to enhance the
quality of new student interaction with other students and faculty. The suggestion
comes from Tinto’s recent work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
Tinto (1999) has expanded his notion of involvement through learning
communities. In this respect he suggests that universities need to make retention a
central linchpin around which activities are built. Institutions need to be serious
about how they organize the settings that can affect student retention. His premise
for suggesting learning communities is “The frequency and quality of contact
with faculty staff, and other students have been shown to be independent
predictors of student persistence” (p. 5). This is true he says among all types of
students and institutions. Genuine faculty-student and student-student
relationships are more likely to develop in well-designed learning communities
than through arbitrarily assigned mentors.
Student services. One of the more resounding messages from the student
responses is that which is tried and true in one setting may not be so in another
context. This has been stated several times already, Tinto’s model is not a good fit
when describing international Polynesian students. The same principle can be
extended to student service practices. That which has been shown to be a best
practice for one group may not be good for another. The students’ reactions to the
counseling services stand in support of this point. Reaching Polynesian students
may require us to look at student services from an entirely different angle—the
students’. Here again, Tierney (1992) suggests, “ . . . the advisor ought to be
aware of the cultural milieu in which advising takes place so that the teacher
reaches out to the student rather than vice versa” (p. 164).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Work-Study. Finally and most importantly, if BYU Hawaii is serious about
significantly improving its retention of Polynesian students, it will have to pay
particular attention to the impact a part-time job has on these students. A
substantial literature suggests that students who work are at a higher risk of
dropping out than those who do not (for example see Astin,1993; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991;Tinto, 1993). This fact alone suggests that these students are
going to drop out at a higher than average rate. Yet their situation is made even
more precarious by the fact that nearly every aspect of their lives requires major
adjustments. Add to that the fact that many have never worked before, and you
have a recipe for high attrition rates. Clearly BYU Hawaii cannot afford to give
students a free education. The work-study program serves a vital function.
Nevertheless, under its current structure, students are finding it difficult to survive
academically.
One possible alternative would be to make the first few semesters a phase-in
period when students work for shorter amounts of time so they can dedicate more
time to educational adjustments. This would come at a cost, but the current
system also demands a very high price in terms of dropouts. At the very least, a
careful review of work policies imposed on new students is warranted. When new
students are forced to take the “only jobs available” that are usually the least
desirable, they are being set up for discouragement. The jobs new students have to
take are often the late-night, heavy manual labor jobs that demand a great deal
physically from students. Work is a significant factor in their new lives and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199
policies that govern these jobs needs to be evaluated with equal significance if
the 70/30 statistic is ever going to be improved.
Research Implications
As is often the case, this research has raised more questions than it has
answered. The hope is that what has been presented will lead others to ask similar
or related questions about groups marginalized by the decades of retention
research on mainstream, traditional student. What follows are six of many
questions and research suggestions that this study has generated.
The discussion in Chapter 3 outlined the strengths and weakness of qualitative
and quantitative methods of inquiry. The major point being that each has its
purpose and place in research, and the two can be complimentary. Data collected
in this study does not distract from extant research it presents another perspective
to a multi-dimensional problem. A call for more qualitative research in the field of
retention study is not new. Tinto (1987,1993), Tierney (1992a), Attinasi (1992),
Braxton (1997)among others have acknowledged the need for such research. A
number of questions raised in this study would fit nicely in a qualitative frame;
some will require numeric approaches. Both are discussed in this section. That
notwithstanding, the call for more qualitative research on retention in its many
aspects is strongly recommended. Its potential for insight and understanding is
significant. That said, we turn to specific research suggestions.
One of the more compelling findings of this study is the impact independence
and dependence has on students from the South Pacific. This was a factor quite
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
200
unexpected at the outset of this study. Many would benefit from a follow-up
study with other Polynesian that focuses exclusively on the impact of
independence on persistence. Both qualitative and quantitative work are possible.
For instance, well-structured surveys could be developed using data already
collected to survey many former students at relatively little expense. At the same
time, follow-up interviews and focus groups with students still on campus could
also investigate the potential this “new-found freedom” has in their lives. Such
studies would help in the formation of refined, focused retention models.
No data support the notion, but it may be a safe assumption to make that some
faculty and administrators at BYU-Hawaii attribute student drop out to poor prior
academic training. To an extent, that is true with any student population.
Student responses suggest, however, that poor academic training is low on the list
of causes for Polynesian student attrition. Several lines of research can stem from
this issue. Again, both have qualitative and quantitative possibilities. First an
understanding of what faculty and administrators think are causes for student drop
out among various groups of students would be revealing. This data might then be
examined to see how such perceptions affect school retention programs and
policies. Data gathered from such research would be helpful in forming policy
based on data rather than perceptions. A second, more complex question is found
in Tinto’s (1993) statement that his model is not intended to account for students
dismissed from the university. Of significant note, nearly half of the students in
this study that left the university were dismissed for various reasons. That being
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
201
the case, what model would be more applicable for dismissals? This question
has much broader implications than just BYU-Hawaii. The likelihood is great that
Tinto’s highly recognized model is being inappropriately applied in multiple
contexts. The wrong diagnosis generally leads to the wrong prescription.
A final question and related conclusion specific to BYU-Hawaii’s Honor
Code remain. A significant number of students (the exact number is difficult to
determine because of confidential records policies in the 1996 cohort were
dismissed from BYU-Hawaii for Honor Code violations. One has to wonder how
Polynesian students would persist at other universities where such conduct is not
grounds for dismissal. Would their new-found freedom have as big of an impact
at another school? Such a question would not be easy to investigate simply
because the sizeable Polynesian student populations are nonexistent at other U.S.
institutions. Some New Zealand and Australian schools have quite large
Polynesian populations and may be helpful in this regard.
The conclusion: BYU-Hawaii may always have a higher rate of attrition
because of the standard of conduct is expects of its students. This is not to suggest
that BYU-Hawaii consider altering its code. It may simply have to accept higher
attrition rates as a consequence of what it expects of its students. This is also not
suggesting that the current attrition rates are acceptable. Only the institution can
determine what retention rates are within an acceptable margin.
Finally, international student retention data are sorely lacking. Only four of
the twenty institutions surveyed for this study were willing to offer statistics on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202
their international students. The statistics that were provided are far from
conclusive. What little data are provide raise a number of questions worthy of
investigation. Are international students more likely to persist than their American
counterparts? Why do international students at some schools persist at much
lower rates than at others? Are there contextual situations similar to those
discovered here that are causing low persistence rates? What are those situations
exactly? Many significant questions have yet to be investigated about the nearly
half million international students studying in the United States.
Conclusion
We began this lengthily discussion quoting Tinto (1993) who suggested that if
we are ever going to understand student persistence, we will have to break from
our reliance on aggregated numbers and “ . . . eventually be informed by the
particular person and particular setting . . . “ (p.69). This study has taken a step in
that direction. The participants in this study are far from mainstream American
university students. Their island homes are remote, and their educational
experiences are markedly different from the open, elective American system they
have come to. They have had to adjust almost every aspect of their lives to the
“strange new world” of an American university. Their accounts of that adjustment
process have been informative.
One might expect that students who come from such singular backgrounds
would have diverse factors contributing to their university persistence. Such has
certainly been the case. In addition to the typical factors often associated with
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203
dropout such as lack of focus and commitment, these students have a unique set
of factors tied firmly to their Polynesian culture. Their strong family ties have in
many cases compelled them to further their education and at the same time they
have pulled them away from the university. One participant expressed this idea in
these terms:
Americans come into college fairly rootless, and are looking for an
identity. Polynesians usually will come out of a very traditional setting
where they knew exactly who they were. They knew exactly where they
fit in the hierarchy of the village. In the family they knew what their duties
were. When they come [to college] they are really uprooted .... Most
Americans have lived in several towns or states during the course of their
lives, whereas the Polynesians will have stayed in that same home and
village all their lives. So when they come they are uprooted from their
identity. Their supports are gone.
Nothing exemplifies this notion better than the actions these students take
once they start to experience their new-found freedom.
Analyzing student persistence through the theoretical lens of Tinto’s
interactional model has also been informative. Data from this study affirm what
other studies have suggested. Tinto’s model is less than accurate when applied to
students not from the mainstream, traditional mold on which the model is
developed. Regardless, institutions continue to administer retention practices
founded on Tinto’s model. Institutions like BYU-Hawaii that have diverse student
populations will need to customize retention policy and practices more in keeping
with the unique students they admit. Diversity on any campus is richly rewarding,
but those rewards come with challenges. We cannot assume practices that work
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204
for one group will be equally effective on another. The diversity of our solutions
must equal the diversity of our students.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205
REFERENCES
Abe, J., Talbot, D. M., & Geelhoed, R. (1998). Effects of a peer program on
international student adjustment. Journal o f College Student Development,
39(6).
ACT. (2000). College dropout rate improves, but graduation rate falls
(http://www.act.org/news/releases/2000/02-16-00.html), [internet]. ACT
[2000, February 16, 2000].
Alba, R., & Lavin, D. (1981). Community colleges and tracking in higher
education. Sociology o f Education, 54, 223-237.
American Council on Education. (1949). The student personnel point of view.
Student Personnel Work, 73(13).
Ashar, EL, & Skenes, R. (1993). Can Tinto's student departure model be applied to
nontraditional students. Adult Education Quarterly, 43(2), 90-100.
Astin, A. W. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact, part one.
Sociology o f Education, 43 ,223-254.
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects o f college on beliefs, attitudes,
and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1982). Minorities in American higher education. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal o f College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment o f
priorities and practices in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1993a, September 22). College retention rates are often misleading.
The Chronicle o f Higher Education.
Astin, A. W. (1993b). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
206
Attinasi, L. C. J. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans' perceptions of
university attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence.
Journal o f Higher Education, 60(3), 247-277.
Attinasi, L. C. J. (1992). Rethinking the study of the outcomes of college
attendance. Journal o f College Student Development, 55(1), 61-70.
Bean, J. P. (1982). Conceptual models of student attrition: How theory can help
the institutional researcher. In E. T. Pascarella (Ed.), Studying student
attrition (Vol. 36, pp. 17-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J. P. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations
to the student attrition process. The Review o f Higher Education, 6, 129-
148.
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional
undergraduate student attrition. Review o f Educational Research, 55, 485-
540.
Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (1997). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a
leader. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. (6 ed.).
New York: Longman.
Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. V. S., & Johnson, R. M. J. (1997). Appraising Tinto's
theory of college student departure. In C. J. Smart (Ed.), Higher
Education: Handbook o f Theory and Research (Vol. 12, pp. 107-164).
New York: Agathon Press.
BYUH. (1999). Brigham Young University Hawaii 1997 Factbook (Unpublished
report). Laie: Brigham Young University.
Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The
convergence between two theories of college persistence. Journal o f
Higher Education, 63, 143-164.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence:
Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student
retention. Journal o f Higher Education, 64, 123-139.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
207
Crowson, R. L. (1987). Qualitative research methods in higher education. In J.
C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook o f Theory and Practice
(Vol. 3, pp. 1-56). New York: Agathon Press.
Dalton, J. C. (Ed.). (1999a). Beyond borders: how international developments are
changing student affairs practice. (Vol. 86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dalton, J. C. (1999b). The significance of international issues and responsibilities
in the contemporary work of student affairs. In J. C. Dalton (Ed.), Beyond
borders: how international developments are changing student affairs
practice (Vol. 86, pp. 1-118). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, T. M. (1997). Open doors 1996-1997: Report on international
educational exchange . New York: Institute of International Exchange.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook o f qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Desruisseaux, P. (1999, December 10). Annual report finds that economic turmoil
in Asia did not lead to decline in enrollment The Chronicle o f Higher
Education, pp. A 57.
Dodge, S. (1989,). Many foreign students on U.S. campuses have problems with
culture shock and alienation. The Chronicle o f Higher Education, pp. A
43.
Doermann, H. J. (1926). The orientation o f college freshmen. Baltimore: Williams
& Wilkins Co.
Dougherty, K. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins,
impacts, and futures o f the community college. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Drake, R. W. J. (1966). Review o f the literature for freshmen orientation practices
in the United States. , Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide (Spaulding, J. A.Simpson, G., Trans.). Glencoe:
The Free Press.
Eisen, G. S. (1986). Fostering international understanding: Cross-cultural issues
in international residential settings. NASPA Journal, 23(4), 56-60.
Eisner, E. W. (1975). The perceptive eye: Toward the reformulation o f
educational evaluation (mimeo ). Stanford CA: Stanford University.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
208
Eison, J. (1990). Confidence in the classroom: Ten maxims for new teachers.
College Teaching, 36(1), 21-25.
Evans, N. (1998). International student retention patterns at Brigham Young
University : Unpublished manuscript.
Feldman, K. A. (1976). The superior college teacher from the students' view.
Research in Higher Education, 5, 243-267.
Feldman, K. A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching. In R. P.
Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective Teaching in Higher Education:
Research and Practice (pp. 370-395). New York: Agathon Press.
Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1973). The impact o f college on students.
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In
C. Geertz (Ed.), The interpretation o f culture: selected essays (pp. 3-30).
New York: Basic Books.
Geraghty, M. (1996, July 19). Data show more students quitting college before
sophomore year. The Chronicle o f Higher Education, pp. A 35.
Gerald, D. E. (1992). Projections o f educational statistics to 2003 . Washington
D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics.
Gillespie, M., & Nobel, J. (1992). Factors affecting student persistence: A
longitudinal study (92-4). Iowa City: The American College Testing
Program.
Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. Orlando FL: Academic Press.
Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1995). Immigrant Latino parents values and
beliefs about their children’s education: Continuities and discontinuities
across cultures and generations (Vol. 9, pp. 183-228): JAI Press Inc.
Green, M. F. (Ed.). (1989). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enhancing
diversity. Washington, DC: American Council of Education.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
209
Hanson, G. R., & Taylor, R. G. (1970). Interaction of ability and personality:
Another look at the drop-out problem in an Institute of Technology.
Journal o f Counseling Psychology, 17, 540-545.
Harris, P. D. (1972). A study offreshman orientation programs o f selected
Southern California community colleges. , The University of Southern
California, Los Angeles.
Heilbrun, A. B. (1965). Personality factors in college dropouts. Journal o f Applied
Psychology, 49, 1-7.
Horn, L. J., & Carroll, C. D. (1997). Confronting the odds: Students at risk and
the pipeline to higher education (NELS:88/94). Washington D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education Office of Educational, Research and
Improvement.
Iwai, S. I., & Churchill, W. D. (1982). College attrition and the financial support
systems of students. Research in Higher Education, 1 7 ,105-113.
Jensen, E. L. (1981). Student financial aid and persistence in college. Journal o f
Higher Education, 52 ,280-294.
Kahan, R., & Cannell, C. (1957). The dynamics o f interviewing. New York: John
Wiley.
Karabel, J. (1972). Community colleges and social stratification. Harvard
Educational Review, 42, 521-562.
Kluckhohn, C. (1949). Mirror for man. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Knefelkamp, L. L. (1978). A reader's guide to student development theory: A
framework for understanding, a framework for design : Unpublished
manuscript.
Kronovet, E. (1969). Current practices in freshman orientation. Improving
College and University Teaching, 17(3).
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research
interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Lavin, D., & Crook, D. (1990). Open admissions and its outcomes: Ethnic
differences in long-term educational attainment. American Journal o f
Education, 98, 389-425.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
210
Lenning, O. T. (1982). Variable-selection and measurement concerns. In E. T.
Pascarella (Ed.), Studying student attrition (Vol. 36, pp. 35-53). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lenning, O. T., Beal, P. E., & Sauer, K. (1980). Retention and attrition: evidence
for action and research . Boulder, Colorado: National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles o f topological psychology. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
Lyons, L. (1991). The integration o f qualitative and quantitative research in a
longitudinal retention study. Paper presented at the AIR, San Francisco.
Makuakan-Drechsel. (1998). Qualifying Examination : unpublished manuscript.
Makuakane-Drechsel, T. H. (1999). Factors affecting Hawaiian student
persistence at four community colleges on the island o f Oahu, Hawaii.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design; An interactive approach.
(Vol. 41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McConnell Castle, E. (1993). Minority student attrition research: Higher
education's challenge for human resource development. Educational
Researcher, 22, 24-30.
Milem, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified model of college student
persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin's theory of
involvement and Tinto's theory of student departure. Journal o f College
Student Development, 35(4), 387-400.
Moore, L. V. (1990). Evolving theoretical perspectives on students. (Fall 1990
ed.). (Vol. 51). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
211
Moore, W. J., & Carpenter, L. N. (1987). Academically under-prepared
students. In L. Noel, R. Levitz, D. Saluri, & a. Associates (Eds.),
Increasing Student Retention (pp. 95-115). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morgan, D., & Scanned, A. (1997). Planning Focus Groups. (Vol. 2). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, G., & Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy o f
Management Review, 5(4), 491-500.
Murdock, S. H., & Hogue, N. (1999). Demographic factors affecting higher
education in the United States in the twenty-first century. In G. H. Gaither
(Ed.), Promising practices in recruitment, remediation, and retention
(Vol. 109, pp. 5-13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murguia, E., Padilla, R. V., & Pavel, M. (1991). Ethnicity and the concept of
social integration in Tinto's model of institutional departure. Journal o f
College Student Development, 32(September), 433-439.
Neisler, O. J. (1992). Access and retention strategies in higher education: an
introductory overview. In M. Lang & C. A. Ford (Eds.), Strategies for
retaining minority students in higher education (pp. 3-21). Springfield, II:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Noel, L., Levitz, R., Saluri, D., & Associates. (1987). Increasing student
retention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nora, A. (1993). Two-year community colleges and minority students'
educational aspirations: Help or hindrance? In C. J. Smart (Ed.), Higher
Education: Handbook o f Theory and Research (Vol. 9, pp. 212-247). New
York: Agathon Press.
Nora, A., Attinasi, L. C., & Matonak, A. (1990). Testing qualitative indicators of
pre-college factors in Tinto's attrition model. Review o f Higher Education,
13(3), 337-355.
Nunley, C., & Breneman, D. (1988). Defining and measuring quality in
community college education. In J. Eaton (Ed.), Colleges o f choice . New
York: American Council on Education.
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A
cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications
for education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
212
Pascarella, E. T. (1981). Pre-enrollment variables and academic performance as
predictors of freshman-year persistence, early withdrawal, and stop-out
behavior in an urban, nonresidential university. Research in Higher
Education, 15(4), 329-349.
Pascarella, E. T. (Ed.). (1982). Studying student attrition. (Vol. 36). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985). Racial differences in factors associated with bachelor's
degree completion: A nine -year follow-up. Research in Higher
Education, 23(4), 351-373.
Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. (1983). A multiinstitutional, path analytical
validation of Tinto's model of college withdrawal. American Educational
Researcher Journal, 20, 87-102.
Pascarella, E. T., Duby, P. B., & Iverson, B. K. (1983). A test and
conceptualization of a theoretical model of college withdrawal in a
commuter institution setting. Sociology o f Education, 56, 88-100.
Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Serra Hagedom, L., & Terenzini, P.
(1997). Does community college attendance influence students'
educational plans? A preliminary test o f the "cooling out" hypothesis .
Chicago: National Study of Student Learning.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Pavel, M. (1991). Assessing Tinto's model o f institutional departure using
American Indian and Alaskan Native longitudinal data . Boston M.A.:
Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.
Perez, L. X. (1998). Sorting, supporting, connecting, and transforming
intervention strategies for students at risk. Community College Review,
26(1), 63-78.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213
Peshkin, A. (1993). The goodness of qualitative research. Educational
Researcher, 22(2), 23-29.
Peterson, M. W. (1985). Emerging developments in postsecondary organization
theory and research: Fragmentation or integration. Educational
Researcher, 14, 5-12.
Pincus, F. (1980). The false promise of community colleges: Class conflict and
vocational education. Harvard Educational Review, 50, 332-361.
Reed, H. N. (1982). The completion o f educational goals and the returnability o f
Tongan and Western Samoan students: at a private American university.
Unpublished dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Reisberg, L. (1999, January 15). To help Latino students, a college looks to
parents. The Chronicle o f Higher Education, pp. A43.
Rendon, L. I., & Nora, A. (1989). A synthesis and application of research on
Hispanic students in community colleges. Community College Review, 17,
17-24.
Rootman, I. (1972). Voluntary withdrawal from a total adult socialization
organization: A model. Sociology o f Education, 45 ,258-270.
Roueche, J. E., & Roueche, S. D. (1994). Responding to the challenge of the at-
risk student. Community College Journal o f Research and Practice, 18, 1-
11.
Sarkodie-Mensah, K. (1998). International students in the U.S.: Trends, cultural
adjustments, and solutions for a better experience. Journal o f Education
for Library and Information Science, 39(3), 214-222.
Schram, J. L., & Lauver, P. J. (1988). Alienation in international students. Journal
o f College Student Development, 29, 146-150.
Schutz, H., & Six, B. (1996). How strong is the relationship between prejudice
and discrimination: A meta-analytic answer. International Journal o f
Intercultural Relations, 20(3/4), 441-462.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214
Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for
researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Seltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M., & Cook, S. W. (1959). Research methods in
social relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Smith, J. K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify
the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 6-13.
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary
review and synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64-84.
Spady, W. G. (1971). Dropouts from higher education: Toward an empirical
model. Interchange, 2, 38-62.
Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Summerskill, J. (1962). Dropouts from college. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The
American college . New York: Wiley.
Terenzini, P. T. (1982). Designing attrition studies. In E. T. Pascarella (Ed.),
Studying student attrition (Vol. 36, pp. 55-71). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Tiemey, W. G. (1991). Culture and ideology in higher education: Advancing a
critical agenda. New York: Praeger.
Tiemey, W. G. (1992a). An anthropological analysis of student participation in
college. Journal o f Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618.
Tiemey, W. G. (1992b). Official encouragement, institutional discouragement:
Minorities in academe-the Native American experience. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Tiemey, W. G. (1993). The college experience of Native Americans: A critical
analysis. In L. Weis & M. Fine (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices . New
York: SUNY Press.
Tiemey, W. G. (1998). Power, identity and the dilemma o f college departure .
Los Angeles: Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, School of
Education, University of Southern California.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
215
Ting, S.-m. R. (1998). Predicting first-year grades and academic progress of
college students of first-generation and low-income families. Journal o f
College Admission, 75S(Winter), 14-23.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of
recent research. Review o f Educational Research, 45, 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1982a). Defining dropout: A matter of perspective. In E. T. Pascarella
(Ed.), Studying student attrition (Vol. 36, pp. 3-15). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. (1982b). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal o f
Higher Education, 53(6), 687-700.
Tinto, V. (1986). Theories of student departure revisited. In J. C. Smart (Ed.),
Higher education: Handbook o f theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 359-
384). New York: Agathon Press.
Tinto, V. (1987a). Dropping out and other forms of withdrawal from college. In
L. Noel, R. Levitz, & D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing student retention (pp.
28-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. (1987b). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures o f student
attrition. (1st ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1989, September 6). Misconceptions mar campus discussions of
student retention The Chronicle o f Higher Education, pp. B2.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures o f student
attrition. (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1999). Taking retention seriously: Rethinking the first year in college.
NACADA Journal, 9(2), 5-9.
Tompson, H. B., & Tompson, G. H. (1996). Confronting diversity issues in the
classroom with strategies to improve satisfaction and retention of
international students. Journal o f Education for
Busine^(September/October), 53-57.
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites o f passage (Vizedon, MCaffee, G., Trans.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
216
Walsh, W. B. (1973). Theories o f person-environment interaction: Implications
for the college student. Iowa City, Iowa: American College Testing
Program.
Warwick, D. P. (1973). Survey research and participant observation. In D. P.
Warwick & S. Osherson (Eds.), Comparative research methods .
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice -Hall.
Watkins, B. T. (1992,). Foreign enrollment at U.S. Colleges and universities
totaled 419,585 in 1991-1992, an all-time high. The Chronicle o f Higher
Education, pp. A28-A29.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method o f qualitative
interviewing. New York: Free Press.
Whitfield, J. J. (1993). A comparison o f international student retention to
domestic student retention at the University o f Southern California.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
Wolcott, H. (1975). Criteria for an ethnographic approach to research in schools.
Human Organization, 34(2), 111-126.
Wolcott, H. F. (1990). On seeking— and rejecting— validity in qualitative research.
In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The
continuing debate (pp. 121-152). New York: Teachers College Press.
Wolfe, J. S. (1993). Institutional integration, academic success, and persistence of
first-year commuter and resident students. Journal o f College Student
Development, 34, 321-326.
Zea, M. C., Reisen, C. A., & Beil, C. (1997). Predicting intention to remain in
college among ethnic minority and non-minority. The Journal o f Social
Psychology, iJ7(April), 149-160.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
217
Appendix 1
Letter Requesting International Student Retention Data
Dear, [Institutional Researcher’s name]
I am a faculty member at Brigham Young University-Hawaii working on some
institutional/doctorate research regarding an issue of great importance at our
institution specifically the persistence rates of our international students. My
preliminary search for data suggests that very little has been published on this
topic. I am, therefore, contacting the twenty bachelor institutions identified in The
Chronicle of Higher Education as the institutions enrolling the most international
students to see if they have such data. That is where you come in. My intention is
to establish a baseline against which to compare our students' rates.
To be concise, I am wondering if you would be willing to provide me with 4
numbers from your institutional data:
1. Average international student enrollment for the 1993,1994 and 1995
academic years
2. Average total student enrollment for 1993,1994, and 1995 academic years
3. Average 5-year graduation rate of international students who entered your
institution as new students in 1993,1994, and 1995
4. Average 5-year graduation rate for all students who entered your university in
1993,1994, and 1995
If you have this information and are willing to share it with me, it will be included
in a table in my doctoral dissertation at the University of Southern California. I
have attached a copy of the table in which the numbers will be displayed. Any
other use of the numbers or specific reference to your institution’s name besides
in the dissertation will be done only with your permission. Also, if you are willing
to share these numbers, I will send you a copy of the table in its final form for
your approval. If I do not get your approval, I will not use your institution in the
table. I would also be more than willing to send you a copy of my findings as
presented in my dissertation in the event that such data might be of help to your
institution.
Should you have any questions, I can be reached via email, or phone .
Thank you for your time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
218
Appendix 2
Brigham Young University-Hawaii Honor Code
Brigham Young University-Hawaii
Honor Code Statement
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good
to all men....If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or
praiseworthy, we seek after these things (Thirteenth Article of Faith).
Honor Code
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sponsors Brigham Young
University-Hawaii Campus in order to provide a university education in an
atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of the Church. The
maintenance of high standards of personal behavior and appearance is essential to
the preservation of that atmosphere and to the development of men and women
who personify these ideals and principles. By enrolling or accepting employment
at BYUH, a person signifies that he or she has been, is now and will continue
living in accordance with the following principles, whether on or off campus.
1. I live and will continue to live the law of chastity. This includes abstaining
from inappropriate physical familiarity and abstinence from all sexual
relations outside the bonds of marriage.
2. I live and will continue to live the Word of Wisdom. This includes abstinence
from alcoholic beverages, tobacco, tea, coffee, and the use of kava.
3. I respect and will continue to respect the property rights of others. This
includes refraining from stealing, shoplifting, concealment, damage, or misuse
of the property of others. I understand that in order to foster a theft-free
campus, violators will be suspended from the university.
4. I am not involved nor will I become involved in drug abuse. This includes the
possession, use, or distribution of any narcotic or dangerous drug or drug
paraphernalia (as defined by applicable law), except as prescribed by a
licensed medical practitioner (refer to Campus Drug policy pamphlet).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
219
5. I will comply with all University regulations. This includes compliance with
rules relating to campus organizations and to the use of University and off-
campus housing and other facilities.
6. I respect the personal rights of others and will continue to do so. This
includes: Not physically or verbally abusing any person and not engaging in
conduct that threatens or endangers the health or safety of others. Violators
will be suspended. Not obstructing or disrupting the study of others; the
performance of official duties by University personnel; the teaching, research,
disciplinary, administrative, or other functions of the University; or other
authorized activities on University premises.
6. I honor, obey, and sustain the law and will continue to do so.
7. I am honest and will continue to be honest in all by behavior. This includes
not cheating, plagiarizing, or knowingly giving false information. Honesty in
academic conduct is expected of every student. Violations of academic
honesty include but are not limited to the following: Giving or receiving
unauthorized help during an examination. Altering without authorization any
grade record, or any test or written work after submission for grading.
Attempting to gain favorable consideration from a professor or an academic
committee by misrepresenting the facts. Submitting as one's own any
academic assignment that is the work of someone else. Claiming as one's own
the language, ideas, or structure of another, either by failing to cite the source
of quoted or paraphrased passages or by failing or distinguish clearly between
one's own language and the language of a cited source through the proper use
of quotation marks. Submitting the same paper or report in more than one
course. Condoning violation by other students. When an instructor feels that a
student has violated this code by cheating, plagiarizing, or a comparable
infraction, the instructor is obliged by University policy to confront the
student. If the violation is confirmed, the instructor may fail the student for the
course in which the violation occurs and report the student or the University
Standards Office. A student who feels that he or she has been unfairly charged
may appeal the instructor's decision to the respective Dean.
8. I live and will continue to live the standard of Christian living as taught by
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints both on and off campus. This
includes Sunday activities consistent with Latter-day Saint ideals,
graciousness and consideration for others, and observing high principles of
honor, integrity, and morality. For LDS students, this also includes regularly
attending Church meetings, fulfilling callings, and supporting Church leaders,
and refraining from participation in organized athletic events and any other
activities that may detract from the spirit of the Sabbath.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
220
9. I observe high standards of taste and decency and will continue to do so. This
includes refraining from disorderly, lewd, indecent, or obscene conduct and
expression.
10.1 will help others fulfill their responsibilities under the Honor Code.
11.1 will observe University standards of dress and grooming as described in the
Dress and Grooming Standards.
I understand that a single violation of the Honor Code may be grounds for my
dismissal from the University
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
221
Appendix 3
Invitation to Participate
Date
[Name of 1996 student]
Dear [Student name],
Did you know that only 30 of the 93 Polynesian students who came to BYUH in
1996 are still in school? I am trying to find out why as part my doctoral research
at the University of Southern California and I have a favor to ask. Specifically, I
need a few minutes of your time. I am looking at issues that affect Polynesian
students' retention in school. I have decided to focus my research on students
who came to BYUH in 1996 as new students. That's where you come in. I am
making every effort to personally speak to each Polynesian student who came
here in 1996. There are 93 of you. I am wondering if you would be willing to
participate in a [interview] focus group with [me.] about five other students who
came in 1996? It will take about 90 [45] minutes of your time. At this point I
need two things 1) ayes or no if you would like to participate and 2) if so, what
times would work best for you? You can either send your response back to this
message in the enclosed envelope or call me in my office at xxx-xxxx. I sincerely
appreciate your help and look forward to speaking with you.
Norman Evans
EIL Department
Language and Linguistics
293-****
MFB 209
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
222
A ppendix 4
Project Description
University of Southern California—Rossier School of Education
Research on Student Retention among Pacific Island Students at
Brigham Young University
Norman W. Evans
The purpose of this study is to better understand why some Pacific Island
students at Brigham Young University (BYUH) persist to graduation while many
others drop out of before they graduate. The basic research question is what
factors in Polynesian students’ backgrounds and or their experiences at BYUH
contribute to their persisting at the university.
This research will focus on all Polynesian students who entered BYUH during
the 1996 calendar year. Answers will be gathered in personal interviews or focus
groups conducted with three different groups of people: 1) students in the 1996
cohort who are still in school or who have graduated, 2) students who entered in
the 1996 cohort but have dropped out of school, and 3) faculty and administrators
both at BYUH and in the South Pacific island high schools who have worked
closely with students in the 1996 cohort.
The research is being conducted by Norman Evans for a doctoral dissertation
in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.
Approximately 100 individuals will either be interviewed or participate in a
focus group. The interviews are expected to last no more than one hour; the focus
groups will last no more than two hours. With the permission of the participants
the interviews and focus groups will be audio taped and transcribed. The
information collected in the interviews and focus groups will be kept strictly
confidential. Only Mr. Evans and the transcriptionist will work directly with the
interview material. If quoted, participants will not be identified by name, nor by
descriptors which would allow individual identification.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
223
Appendix 5
Human Subjects Review
Abstract
Tinto’s interactional model (1975, 1987,1993) has been the focal point for
student retention research in higher education for over two decades. Despite the
volumes of quantitative studies attempting to explain student drop-out using
Tinto’s model, results have been mixed and only moderately supportive of the
theory’s postulates. This is especially true of research on minority student
populations. What is more, qualitative research on Tinto’s model is almost non
existent in spite of the foundational insight such research can bring to theory, and
despite Tinto’s and other critics’ appeal for it.
The research proposed in this study is based on the premise that an
understanding of fundamental issues is prerequisite to explaining drop-out
behavior, and that understanding is best gained directly from those involved. This
research will therefore gather data through in-depth interviews and focus groups
from a new student cohort of international Pacific Island students, which has an
unusually high attrition rate. Tinto’s postulates will be evaluated against these
students’ perspectives of what is involved in student persistence.
2A. The proposed study will focus on the entire 1996 new student cohort of
international Polynesian students at Brigham Young University Hawaii (BYUH).
This group consists of 93 students from six South Pacific island nations:
American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa, Tahiti, and Tonga. In addition,
twenty faculty and administrators at BYUH and at several South Pacific high
schools who have worked with these students will be included in the study. In
total there will be six focus groups—three student groups and three
faculty/administrator groups. Ten interviews will be conducted with student who
are nearing graduation, and approximately forty interviews will be with students
who have dropped out of school.
Each focus group will include five participants, last about 90 minutes and follow
the outlined protocol included in Appendices 7, and 8. Three student focus
groups will be held on the BYUH campus in a student study room of the library.
Each will be conducted by a separate facilitator each using the same protocol
(Appendix 8). Facilitators are Dr. Makuakane-Drechsel, Dailynn Yanagida, and
Norman Evans. Adding two additional researchers is one method of triangulating
the data. The one faculty/administrator focus group held at BYUH will be
conducted by Norman Evans in a library research room at BYUH designated for
faculty use. Norman Evans will conduct one focus group with faculty and staff in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
224
Samoa and one in Tonga. In both cases the location for the groups will be
determined by the high school administrators at those South Pacific schools.
All interviews will be conducted by Norman Evans and will follow the protocol
found in Appendix 6.
2b. Qualitative methods of inquiry form the scaffolding for this study. The four
research questions on which this study is based necessitate the use of qualitative
methods:
1 .How do Polynesian students perceive their college-going experience in
relationship to their future plans?
2. What factors do they see as significantly influential in their decision to stay or
leave the university?
3. What background characteristics do Pacific Island students think contribute
to college persistence or nonpersistence?
4. From the students’ perspectives, what factors, if any, affect their persistence
once they have arrived at BYUH?
This study’s two primary objectives 1) to interpret the process of student
persistence, and 2) verify existing theory against the students’ perception of the
process of persistence also suggest the need to employ qualitative methods of
inquiry.
Additional information is provided in:
Appendices A, B, and C Interview and Focus Group Protocols
Appendix D Project Description
Appendix E Statement of Informed Consent
2C. All contact with human subjects will be with:
Norman Evans— student investigator/2n d PI, U.S.C. doctoral candidate
•
Dr. Teresa Makuakane-Drechsel—Ed.D. from U.S.C. School of Education
(doctoral dissertation in student retention issues in Hawaii Community
Colleges) and student scholarship advisor at Kamehamea Schools and
Bishop Estate.
•
Dailynn Yanagida is a doctoral candidate in Rossier School of education,
and teacher at Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu.
2D. No potential negative effects with regard to the subject’s physical,
psychological, social and legal well-being as a result of the research activity in
which they will participate are anticipated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
225
2E. All interviews and focus groups will be audio tape recorded and transcribed.
Tapes will remain under lock and in the possession of the researcher for the
duration of the research. Tapes will be erased after six months. Only one set of
written transcripts will be maintained by the researcher as confidential and held as
a record to verify the authenticity of the research. All participants will be
assigned pseudonyms. If quoted, participants will be referred to by pseudonyms,
and no descriptors, which would allow for individual identity, will be used.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
226
Appendix 6
Interview Protocol
Thank you for helping me with my research project. I am interested in
understanding why some Polynesian students come to BYUH and graduate while
many others do not.
A. Demographics/Introductions
1. (B)* Tell me a little about yourself (where you grew up, your family, time in
U.S.).
2. (B) Tell me about your educational experiences (where you went to school,)
3. Did you like going to school? Explain.
4. What did your parents think about you going to school?
5. (B) How much educational training have your parents had? Your brothers and
sisters?
6. (B) How long were/ have you been at BYUH?
7. (B) What is/was your major at BYUH?
B. Grand Tour Question: I am trying to imagine what it must be like for a student
who is bom, raised, and educated in [Tonga] to come to the United States to
study. Tell me what it has been like for you.
C. Research Question One: University and student’s future plans
1. (B) Leaving home and coming to the university must have been a tough
decision. Can you remember when you first seriously thought about going to
BYUH? Tell me about the process that you went through deciding to come to
BYUH? (Probe for what, who, and why)
2. (B) Let’s imagine that I am a [Tongan] who has just graduated from BYUH
with a degree in [use interviewee’s major] what can I expect when I return to
Tonga?
3. (P) You are nearing graduation from BYUH. What are your future plans? Do
you see your future the same way now as you saw it when you first thought
about coming to BYUH? Explain?
4. (NP) What are your thoughts about returning to school?
D. Research Questions Two: What factors caused you to stay or leave the
University?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
227
1. (P) Can you ever remember being discouraged and wanting to quit school?
Tell me about such an experience. (Probe for why he/she did not quite)
2. (P) Have you had any close friends from [Tonga] who came to BYUH but left
school before graduating? Tell me about what happened and why you think
that student did not finish his/her education. Was that an uncommon
experience? Explain.
1. (NP) Deciding to leave school is usually not something that happens all at
once. Tell me about the major events that led to your leaving school.
2. (NP) If you returned to school, what would you do differently?
E. Research Question Three: Background characteristics contribute
to persistence or non persistence in college
1. (B) Can you remember ever being lost or frustrated as a new student at
BYUH? Tell me a little about such an experience.
2. (B) I would like to know what it was like for you going to school in [Tonga].
Describe a typical high school day from the time you got up in the morning
until you went to bed (homework, chores etc.).
3. (B) In your opinion, what could be changed in [Tonga] for students coming to
the U.S. to be better prepared for their university experience?
4. (B) As you were growing up, what place did education and school have in
your family? What did your parents expect of you in school (homework,
preparation)? Was this similar to what your friends experienced? Explain.
5. (B) What advice would you give to a close family member or friend who is
planning to come to BYUH from [Tonga]? What would you tell that student
to help him/her succeed here?
E. Research Question Four. BYUH factors that help student to graduate from the
university
1. (B) Tell me about your first few weeks at BYUH (fears, hopes, concerns).
2. (B) Being a university student is not easy. Tell me about a few of the most
challenging experiences you had at BYUH and how you managed to
overcome them.
3. (B) Describe your new student orientation to me?
4. (B) BYUH provides many support services to help students succeed at
college. Can you remember something or someone during you time at BYUH
that was especially helpful to you? Tell me more about that.
5. (B) Let’s imagine for a few minutes that you are put in charge of new student
activities and orientation at BYUH. Describe the kinds of activities and
advice you would give new students coming from [Tonga].
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Turn recorder off
Can you think of anything we have not talked about that might help me understand
why some Pacific Island students persist to graduation and some do not?
* B= question for both persisters and nonpersisters, P= persisters, NP=
nonpersisters
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229
Appendix 7
Focus Group Protocol (Student Groups)
Opening Statement: I am helping Norman Evans conduct research on Pacific
Island students here at BYUH. Specifically he is interested in understanding why
some Polynesian students come to BYUH and graduate while many others do not.
A. Introductory questions:
1. Tell me about yourselves: where you are from, how long you have been at
BYUH, what you are studying?
B. Grand Tour Question: I am trying to imagine what it must be like for a
student who is bom, raised, and educated in the South Pacific to come to the
United States to study. Briefly tell me what it has been like for you.
C. Research Question One: University and student’s future plans
1. What influenced you most to come to BYUH?
2. What factors do you think typically influence a student from the South Pacific
when making the decision to come to the university to study?
3. What does having a college degree mean to someone from the South Pacific?
D. Research Questions Two: What factors caused you to stay at the University?
1. You have all been in the university for about four years. As you look back
over your time here, what would you say has helped you most to persist in
school?
2. Some of the students from your home countries who came to BYUH in the
same year as you are no longer in school. I would like each of you to
think about one or two students who came at the same time as you but
who have left the university without graduating. Without mentioning
names, tell me about some of the situations/causes that led to their leaving
school.
F. Research Question Three: Background characteristics contribute to
persistence or non persistence in college
1. In your opinion, what could be changed in your countries that would better
prepare students coming to the U.S. for university studies?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
230
2. What factors do you think make it difficult for a student from the Pacific
islands to graduate from a university?
3. What advice would you give to a new student coming to BYUH (for example
a close friend or family member) from the South Pacific to help him/her make
it to graduation?
4. What role did your families have in your education? What did they expect of
you as a student? Give me some specific examples. Were your experiences
typical of what other students experienced? Explain.
F. Research Question Four: BYUH factors that help student to graduate from the
university
1. Did any of you ever feel like quitting school? Tell me a little about that
experience and why you did not quit.
2. BYUH provides many support services to help students succeed at
college. Can you remember something or someone during you time at
BYUH that was especially helpful to you? Explain.
3. Let’s imagine for a few minutes that we are put in charge of new student
activities and orientation at BYUH. What kinds of activities and advice
would we provide for all new students coming from the South Pacific?
Turn off recorder
Can you think of anything we have not talked about that might help me understand
why some Pacific Island students persist to graduation and some do not?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
231
Appendix 8
Focus Group Protocol (Faculty and Administrators)
Thank you for helping me with this research project. I am interested in
understanding why some Polynesian students come to BYUH and graduate while
many others do not.
A. Introductory Questions:
1. Each of you was selected for this group either because you are from the South
Pacific or you have worked closely with students who are from the South
Pacific. Tell me briefly about experiences with Polynesian students.
B. Grand Tour Question: I am trying to imagine what it must be like for a
student who is bom, raised, and educated in the South Pacific to come to the
United States to study. What do you think it is like for them?
C. Research Question One: University and student’s future plans
1. What factors do you think most influence a Polynesian student when he/she is
deciding to come to the University?
2. What do Polynesian students think a university degree will do for them?
D. Research Questions Two: What factors caused you to stay at the University?
1. Can you think of a specific Polynesian student you worked with who wanted
to quit but did not? Without mentioning names, why did the student want to
quit. Why didn’t he/she
2. Now think of a student who did quit. What were the reasons the student quit?
3. Let’s see if we can identify certain features that seem to be common to
Polynesian students who persist in college.
4. Now lets compile a list of features for the nonpersister.
D. Research Question Three: Background characteristics contribute to
persistence or non persistence in college
1. From your experience working with Polynesian students, can you identify
features from their background that make college particularly difficult for
them?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
232
2. Typically how involved are parents in a Polynesian student’s education?
What do they expect of their children as students? Can you give me a few
specific examples?
3. If we were assigned to create a brochure to be given to Polynesian students to
inform them of things they could do to better prepare for the university, what
would we include and why?
E. Research Question Four. BYUH factors that help student to graduate from the
university
1. We offer many support services for students here at BYUH. Which do you
think are most helpful for Polynesian students and why?
2. All students who attend college get discouraged once in a while. From your
experience, what most helps students from the South Pacific get over their
discouraging times at BYUH?
3. If we could create a new student orientation program specifically for
Polynesian students, what would our program include and why?
Turn off recorder
Can you think of anything we have not talked about that might help me understand
why some Pacific Island students persist to graduation and some do not?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
233
Appendix 9.
Consent to Participate in Research
In Their Own Words:
Polynesian Students ’ Perspectives on Persistence in an American University
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Dr. William G.
Tierney and Norman W. Evans, from the Rossier School of Education at the
University of Southern California. The results of this study will be published in a
doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in this study
because you entered BYU Hawaii as a new student in the 1996 calendar year A
total of ninety-three Polynesian subjects will be selected from 1996 new student
cohort to participate.
□ PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study will focus on reasons why some Polynesian students persist to
graduation at Brigham Young University Hawaii and others do not.
□ PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following
things:
You will be asked to participate in either an in-depth interview or a focus group
with one of the researchers. Topics that will be discussed will include
experiences Polynesian students have in an American university; how Polynesian
students view higher education in general, educational backgrounds, as well has
experiences students have had at Brigham Young University. Interviews will last
between forty-five minutes and one hour. Focus groups will last ninety minutes
to two hours. Interview and focus groups will be audio taped.
□ POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
It is not expected that there will be any harm or discomfort as a result of this
interview. However, if you wish to withdraw from the study or to leave, you may
do so at any time and you do not need to give any reasons or explanations for
doing so.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
234
□ POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
Results of this study will not directly benefit the participants, but future students
may benefit from the findings of this study.
□ PAYMENT FOR PARTICIPATION
Participants will not receive any payments or direct benefits from participating in
this study.
□ CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law. Only the researcher and the transcriptionist will
work directly with the interview material. Audiotapes will be erased within six
months of the interview date.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity. Fictitious names
and countries of origin will be assigned to each subject to shield identities. If
photographs, videos, or audio-tape recordings of you will be used for educational
purposes, your identity will be protected or disguised.
□ PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You
may also refuse to answer any questions you don’t want to answer and still remain
in the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if
circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
□ IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to
contact Dr. William Tierney at the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California. Phone: (213), email: wgtiem@usc.edu or Norman
Evans at Brigham Young University. Phone (808), mail: evansn@byuh.edu
□ RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
235
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation
without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. If you have questions
regarding your rights as a research subject, contact the University Park IRB,
Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Bovard Administration Building, Room
300, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4019, (213) 740-6709 or upirb@usc.edu.
I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered
to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a
copy of this form.
Name of Subject
Name of Parent or Legal Representative (if applicable)
Signature of Subject, Parent or Legal Representative Date
I have explained the research to the subject or his/her legal representative, and
answered all of his/her questions. I believe that he/she understands the
information described in this document and freely consents to participate.
Name of Investigator
Signature of Investigators Date (must be the same as subject’s)
My signature as witness certified that the subject or his/her legal representative
signed this consent form in my presence as his/her voluntary act and deed.
Name of Witness
Signature of Witness Date(must be the same as subject’s)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
College aspirations of ninth-grade low -income African American students in urban schools
PDF
Exploring ethnic identity on a university campus: Filipino American students' perspectives
PDF
Academic, environmental and social integration variables that maximize transfer preparedness for Latino community college students: An application of academic success models to the study of Tran...
PDF
Factors influencing academic success of Chinese international students in Los Angeles community colleges
PDF
An examination of the factors that affect education vs non-education career choices of Asian Pacific Americans in higher education
PDF
"Home boy" to "school boy": Inside the PowerBuilders Workshops at CSULA. A qualitative examination of access, mobility, and leadership qualities of minorities in higher education
PDF
Cross -cultural international adjustment of American undergraduate interns in Asia
PDF
Community building, navigating the campus and validation of identity: Exploring campus affiliation and identity development for low-income, first-generation and underrepresented minority students...
PDF
Improving the transfer rates of minority students: A case study
PDF
Asian students in community colleges: A study of intersecting effects of student characteristics, construct models of retention, social reproduction and resulting variables as applied to the stud...
PDF
A study of the Navy College Program for Afloat College Education: Implications for teaching and learning among nontraditional college students
PDF
Identity politics and accessing discourses: SLA narratives of Korean immigrants
PDF
International students: Patterns of success
PDF
Factors related to the persistence of students seeking the bachelor's degree at 4-year institutions
PDF
Community college students: The effect of parenthood and selected variables on degree -seeking aspirations
PDF
Factors influencing minority parents to place their children in private schools
PDF
A typological history of non-heterosexual male college students in the United States, 1945 to the present
PDF
Academic and social adjustment of Korean "parachute kids" in Southern California
PDF
Intergenerational conflict, family functioning, and acculturation experienced by Asian American community college students
PDF
In church with my ancestors: The changing shape of religious memory in the Republic of Armenia and the North American diaspora
Asset Metadata
Creator
Evans, Norman W.
(author)
Core Title
In their own words: Polynesian students' perspectives on persistence in an American university
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education, bilingual and multicultural,Education, Guidance and Counseling,education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, ethnic and racial studies
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Tierney, William G. (
committee chair
), [illegible] (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-96883
Unique identifier
UC11327935
Identifier
3027715.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-96883 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3027715.pdf
Dmrecord
96883
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Evans, Norman W.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
education, bilingual and multicultural
education, higher
sociology, ethnic and racial studies