Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Asian 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...
(USC Thesis Other)
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
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
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 STUDY OF TRANSFER AND RETENTION OF URBAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS (TRUCCS) by Lily Ling Tsuda 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 of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION August 2005 Copyright 2005 Lily Ling Tsuda R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3196905 Copyright 2005 by Tsuda, Lily Ling All rights reserved. INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. ® UMI UMI Microform 3196905 Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This dissertation written by Lily Ling Tsuda has been approved by the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Education Linda Serra Hagedom, Ph.D., Committee Chair Melora Sundt, Ph.D., Committee Member Stuart Gothold, Ed.D., Committee Member Karen Gallagher, Ph.D., Dean R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................ ix LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................. xi ABSTRACT........................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER Page 1. THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK 1 Introduction......................................................................................... 1 Background of the Problem............................................................... 2 Demographics..................................................................................... 4 Statement of the Problem................................................................... 5 Purpose of the Study........................................................................... 7 Research Questions............................................................................. 8 Hypotheses........................................................................................... 8 Significance of the Problem............................................................... 8 Methodology........................................................................................ 9 Assumptions......................................................................................... 10 Limitations........................................................................................... 10 Delimitations........................................................................................ 11 Definition of Terms............................................................................. 12 Asians............................................................................................. 12 Attrition.......................................................................................... 12 College Attainment Pathway....................................................... 12 Cultural Capital............................................................................. 12 First-Generation Students............................................................ 13 Four-Year Universities.................................................................. 13 IGETC............................................................................................ 13 Institutions...................................................................................... 13 M inority......................................................................................... 13 Persistence...................................................................................... 13 Southeast Asians........................................................................... 13 Tidal Wave I I ................................................................................. 14 TOTIGETC.................................................................................... 14 Two-Year Colleges....................................................................... 14 Urban Community Colleges......................................................... 14 Organization of the Study................................................................... 14 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv Chapter Page 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................................................... 16 Introduction......................................................................................... 16 Literature Review................................................................................ 17 Conditions of Asian Students in Higher Education................... 17 Misperception................................................................................ 18 Diversity and Subgroup Differences........................................... 19 International Community College Students............................... 21 Academic Barriers Facing Asian Students in Higher Education................................................................................. 22 Research Pertaining to Asian Students............................................. 25 Conceptual Schema for Dropout from College.......................... 27 Academic and Social Integration................................................ 27 Social Reproduction Theory........................................................ 29 Institutional Practices................................................................... 29 Cultural Order............................................................................... 32 Intersection of Retention Models and Characteristics of Asian Students......................................................................... 32 Academic Potential, Intellectual Development and Grade Performance............................................................................ 33 Family Background, Normative Congruence, Friendships and Facuity Contacts...................................................................... 34 Socioeconomics, Family Condition and School Conditions 36 Integrating the M odels................................................................. 38 Challenges of the Community Colleges............................................ 39 The California Master Plan for Education.................................. 44 Immediate Issues Confronting the Community Colleges 45 Tidal Wave I I ................................................................................ 46 The Characteristics of Nontraditional Two-year College Students.................................................................................... 47 California’s Budget and Its Impact on Higher Education 49 More Students, Less Money......................................................... 51 Growing Poverty........................................................................... 52 The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD)............... 53 Demographics............................................................................... 54 LACCD Instructional Staffing..................................................... 56 Educational Outcome.................................................................... 57 The Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) Project........................................................ 58 The All American Game: A Conceptual Framework to Study Transfer Readiness............................................................................... 61 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V Chapter Page Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC).......... 61 Implications for Research.................................................................. 63 Conclusions......................................................................................... 63 Implications for Future Research....................................................... 67 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................. 69 Research Questions............................................................................ 69 Research Design.................................................................................. 71 Population and Sample....................................................................... 73 Instrumentation................................................................................... 73 Data Collection.................................................................................... 74 Data Analysis...................................................................................... 74 4. RESULTS.................................................................................................. 75 Introduction......................................................................................... 75 Descriptive Statistics........................................................................... 75 A ge................................................................................................. 76 Occupation.................................................................................... 76 Education....................................................................................... 79 Socioeconomic Status.................................................................. 79 Wage Earners................................................................................ 81 English Language.......................................................................... 82 Immigration................................................................................... 82 Degrees........................................................................................... 83 Student Aspirations....................................................................... 83 Number of Children in Household.............................................. 84 Marital Status................................................................................ 84 High School Grade Point Average.............................................. 85 Reliability of Data............................................................................... 86 Correlations and Relations.................................................................. 93 Regression Analysis............................................................................ 95 ANOVAs.............................................................................................. 99 Differences Among the Asian Students............................................ 100 Comparison of Asian Students and Other Ethnic Groups of Students.......................................................................................... 101 Statistics of Transfer Readiness......................................................... 101 English and Math Completion........................................................... 102 Research Questions............................................................................. 102 Question 1 ...................................................................................... 102 Question 2 ...................................................................................... 106 Question 3 ...................................................................................... 107 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi Chapter Page 5. DISCUSSION................................................................................ 108 Introduction......................................................................................... 108 The Purpose of the Study................................................................... 109 Summary of Findings......................................................................... 110 Hypothesis 1.................................................................................. 112 Hypothesis 2.................................................................................. 112 Hypothesis 3.................................................................................. 113 Discussion........................................................................................... 114 Construct V alidity.............................................................................. 114 Internal V alidity.................................................................................. 114 Conclusions......................................................................................... 116 Correlates of Success......................................................................... 117 Differences among the Asian Subgroups.......................................... 119 Differences between the Asians and Other Ethnic Groups............. 119 Recommendations............................................................................... 121 Implications for Future Research...................................................... 122 REFERENCES....................................................................................................... 124 APPENDICES....................................................................................................... 134 A. LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRUCT FULL- YEAR TRANSFERS.......................................................................... 135 B. LETTER OF PERMISSION.................................................................... 144 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Projected 2010 K-12 Public School Enrollment by Ethnicity................. 17 2. Comparison of Ethnic Participation Growth Rate 1967 to 1995 Students 18 to 24 per 100 Population............................................... 18 3. Variables of Social and Academic Integration.......................................... 28 4. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 76 5. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 77 6. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 78 7. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 80 8. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 81 9. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 82 10. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 83 11. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 83 12. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 84 13. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 85 14. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 85 15. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population............................................ 86 16. Item Selection Used to Hypothecate the Model for Student Transfer Readiness............................................................................................. 87 17. Constructs and Their Factors..................................................................... 89 18. Language Proficiency.................................................................................. 90 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Vlll Table Page 19. Social and Academic Integration.............................................................. 91 20. Reliability Analysis of Factors.................................................................. 92 21. Zero Order Correlation Matrix of TOTIGETC and Variables of the M odel.................................................................................................. 94 22. Descriptive Statistics of Regression Analysis.......................................... 96 23. Coefficients(a) Multiple Regression of TOTIGETC.............................. 97 24. Model Summary of Multiple Regressions............................................... 99 25. ANOVA(e) Final Entry of the Regression M odel.................................. 99 26. Comparison of TOTIGETC by International and Nonintential Student................................................................................................. 103 27. Comparison of TOTIGETC by Multi-ethnic Groups.............................. 104 28. Crosstabulation of English and Math Bases Completed by Asian Students................................................................................................ 105 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IX LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Projected 2010 K-12 Public School Enrollment by Ethnicity............... 17 2. Variables of Social and Academic Integration........................................ 18 3. Los Angeles Community College District Full-year Transfers 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 to Campuses of UCs and CSUs............... 28 4. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population: A ge................................... 76 5. A Model of Intersecting Effects of Primary Factors, Retention Models, and Resulting Variables and Their Influence on Persistence Behavior........................................................................... 40 6. Decline and Growth of White and Non-White Students at California Community Colleges........................................................................... 48 7. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Population: Occupational Status Scale..................................................................................................... 80 8. California State University Undergraduate Enrollment........................... 52 9. Community College Enrollment................................................................ 52 10. Los Angeles Community College District................................................ 54 11. 2002 District Wide Ethnic Percentages..................................................... 55 12. Percentage Population with No College................................................... 57 13. Percentage of Population with a Bachelor’s and Higher........................ 58 14. Ethnic Comparison of TRUCCS Sample to All Students in LACCD... 59 15. Comparison of TRUCCS Sample with LACCD Population by Primary Language................................................................................ 60 16. Comparison by Student Age of the TRUCCS Sample and the LACCD Population............................................................................................. 60 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. X Table Page 17. Conceptual Model of Transfer Readiness for Asian Students in Community Colleges.......................................................................... 70 18. Language Proficiency: Rotated Component, Variance Explained 89 19. Social and Academic Integration: Rotated Component, Variance Explained............................................................................................. 91 20. Reliability Analysis of Factors.................................................................. 92 21. Zero Order Correlation Matrix of TOTIGETC and Variables of the M odel................................................................................................... 94 22. Descriptive Statistics of Regression Analysis.......................................... 96 23. Coefficients(a) Multiple Regression of TOTIGETC............................... 97 24. Multiple Regression of TOTIGETC......................................................... 98 25. ANOVA(e) Final Entry of the Regression M odel................................... 99 26. Comparison of TOTIGETC by International and Nonintential Student................................................................................................. 102 27. Comparison of TOTIGETC by Multi-ethnic Groups.............................. 103 28. Crosstabulation of English and Math Bases Completed by Asian Students................................................................................................ 104 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. XI LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. 1999-2002 College Completion Rates by Race and Ethnicity................ 5 2. College Participation Rates of Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Laotian Americans................... 6 3. Comparison of National and California Age-Ethnic Specific Participation Students 18-24 per 100 Population............................. 20 4. California Age-Ethnic Specific Participation Students 25 and Older per 100 Population.............................................................................. 20 5. Percentage Foreign-born Among Asian Groups...................................... 41 6. Population of Asian Groups: 1970, 1980 and 1990................................ 48 7. A Model of Intersecting Effects of Primary Factors, Retention Models, and Resulting Variables and Their Influence on Persistence Behavior........................................................................... 51 8. Decline and Growth of White and Nonwhite Students at California Community Colleges........................................................................... 51 9. University of California Undergraduate Enrollment................................ 52 10. California State University Undergraduate Enrollment........................... 54 11. Community College Enrollment................................................................ 55 12. Percentage of Population with No College.............................................. 57 13. Percentage of Population with Bachelor’s and Higher........................... 58 14. Ethnic Comparison of TRUCCS Sample to All Students in LACCD . 59 15. Student Aspiration....................................................................................... 58 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xii Figure Page 16. Comparison by Student Age of the TRUCCS Sample and the LACCD Population................................................................................................. 60 17. Conceptual Model of Transfer Readiness for Asian Students in Community Colleges....................................................................... 70 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT This study analyzes the college attainment pathway of Asian students, one of the two-fastest growing demographic groups in California, in the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). This is a secondary analysis of the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) Project survey data. It is designed to examine the intersecting effects of student characteristics and the construct models of retention and their results on student persistence behavior. The purpose of this study is to identify the factors that lead to increased transfer rates, a measure of academic success. The identification of these factors will enable community colleges to improve current attrition rates by maximizing intervention strategies to increase transfer rates and college attainment for this student population. Findings A Conceptual Model of Transfer Readiness for Asian American Students in Community Colleges was developed to find the correlates of success leading to increased transfer readiness. Borrowing from the work of Tinto, Bourdieu, and Pascarella and Terrenzini, this model finds the resulting variables of intellectual development, grade point average and normative congruence predict transfer readiness. The findings of these intersecting effects support the models borrowed. Implications and Recommendations The growing number of Asian students in community colleges and their increasing diversity is significant. This population resembles a “moving target” because of their continual changes. At present, the research on Asians in higher R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. education is limited and there are no conceptual models to study this population. The design of intervention strategies to improve student persistence depends on well- designed, research-based data to explain the complexity of how these resulting variables interact with key factors to produce a variety of student outcomes. This study provides not only evidence of the need for additional research but the challenge in designing research that isolate the success factors of this elusive population that affect their college attainment pathway. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS UNDERLYING FRAMEWORK Introduction As confirmed by research, the lifetime benefits of a baccalaureate degree have brought students from all walks of life to obtain higher education through the “open access” pathway of community colleges to better their economic status (Cohen and Brawer, 2003; Pascarella & Tenzini, 1991; Tierney & Hagedom, 2002;). Asians, in particular, are no different in pursuing improved economic status, as is demonstrated by the migration patterns and historical events leading to their arrival in the “land of opportunity.” Beginning with the Chinese, who were lured by tales of making it rich on “Gold Mountain,” to the Japanese and Filipinos who came to work on the sugarcane plantations, and later, the Vietnamese refugees who escaped from the communist takeover of their home country (Le, 2002), variations exist among Asian groups, and with that a great disparity exists between the perception of Asians’ educational success and the reality of these student’s unmet needs (Yeh, 2002). Of concern to the community colleges is the growth rate of Asian students and the completion rates of the students that attend these two-year institutions. The Asian population is one of the fastest-growing racial groups in the United States and also in higher education (Hune, 2002). In California, Asians are one of the two fastest-growing ethnic groups, increasing fivefold in the last four decades as measured in 1970, 1980, 1990, and 1998 (Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), 2001). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 The attrition rate at 2-year colleges is 44% (Tinto, 1975) and only 40% of full-time freshmen entering community colleges in 1980 completed their degrees within 3 years (Seldman, 1996). Despite these statistics, students continue to enroll in community colleges and bring their dreams and aspirations to campus. Moreover, the research and construct models that have emerged to identify factors to improve student persistence, have focused mostly on traditional students attending 4-year universities. The little research done on minority student persistence at 2-year colleges has been on African American and Hispanic students, leaving fertile research territory to be explored on American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders, Filipinos, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and immigrant students from Asia and Central and South America (Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2002). This research will address the subgroup differences of Asian students, their distinct characteristics and their relationships with the variables of the construct models of retention and the intersecting effects on academic and social integration as attributed by Tinto (1975) to affect student persistence as measured by the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community Colleges (TRUCCS) Project (1999). It is hoped that this study will add to the scant body of research on Asian students and provide evidence that more research is needed in this area. Background o f the Problem Embedded in the 50% of minority students who begin their higher education at 2-year colleges (Cuseo, 2000) and the African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Latinos and women who now comprise three-quarters of community college R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 students (New York University School of Education, 2004) are a collective group of Asian students who face academic, social, and cultural barriers that contribute to their early withdrawal from higher education (Braxton, 1999; London, 1999; Lagdameo et al., 2002; Yeh, 2002). The reported academic success of some Asians and perception of them as “model minorities” is misleading and has resulted in the negative consequence of their educational needs being overlooked (Yeh, 2002). While some Asians enjoy the economic status afforded by a baccalaureate degree, there are others whose median family incomes are in parity with those of African Americans, who have been reported to have poor socioeconomic well-being (PPIC, 2001). For instance, within the Asian groups, the Southeast Asians have the highest rate of poverty of all racial and ethnic groups in California (PPIC, 2001). The variables that contribute to the academic success of Asian students are complex and wide-reaching due to differing cultural norms, immigration patterns, and languages. Despite the attempts of governmental legislation, funding, and retention programs, their effectiveness has been limited because of scant research to understand these variables and how they may interact. Pascarella and Terenzini’s 1979 study of the interaction effects of (Spady’s and Tinto’s) Conceptual Models o f College Dropout provides additional evidence that such variables are influenced by a range of primary factors which are further influenced by secondary factors. The conditions of Asian students are examples of how social and economic status (primary factors) determine the characteristics R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 (variables) they bring into institutions of higher education, which, through interaction with the environment (secondary factors) result in behaviors of persistence or withdrawal. Few studies currently exist that investigate Asian subgroup differences and their resulting interactions nor the distinct variables that pertain to each of these subgroups and how their college attainment pathways differ accordingly. In order to reverse the current attrition status, community colleges must understand the variations that affect their academic and social integration, as postulated by Tinto (1975), and address the intersections of their distinct variables, as evidenced by Pascarella’s and Terenzini’s 1979 study of student persistence. Juxtaposed with the variables proposed in Tinto’s Conceptual Schema for Dropout from College, Asian students face three groups of educationally at-risk factors; individual, socioeconomic and institutional (Yeh, 2002) that impact the success of their social and academic integration resulting in student persistence. Demographics Six major ethnic groups define Asian students: Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans, Southeast Asians, and South Asians (Kim, 1997). Two of three Asians are foreign-born; with the Chinese and Filipinos the most populous Asian groups (PPIC, 2001). It is reported Southeast Asians have the lowest material and physical well being of all Asian groups. In 1990, while some Asians enjoyed median family incomes of $41,251 per year, the median family incomes of the Southeast Asian R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. groups o f Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, and Hmongs were $33,909, $23,1010, $18,126, and $14,327, respectively (Policy Information Report, 1997). In a 2000 report by the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC), Educational and Demographic Profile, Asians have the highest percentage of college completion rates (Figure 1). Yet a closer look indicate college participation rates differ within Asian groups (Figure 2). 1999-2002 College Completion Rates by Race and Ethnicity 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% Asian Pacific African American American Indian White Latino Other i Multiple H Los Angeles 61.50% 31.80% 30.00% 45.00% 27.00% 32.80% ■ California 54.80% 26.50% 24.80% 42.20% 23.10% 23.50% ■ Los A ngeles ■ California Figure 1. 1999-2002 College Completion Rates by Race and Ethnicity (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2000) Statement o f the Problem Added to the challenge of serving the growing group of Asians is their increasing diversity and widening bimodal gap. To date, two major frameworks, Tinto’s Conceptual Schema fo r Dropout from College, and Bourdieu’s 1973 Social Reproduction Theory are used to explain student persistence behavior. Tinto’s (1975) permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 College Participation Rates of Chinese, Japanese, Native Hawaiians, and Laotians 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% I * 0.00% Chinese Japanese Native Hawaiians Laotians □ Series 1 66.50% 63.50% 28.90% 26.30% Figure 2. College Participation Rates of Chinese, Japanese, Native Hawaiians, and Laotians (U.S. Census Bureau, 1993) model is based on traditional students in 4-year universities and has been criticized as to its application to minority students in 2-year colleges. Bourdieu’s (1973) theoretical premise is that successful integration into college campus (postulated by Tinto (1975), to be the success factor) is dependent upon the amount of social and cultural capital a student possesses. No framework currently exists to explain Asian student persistence behavior in higher education. A review of the demographics indicates community colleges are now confronted; and will continue to be confronted by the academic risk factors of particular groups of Asians, impeding their academic success. Effective intervention and retention programs must be driven by researched-based findings that identify who these at-risk Asians are and understand their unique needs. Without such R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 findings, the good intentions of the California Master Plan, governmental legislation and funding, and retention programs will be limited as to their effectiveness and a growing student group will not meet their educational aspirations and economic dreams. The consequence is low median income, high unemployment rates and poverty that will tax the economic and social structure of our society. Purpose o f the Study Since Tinto’s and Bourdieu’s (1973) models dominate the study of student persistence and no model has yet been developed pertaining only to Asian students, the purpose of this study apply Tinto’s and Bourdieu’s models to Asian students by juxtaposing the students’ distinct variables to the theoretical constructs of Tinto’s Schema for Dropout from College and Bourdieu’s Social Reproduction Theory. This study will analyze the variables resulting from the interactions of entering student characteristics with social and academic integration which has been theorized to affect student outcome. To this end, the cultural capital professed by Bourdieu encompass the characteristics Asian students enter 2-year institutions with such factors of: (a) parent education, (b) parent occupation, (c) aspiration, (d) schools attended, (e) degrees, (f) native language, (g) number of children in the family, (h) wage earners, (i) marital status, and (j) high school grade-point-average. These factors will be examined as to their application to college success as measured by transfer and retention rates. The measure of transfer and retention rates will utilize an already established conceptual framework “The All American Game ” to study transfer readiness. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 Research Questions 1. What are the correlates o f success for Asian community college students? 2. How does transfer readiness differ among various Asian groups? 3. How does transfer-readiness rate o f Asian students compare with those o f other ethnic groups o f students? Hypotheses 1. Factors having significant effects on transfer readiness are: (a) entering student characteristics, (b) student socioeconomic status, (c) academic and social integration, and (d) variables resulting from the interaction of these factors. 2. Differences in these transfer readiness rates are significantly related to differences among the various Asian subgroups. 3. Significant differences exist between the transfer readiness rates of Asian students and other ethnic groups of students. Significance o f the Problem A review of the existing literature confirms minority students experience a significant achievement gap and these students are argued to suffer lifetime consequences from limited opportunities in higher education, employment and earnings (Camevale, 1999; Jencks, 1992; Mumane & Levy, 1996; Ogbu, 1994). Despite the “model minority” stereotype of Asian students, subgroups of Asian students are in this group which experience academic risk factors. The projected R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 population growth of Asians will only add to its problems. This study aims to provide evidence that may impact policy pertaining to institutional practices and funding sources affecting retention programs, add to the scant body of research on Asian students and improve academic effectiveness at community colleges, leading to improved educational outcome for this particular population. Methodology This study uses a quasi-experimental design to research possible relationships between the factors of student characteristics and the variables that result in student persistence behavior as measured by transfer rates by the following: 1. Utilizing data from the (TRUCCS) Project 2. Utilizing secondary data previously collected and manipulating variables that are contained within the TRUCCS data 3. Using regression analysis and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical designs to analyze the data. The basic premise of this study is that subgroup differences exist among Asian students that result in variations of academic outcomes. Identification of those differences and their resulting factors will enable community colleges to better understand this student population and to implement programs that may maximize their success towards course completion, as well as transfer rates leading to degree attainment. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 Assumptions The following assumptions are applied to this study. 1. All subjects in the TRUCCS study answered the questions honestly 2. English Language Learner (ELL) students and their families received help and understood the questions and the study protocol. 3. The measures are reliable and valid indicators of the constructs to be studied. 4. The data will be accurately recorded and analyzed. 5. The purposes, processes, and elements of the framework studied have a degree of applicability and generalizability to community colleges throughout the country. 6. The community colleges which participated in the TRUCCS study were representative of community colleges in urban settings in California and across USA. 7. The sampling of students provided representative demographics of the population sampled. 8. The research, data gathering, and findings and conclusions of the study represent “good research.” Limitations 1. This study is limited to subjects who agree to participate voluntarily. 2. This study is limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the amount of time available to conduct the TRUCCS study. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 3. Validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the instruments used. 4. This study is limited to students within the TRUCCS database. 5. It is limited to students within the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). 6. The study is limited by the English reading and writing ability of some students. 7. This study is limited to the self-reporting of students who identified themselves as Asians. 8. This study is limited to five Asian subgroups: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Southeast Asian. Delimitations This study will be confined to a secondary analysis of the data collected by the TRUCCS Project (Hagedom, 1999), which surveyed 5,000 students across the nine campuses of LACCD. The study will further confine itself to surveying five ethnically diverse subgroups within the group of students identified as Asians. This study will focus on the factors that impact academic and social integration variables, gleaned from the database, which can maximize transfers for Asian community college students. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 Definition o f Terms Asians Consists of six major ethnic subgroups: Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans, Southeast Asians, and South Asians Attrition Diminution in numbers of students resulting from low student retention College Attainment Pathway The following sequenced stages are the steps students must pass to receive a baccalaureate degree: 1. K-12 academic preparation, 2. Successful completion of high school A-G requirements, 3. Enrollment in and successful completion of two-year coursework at a community college, 4. Transfer to a 4-year university, or 5. Successful completion of 4-year coursework at a university, 6. Attain baccalaureate degree Cultural Capital Defined by Bourdieu (1973) as the acquisition of linguistic and cultural competence that belong to the upper classes. This is produced by family upbringing transmitted to children of the dominant class. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 First-Generation Students College students whose parents have not attended college. Four-Year Universities Colleges that confer a baccalaureate degree IGETC The intersegmental general education transfer curriculum is the agreed upon general education core curriculum between the California community and public four-year universities to facilitate student transfer. Institutions Encompass six types of colleges: public and private universities, public and private colleges, and pubic and private 2-year colleges. Minority Consists of African Americans or blacks, Hispanics, Latinos, American Indians, Asians and women. Persistence Successful completion of a course and enrollment in a subsequent course the following term. Southeast Asians In this study, comprised of the Thai, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese ethnic groups. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 Tidal Wave II Used by educational policy analysts to describe enrollment growth projections. In particular, the large number of students who seek enrollment into higher education in the 21st century TOTIGETC The total IGETC areas completed. Two-Year Colleges Community colleges. Urban Community Colleges Two-year colleges located in central cities with large student populations Organization o f the Study Chapter 1 of this study has presented an introduction, the background of the problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, the research hypotheses, the significance of the study, a brief description of the methodology, the assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the definitions of terms. Chapter 2 is a review of relevant literature. It addresses the following topics: 1. Conditions of Asian Students in Higher Education 2. Research Pertaining to Asian Students 3. Challenges of the Community Colleges 4. The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 5. The Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) Project 6. The All American Game: A Conceptual Framework to Study Transfer Readiness 7. Conclusion 8. Implications for Research Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in this study, including the research design; the population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection or development, together with information on validity and reliability. Each of these sections concludes with a rationale, including the strengths and limitations of the design elements. The chapter goes on to describe the procedures for data collection and the plan for data analysis. Chapter 4 presents the results of this study. Chapter 5 discusses and analyzes the results, culminating in conclusions and recommendations. References and appendixes conclude this study. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Two major topics anchor this study; the variations in entering characteristics of Asian students in community colleges and the intersection of their resulting variables. This is juxtaposed with the construct models of retention and social reproduction that influence the social and academic integration in which it is theorized to influence student persistence behaviors. The literature review begins with the topic of Asian students in higher education. The literature shows that subgroup differences in this population promise challenges to 2-year colleges to assume additional and multiple roles as they confront a booming Asian student population that exhibit increasing diversity and growing needs. Current research will be examined as to its effectiveness in influencing the constructs of retention models and the design of intervention programs. Tinto’s Conceptual Schema for Dropout from College is the most well- known theoretical framework and will be critiqued for its application to the academic barriers faced by Asian community college students. It will be studied in the context of how well Asian students integrate academically and socially, as Tinto postulates to be factors in achieving academic success, and by Bourdieu’s Social Reproduction Theory which theorized the cultural capital students need to achieve successful integration. Environmental factors posed by higher education such as their practices and challenges will be examined as to the intersecting effects on student outcomes. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 Using the LACCD as a sample population, the TRUCCS Project on transfer and retention of urban community college students is studied and a new conceptual framework, The All American Game will be introduced to measure student outcomes. The review concludes with a synthesis of applicable findings in existing literature that support both this study and implications for future research. Literature Review Conditions o f Asian Students in Higher Education The Asian population is one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the United States and in higher education (Hune, 2002). Projected growth for Asians in California from 2000 to 2020 is 61.9% compared to 4% for Whites. It is projected that by 2010 K-12 public school enrollments for Asian and Filipino students will reach 559,853 and 167,737, an increase of 15.68% and 16.19%, respectively. This will no doubt challenge community colleges to adapt services to meet the need. Table 1 shows this projected enrollment. T a b l e 1 . Projected 2010 K-12 Public School Enrollment by Ethnicity S c h o o l Y e a r T o t a l A m e r i c a n I n d i a n A s i a n B l a c k F i l i p i n o H i s p a n i c P a c i f i c I s l a n d W h i t e 2 0 1 0 - 2 0 1 1 4 . 8 % 2 . 4 9 % 1 5 . 6 8 % - 1 5 . 1 3 % 1 6 . 1 9 % 2 5 . 4 5 % 1 6 . 9 2 % - 2 0 . 3 5 % D e p a r t m e n t o f F i n a n c e , D e m o g r a p h i c R e s e a r c h U n i t , 2 0 0 1 P r o j e c t i o n S e r i e s National data from the Digest of Educational Statistics (1997) confirm the demand for Asian students in higher education as shown by a Comparison of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 National and California Age-Ethnic Specific Participation Students 18 to 24 per 100 Population from year 1967 to 1995. According to this comparison, Asians in California began their growth in 1977 and now have far exceeded the participation rate of other ethnic groups. As of 1995, there were 60 Asian students in each 100 students enrolled in higher education compared to 37 White students, 24 African American students and 20 Latino students. The Asian students have doubled as of 1977 (Table 2). T a b l e 2 . Comparison o f Ethnic Participation Growth Rate 1967 to 1995 Students 18 to 24 per 100 Population E t h n i c G r o u p 1 9 6 7 E n r o l l m e n t 1 9 7 2 E n r o l l m e n t 1 9 7 7 E n r o l l m e n t 1 9 9 5 E n r o l l m e n t W h i t e 2 4 2 6 2 8 3 7 A f r i c a n A m e r i c a n 1 5 1 5 1 8 2 4 L a t i n o 1 4 1 5 2 0 A s i a n 3 0 6 0 Misperception As mentioned, a great variation exists among Asian students, starting with the various reasons they come to the United States, their immigration patterns and historical events. Whereas Asians as a whole and Filipinos are reported to be the largest group completing required courses for California State University (CSU) and University of California (UC) requirements at above 60% and 50%, respectively (California Department of Education, 2003), other reports indicate schools with high concentrations of Vietnamese students have dropout rates of as high as 50% (Public Information Report, Educational Testing Services (ETS), 1997). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 When compared with White students and other racial and ethnic minorities, Asians demonstrate higher college entry, persistence and completion rates (Hsia & Peng, 1998; Peng & Wright, 1994, as cited by Gloria & Ho, 2003). Boser (2003) reports that 60% of Asian students receive their college degrees within six years in contrast to 57% of White students, 43% of Hispanic students and 39% of African American students. The college graduation rate is reported at 64% for Asians, 59% for Whites, 45% for Hispanics, 38% for African Americans, and 37% for American Indians (American Council on Education [ACE], 1998, as cited by Gloria & Ho, 2003). These statistics have resulted in the stereotype of Asians as phenomenally successful and problem-free. Yet, a closer look indicates the educational attainment of Asians is bimodal, in which some have many years of education but others have few years of education (Hune, 2002). The pervasive stereotype and misperception of Asians as a “model minority” has resulted in negative consequences for this group (Suzuki, 2002) and their real and serious needs being overlooked (Yeh, 2002). Diversity and Subgroup Differences Six major ethnic subgroups define Asian students: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Southeast Asian, and South Asian (Kim, 1997). A Portrait o f Race and Ethnicity in California by the PPIC (2001) reports Asians, along with Hispanics, are the fastest-growing population in California that two of every three Asians are foreign-born, and that Chinese and Filipinos are the most populous Asian subgroups. The study further reports that California’s Southeast Asians have more than tripled their numbers from 1980 to 1990 and have the lowest material and physical well R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 being of all Asian groups. Figures 3 and 4 depict the percentage of foreign-born among Asian subgroups, and the population of Asian ethnic groups in California in 1970, 1980, and 1990 (Figures 2 and 3). Percentage Foreign-Born Among Asian Groups n Chinese Ja p a n e se Filipino Asian Korean S outheast Indian Asian □ 1970 ■ 1980 □ 1990 Figure 3. Percentage Foreign-Born Among Asian Groups (1979, 1980,1990 Census (PPIC)) Population of Asian Groups, 1970,1980 and 1990 700,000 y 600,000 / 500,000 / 400,000 300,000 / 200,000 / 100,000 y 0 Ml C h in e s e J a p a n e s e Filipino A sia n In d ian K o re an S o u th e a s t A sian □ 1970 ■ 1980 □ 1990 Figure 4. Population of Asian Groups (1979/1980/1990, Census (PPIC)) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 International Community College Students Added to the subgroup differences of this already diverse Asian group is another population, the international students. The majority of international students who come to study in the U. S. are students from India, China, Korea, Japan, and Canada. In the TRUCCS study, 89% of the international students within LACCD are Asians. The true definition of international students who attend the two-year institutions is that they are individuals who come to the U.S. on a visa specifically for educational purposes and are registered at an accredited institution (Desruisseaux, 1998, as cited by Hagedom, 2005). Although many attend top universities, a considerable number of them attend community colleges for the benefits offered; a cheaper route to a 4-year degree, English language development, and a diverse student population (Hagedom, 2005). Many international students use the community colleges as an interim step to acclimate to a new country and a new educational system (Ellis, 1999, as cited by Hagedom, 2005). Ellis also finds that 89% of international students whose first language was not English attend community colleges to work on their language skills before taking more advanced courses. Although educating international students in America’s institutions of higher education is just as beneficial for the U. S., the future of this group is in jeopardy. One is that a larger proportion of Americans who are now seeking and expecting to R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 attend college are reclaiming seats previously occupied by international students. The tragic event of September 11, 2001 has resulted in stricter security measures to enter the United States. Finally, due to many students not returning to their home countries after completing their studies, many countries have tightened policies for students to leave to avert the perceived “brain drain” (Hagedom, 2005). This population of international Asian students is included in the sample to research the persistence of all Asian students in community colleges. Particular characteristics are known about this population as studied by the TRUCCS Project. They are more likely to be between the ages of 20-34. Compared to other community college students, only 5.4 of international students are 35 and older whereas 24% of nonintemational students are 35 and older. International students are more likely to be single, few are parents, and more of them are enrolled fulltime (83%). International students enroll for more credits per semester and remain in community colleges for fewer semesters than non-intemational students. The overall analysis of transcript data indicates international students are performing slightly better academically than nonintemational students. Academic Barriers Facing Asian Students in Higher Education It is substantiated by London (1992); Braxton (1999); and Yeh (2002) that Asian students face unique barriers to academic success at community colleges. Yeh (2002) categorizes the educational at-risk factors faced by Asians that contribute to R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 their early withdrawal in higher education into three groups: individual, socioeconomic and institutional. Language, education, and immigration status are part of the individual educational risk factors. English proficiency is one of the most reliable predictors of school success. According to Ovando (2003), language serves as a bridge for sharing knowledge, skills, values and attitudes across cultures and meets the spiritual, social, intellectual, technical, scientific, economic and political needs of their communities. Twelve percent of California’s Asian students are Limited English Proficient or LEP (CPEC, 2000). English deficiency in Asian students has grown by 107.8% in the last 10 years. Asian students without the English proficiency deemed appropriate to everyday discourse will remain “fossilized” in their language development, without a bridge to the community or into college life (Crawford, 1999, as cited in Ovando, 2003). Furthermore, other differences exist between the American-born and foreign- born. Parents of American-born students have more education, higher-status occupations, and higher educational expectations than foreign-born parents (PPIC, 2001). A look at the 1990 median family income indicates the following disparities: Asian American, $41,251; Vietnamese, $33,909; Laotian, $23,101; Cambodian, $18,126; andHmong, $14,327 (Policy Information Report, 1997). Socioeconomic risk factors include parent education, family support and guidance. Fifty-two percent of first-generation college students start their higher education at community colleges (Bui, 2002). As reported by London (1999), these students who come from families in which grandparents and parents have not R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 finished high school have difficulties socializing into the middle class because of differences in language, vocabulary, accent, social conventions and rituals, economic status, and taste in clothing, food and grooming. These first-generation students are at a disadvantage because their parents lack experience with higher education and are unable to assist with homework, taking standardized tests, applying to college or making career choices (Braxton, 1999). Such parents often reflect upon their own inability to obtain a college degree and usually perceive the value of a college degree as relatively low. Kitano and KiJiosia (2002) find cultural compatibility in which some cultural values are shared by both Japanese and white Americans. Kitano and DiJosia state the socialization of Japanese children into appropriate norms such as respect for authority, higher parental income and educational levels, immigration histories, primary language, and access to schooling and literacy influence the probable factors affecting many Japanese placed into Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) programs. Institutional risk factors result from a student’s educational environment and are imposed by the institution he or she is attending and reflect the quality of the school. Per Tinto (1975), the more a student feels socially and academically integrated into a college the greater the likelihood of his or her persistence through graduation. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) state that the quality and quantity of student contact with others at the institution plays a critical role in college persistence. Asians have reported negative feelings about campus life and strong feelings of social alienation and dissatisfaction (Bennett & Okinaka, 1990). Acts of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 violence with Asians as victims of racial harassment have been documented in the university community (Delucchi & Do, 1996). Asian students who sense they are not understood by the institution can feel discouraged, marginalized, and alone. Lagdameo et al., 2002) confirm many Asian students feel marginalized, misunderstood and disconnected from college because they cannot relate to the people who are making the decisions and they do not feel a part of the institution. Institutionalized privilege and racism is felt to be rampant among historically white organizations by three Asian students who report their college experiences in this study. On more than one University of California campus, students and admini strators have voiced concerns over the alleged over enrollment of Asian students (Hsia, 1988, as cited by Delucchi & Do, 1994). This issue (admissions quotas) will bear on community colleges’ decisions to encourage Asian students to persist and transfer to a 4-year institution (Delucchi & Do, 1994). Research Pertaining to Asian Students The research surrounding minority college students is young and even younger is the research on Asian students (Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2002). Of the research that exists relating to minority students, Tierney and Hagedom, (2002), indicated differences students experience in postsecondary education is influenced more by family income than by race or ethnicity and support the educational at-risk factors of individual, socioeconomic and institutional conditions postulated by Yeh (2002) to contribute to the withdrawal of Asian students from higher education. The work by Grissmer, Flanagan, and Williamson (1998) and Hedges and Nowell (1998) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 provide further evidence that socioeconomics, family conditions, and school conditions are key factors resulting in racial and ethnic achievement gaps. In addition, Hansen (1998) finds that family income plays major roles in students’ social and intellectual development that affects their academic preparedness for higher education. Coleman et al. (1996, as cited by Lee, 2002) makes it clear that differences in educational attainment can be explained by differences in social and economic well-being and confirm a strong association between parental education and their children’s educational attainment. Since there is no conceptual framework on retention for Asian students, two major frameworks, Tinto’s Conceptual Schema fo r Dropout from College, and Bourdieu’s Social Reproduction Theory, will be examined in this study for its application to the study of persistence of Asian students. Both of these models have been criticized. For instance, Tinto’s as to his (non)application to minority students at 2-year institutions and Bourdieu’s (1973) as to the design of sophistical statistical research needed to include the multivariates and its complexities. This study’s close investigation of how the specific student characteristics of Asian students intersect with the factors of academic and social integration and the cultural resources needed for integration to result in persistence behavior outcome is intended to expand the research in order to affect practices pertaining to this special population. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 Conceptual Schema for Dropout from College Tinto’s (1975) model postulates the greater the student’s academic and social integration, the greater his or her commitment to educational goals and to the institution, which in turn leads to lower attrition. Variables in entering student characteristics such as family background, individual attributes, precollege school experiences, and financial resources determine social and academic integration. Tinto’s interactionist model is one in which, over time, students and the institution continually interact in a variety of formal and informal situations that shape student behavior. Tinto (1987) posits that a student’s successful integration into an institution’s academic and social systems reduces psychological incongruence or mismatch between the student and the demands of the academic system. Congruence means not only formal academic activities but includes the day-to-day interaction among faculty, staff, and students that occurs both inside and outside institutions. Social and intellectual development is central to the process by which students judge their degree of congruence between themselves and an institution. Tinto says congruence or “fit” with an institution determines the commitment one makes to it and, in turn, affects one’s decision to persist or withdraw. Academic and Social Integration Pascarella and Terenzini (1979) contribute further to the constmct models by studying the interaction effects described in Spady’s and Tinto’s Conceptual Models R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 o f College Dropout. Their research finds significant correlation between academic and social integration and student attrition. They confirm that students enter the institutions with a range of backgrounds, personal attributes, skills, financial resources, dispositions, and types of precollege education experiences and achievements, all of which determine the conceptual categories of academic and social integration. Table 3 depicts the variables that are associated with the students’ entering characteristics. T a b l e 3 . Variables o f Social and Academic Integration S o c i a l I n t e g r a t i o n A c a d e m i c I n t e g r a t i o n I n v o l v e m e n t i n e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s F r e s h m a n g r a d e p o i n t a v e r a g e P e e r - g r o u p r e l a t i o n s A c a d e m i c a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t I n f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h f a c u l t y F a c u l t y c o n c e r n f o r t e a c h i n g a n d s t u d e n t d e v e l o p m e n t F r e q u e n c y o f i n f o r m a l c o n t a c t w i t h s t a f f t o I n f o r m a l c o n t a c t w i t h s t a f f t o o b t a i n a d v i c e a n d i n f o r m a t i o n d i s c u s s c a m p u s i s s u e s , s o c i a l i z e i n f o r m a l l y , o r r e s o l v e a p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m a b o u t a c a d e m i c p r o g r a m s D i s c u s s i o n o f i n t e l l e c t u a l m a t t e r s a n d c a r e e r p r o g r a m s w i t h s t a f f Pascarella and Terenzini’s findings indicate: (a) student retention is directly affected by the characteristics of the students involved and their level of social and academic integration; (b) persistence is most marked during the freshman year; (c) high levels of academic integration, such as frequent, informal contacts with faculty focusing on intellectual matters, can compensate for low-level social and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 academic integration in other areas; and lastly, (d) these variables are influenced by a range of primary factors which are further influenced by other factors. Social Reproduction Theory Bourdieu’s 1973 Theory o f Social Reproduction posits that cultural capital enables successful navigation through higher education. In a social reproduction model, a student’s accumulation of cultural capital determines his or her entitlement to a postsecondary education. Critical to Bourdieu’s theory is habitus. Habitus is one’s view and place in the world and serves to reveal how a student navigates his/her way through the educational system. A student’s access to various capital resources, and the extent to which his or her habitus and related beliefs of entitlement are congruent with the institution’s organizational habitus, affects his or her integration process and impacts persistence outcomes. Bourdieu states that students are not randomly assigned across the many diverse college campuses. Instead, campuses are composed of students who share common habitus that is also congruent with the institution’s organizational habitus. Rhodes and Valadez (1996) document that courses, curricula, educational programs and pedagogical practices protect the social reproduction process and bestow privilege on those students with higher levels of cultural capital and marginalize those with less cultural capital. Institutional Practices Bourdieu (1973) describes how the practices and the polices imposed by the government and institutions of higher education legitimizes the conditions of meritocracy, selectivity, and residentiality by higher education institutions and lock R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 out opportunities for minority students. Astin (1982) finds that these conditions are the results of economic, political and legal influences that are driven by society’s concept of social reproduction and are detrimental to the college pathway of minority students. Meyer and Zucker (1989) label current higher education institutions as “permanently failing organizations.” The legitimizing practices of selectivity, meritocracy and residentiality promote student departure as an institutionalized feature of higher education (Braxton, 2002). Selectivity is perpetuated by a meritocracy-based college system. As it exists, the American college system is a hierarchical three-tiered system with a few well-known institutions on the top, a larger group with more modest reputations in the middle and the largest group of institutions at the bottom (Astin, 1982). Based on test scores and admission policies, more able and desirable students are accepted by the more selective colleges and consequently those students have higher persistence rates (Astin, 1982). Flagship public institutions, regarded as the most prestigious and influential, enroll the smallest proportions of minority students (Astin, 1982) and have a high concentration of well-prepared students from well-educated and affluent families. The most dropout-prone freshmen, those with poor academic records, low aspirations, poor study habits, and relatively uneducated parents, end up in the bottom tier of the hierarchy. Ninety percent of community colleges are clustered in this bottom tier and have disproportionate shares of minority, underprepared and students from poor and relatively undereducated families (Astin, 1985). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 The ideal of meritocracy as touted by the American higher education system has instead victimized generations of minority and nontraditional community college students through assessment strategies and placement tests (Rhoades & Valadez, 1996). The tests have the inadvertent effect of creating barriers to students’ achieving their occupational and educational goals by sorting and channeling them into developmental education. Jencks and Riesman (1968) observe that a central function of higher education is to control access to the upper-middle class social strata, and Kamens (1977) observes “flunking out freshmen” is a device designed to perpetuate a belief of excellence in American higher education by keeping college-educated jobs for the middle class and locking out the lower class. Another phenomenon of institutional practices is residentiality. Kamens (1977) views this concept as a symbolic transfer of socialization authority over students to the school and the resulting intense socialization occurring at school is part of Tinto’s “rites of passage” process to integrate students into a higher tier of society. The construct of residentiality as argued by Kamens removes students physically and socially from their earlier everyday life, affirming instead the identity conferred by the college. Tierney (1992) and Attinasi (1994) express difficulty with this one-best-culture assumption of the rite-of-passage construct and suggest that “territorial passage” is a better description of the process. Nevertherless, Thelin (1982) notes that the concept and reality of residentiality locks out many community college commuting students from having the same opportunity to stake out a “distinct corporate identity” (which is the academic and social integration Tinto R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 professes) to secure college completion. Chickering (1974) substantiate a student’s educational development is enhanced if he or she lives on campus during freshman year. Cultural Order While Tinto’s model explains the factors of successful academic and social integration, Bourdieu’ (1973) model presents the cultural order of our society as a barrier to successful academic and social integration. Whereas Tinto’s model is a paradigm of choice, minority students in higher education may not have one given the cultural context in which society orders its system. Bourdieu’s work states that minority students do not possess the cultural capital to share similar college experiences that will in turn enable them to go through the process of adaptation. Bourdieu believes the culture of the dominant class is transmitted and rewarded by the educational system. To acquire the cultural capital needed in the dominant culture, a minority student must have the ability to receive it and internalize it with congruent behavior; most members of the lower classes are left with little hope of achieving social mobility (Dumais, 2002). Intersection o f Retention Models and Characteristics o f Asian Students Accounts of the Asians in higher education, their educational attainment, stereotypes and misperceptions portray the diverse Asian student backgrounds that further diversify their academic potential, intellectual development and grade performance, which in turn, impacts the ability to integrate into higher education. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 Going full circle, this already complicated mix is additionally influenced by another set of distinct variables that includes family background, normative congruence, and the friendships and faculty contacts these students may establish at an institution. These variables results from the factors of socioeconomics, family conditions, and school conditions that have been identified by researchers as contributing to racial and ethnic achievement gaps (Grissmer, Flanagan, & Williamson, 1998; Hedges & Nowell, 1998). Yeh (2002) confirms that there are individual, socioeconomic, and institutional educational risk factors that contribute to the withdrawal of Asian students from higher education. The groups of variables are explained in their specificity below to illustrate the possible variations of Asian student outcomes. Academic Potential, Intellectual Development and Grade Performance Extreme differences in academic potential are reported by Bracey and Ovando. Bracey’s (1994) report cites U. S. Asians scored above all nations in both National Education Achievement Program (NEAP) mathematics test scores and the Second International Assessment of Educational Progress mathematics tests. Yet, a large number of minority students are also overrepresented at the bottom of the test score ladder (Ovando, 2003, as cited by Banks & Banks, 2001). Intellectual development differs among this population and according to Park (1997), significant preferences for either group or individual learning are found among different groups in which high-achieving students have the least preference for group learning. Park also finds most Asian students manifest communication R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 anxiety and are reluctant to participate in discussions. Strage (1999) reports Asian students, as compared to Hispanic or White students are less confident and significantly less persistent in the face of difficulties or failures. California has the highest concentration of ethnic minorities, recent immigrants and limited English Speaking learners (Chen, Konantz, & Rosenfeld, 2000) and with this a fluctuation in grade performance. The California Department of Education (2003) reports Asian high school seniors are the largest racial group to meet both UC and CSU entrance requirements. However, there are differences in academic skills and confidence levels between first-generation Asians and other students. First-generation Asian students enter college with lower reading, math, and critical thinking skills, have lower Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT scores and GPAs, and are poorly prepared academically, but no more likely to be placed in remedial classes (McConnell, 2000). Ting (1998) finds first-generation students were found to have lower first-semester grades and are more likely to drop out during the first semester. Family Background, Normative Congruence, Friendships and Faculty Contacts Poverty is found to be the highest correlate for minority underrepresentation in higher education, with academically underprepared minority students disapro- portionately represented at the highest level of poverty (McCabe, 2001, as cited by Bragg, 2001). Additional evidence has been provided by Tierney and Hagedom (2002), Grissmer, Flanagan and Williamson (1998), Hedges and Nowell (1998), R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 Hansen (1998), and Coleman et al. (1996). These researchers confirm the differences students experience in postsecondary education is influenced more by family income than by race or ethnicity. In this variable offamily background, Asian families have a wide range of median family income from $46,637 to $18,709 with them reported to have the highest percentage of three or more wage earners per family among all U. S. racial and ethnic groups (Hune, 2002). Hune, further reports in 1990, married couples headed 82% of Asian households. Their average family size is 3.74 persons ranging from 6.4 persons for Hmong families to 3.1 persons for Japanese families. Cultural congruity, normative congruence, a measure of personal values and those of the university, was studied by Gloria and Ho (2003). They find Chinese and Korean students have the lowest cultural congruity and Japanese students have the highest cultural congruity. They also found that Japanese students reported the lowest levels of college stress and Filipino students reported the highest levels of college stress. Friendships and faculty contacts, as reported by Pascarella and Terenzina (1991, as cited by McConnell, 2000), first-generation students score lower on social integration than their peers based on a social integration index composite. This measures how often a student reports having contact with faculty outside the classroom, going places with friends from school, or participating in student assistance centers, programs, or school clubs. This finding is consistent with Brooks- Terry’s (1998) conclusions that first-generation students are less likely to be R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 involved in campus organizations and have fewer friends on campus, and are more likely to have a best friend outside the college campus. McConnell (2000) also finds first-generation students show lower levels of academic integration than second- generation students. Socioeconomics, Family Condition and School Conditions Again, there continue to be large differences in educational opportunities explained by socioeconomics, the social and economic well-being of a student’s family (Coleman et al., 1966, as cited by Lee, 2002). Among the demographic variables, family education and income levels are substantially related to school success (Bracey, 1994). These variables also include family class background, level of acculturation and racial and gender barriers (Hune, 2002). Stanton-Salazar (1997) speaks to the significance of social networks that are determined by the social class of the family. This social network is a structure in which commanding, negotiating, and managing social relationships and personalities are the underlying pathways to privilege and power. Cabrera, Nora and Castaneda (1992, as cited in Braxton, 2002) study the ability to pay for college as addressed in St. John’s, Paulsen’s, and Starkey’s 1996 College Choice-Persistence Nexus Model linking financial factors and their affects on persistence decisions. Cabrera, Stampen, and Hansen (1990), argue that the ability to pay frees students from the need to work long hours and from financial concerns, thus enabling them to attain cognitive and noncognitive outcomes that can remove R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 barriers to their participation in academic and social offerings. St. John, Paulsen and Starkey posit the three-step process of the College Choice-Persistence Nexus Model affects student persistence in the following ways: (a) socioeconomic factors and academic ability affect both a student’s predisposition to pursue a college education and his or her perception of financial ability, (b) the student estimates the costs and benefits of a particular institution, and (c) if the student enters the institution its characteristics reinforce the student’s educational aspirations. Family conditions are reflected by several researchers that suggest familial influence is an important factor for Asians considering their career choices (Leong & Chou, 1984, as cited in Tang, 2002). Braxton (1999) reports a distinct, intimate relationship between Asian culture and family life that impacts Asian student achievement. Asian mothers appear to have a large influence on their children’s academic choices (Simpson, 2001). Simpson’s study is consistent with the work of Ogbu (1994) that finds Asian mothers encourage the selection of public service majors rather than technical programs, but another study by Tang and Fouad (1997) finds many Asian parents expect their children to major in medicine or engineering. In Asian families, maintaining the family’s appearance and status is more important than individual preferences. Whereas in the U. S., the culture of being independent is more valued (Tang, 2002). Thus, Asian students must straddle the demands of two cultures. According to Hollins (1996), the “elite class” is the one percent of America’s population that monopolizes society’s social capital. In her work, Transforming R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 Curriculum in a Culturally Diverse Society, Hollins indicates there are different types of schooling for different classes of students reflecting the differing school conditions. Hollins further states students of the working middle class are taught skills for managerial positions and to follow directions. Upper middle class students are educated as professionals and artisans to support the elite class and provide esthetic culture to them. Students from the elite class (1%) are taught to manipulate society’s resources for their maximum gain. Additional evidence from Stanton-Salazar (1997) indicates schools rarely provide working-class and minority students with the necessary skills to decode the institutional agenda. Simpson (2001) finds that students from the elite class are given more attention and are perceived as being more intelligent and capable than students who lack their cultural capital. Linguistic patterns, authority structures, interaction dynamics and course material familiar to children of higher social status facilitate their school adjustment and integration. It is confirmed by several researchers that social status and the resources of its cultural capital are not accessible to the minority students from lower classes and due to their status, their participation in privileged positions is limited (Dumais, 2002). Integrating the Models In all, these characteristics influence student integration, that in turn, affects student persistence behavior, perfectly illustrating the findings from Pascarella and Terenzini’s 1979 study of Spady’s and Tinto’s Conceptual Models o f College Dropout in which variables are influenced by a range of primary factors which are R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 then further influenced by other factors. The intersection of primary student characteristics theorized by Yeh (2002) to be at-risk factors, with Tinto’s retention model and Bourdieu’s (1973) social reproduction theory needed for successful social and academic integration to fit into the institution to result in student persistence behavior is modeled after Tinto’s 1975 Conceptual Schema for Dropout from College and is illustrated in figure 5. The explanation of how these variables interact extends the study of retention as it pertains to Asian students in higher education. Challenges o f the Community Colleges Dating back to 1936, Hollinshead’s (as cited in Cohen & Brawer, 2003) concept of a community college is the notion that an institution meets community needs by providing adult education and educational, recreational and vocational activities that support both the economic and cultural status of its community. Today, community colleges face challenges in assuming many roles to assist their community members to reach their academic, economic and cultural aspirations (Cain, 1999). Cain likens the role of the community colleges to a “Wal-Mart of higher education” where there is something for every customer. Many two-year students attend to transfer to a four-year institution, enter the job market, get a better job, or learn for their own satisfaction (Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Bragg (2001) organizes the services of community colleges in five foci: academic transfer, vocational-technical education, continuing education, developmental education, and community services. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Primary Factors (Educational at Entering Characteristics Risk Factors) Interaction with Retention Models Resulting Variables Intersecting Effects FIT Friendship and I^> Faculty Contact Institutional Socioeconomic Individual Academic Integration Social Integration Cultural Capital Social Capital Parent Education Family Support Immigration Environment Campus Life Institutional Practice Language Education Immigration Status 1 Tinto’s Conceptual Schema for Dropout from College Bourdieu’s Social Reproduction Theory Figure 5. A Model of Intersecting Effects of Primary Factors, Retention Models, and Resulting Variables and Their Influence on Persistence Behavior o 41 According to Cuseo (2000), 50% of minority students begin their higher education at 2-year colleges. Whereas they make up 6% to 8% of all students in higher education, they make up nearly 60% of community college students (Nora, 1993). Forty-six percent of Asian/Pacific Islanders attend our nation’s 2-year colleges (California Postsecondary Education Commission, (AACC) 2004). In California, an average of 30.4% of Asian high school graduates entered community colleges between 1999-2002. In Los Angeles, the average for those 3 years for Asian high school graduates was 28.3% (Educational and Demographic Profile, Los Angeles County, 2004). Bui (2002) reports that 50.2% of first-generation Asian students who begin their higher education in community colleges are more likely to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and are pursuing higher education in order to assist their families financially. Data from the National Center of education Statistics from the NCES (2000, as cited in Cohen & Brawer, 2003) show during the 1989-1990 academic year that less than 10% of those first-generation college students earned a bachelor’s degree by 1994. Despite growing access to enrollment in community colleges, student attrition rates show less than half of students attending community colleges go on to complete their baccalaureate degrees (Tinto, 1993). Since the 1970s, the number of transfers from 2-year associate programs to 4-year baccalaureate programs has decreased, resulting in a “baccalaureate gap” in which no more than 20% to 25% of community college students aspire to transfer. Even with billions of dollars spent on financial aid awards, gaps in college enrollment and degree completion persist R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 (Tiemey & Hagedom, 2002). As shown by the retention data, there are documented differences in academic success and retention between the 2- and 4-year colleges. Thus far, community colleges have not met the formidable challenges of realizing the educational aspirations of their 2-year students (Tinto, 1993; NCES, 2001, as cited in Coehn & Brawer, 2003). Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) find students’ community college experiences “cool out” their aspirations and desire to further their higher education and reduce the likelihood they will earn a four-year degree. Students who enter a 4-year institution directly are more likely to persist in their education. Likewise, Cuseo (2000) finds community college students are more likely to lower their degree aspirations after entering college than students at 4-year institutions. Both government programs and community college retention programs exist to ensure access to higher education and support college persistence, but it is difficult to measure their success because of the various reasons students participate in higher education. A simple enough definition is offered by Hagedom (2004) in which a student who enrolls in college and remains enrolled until receiving a degree is a “persister” and a student who leaves college without earning a degree is a “non- persister.” Yet, Hagedom presents ten enrollment patterns in her 2004 study, How to Define Retention: A New Look at an Old Problem, to highlight the student attendance variability and the complexity of measuring student progress. At the federal level, the GI Bill in 1944 provided individuals with the necessary funds to attend college but because they lacked the necessary skills to gain R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 entrance strictly on merit, many entered 2-years colleges in developmental programs with slim chances to advance to a baccalaureate degree (Rhodes & Valdez, 1996). President Harry Truman established the President’s Commission on Higher Education in 1946 that gave birth to many government programs that opened community college doors to America’s minority, economically disadvantaged, part- time, and first-generation college students (Quigley & Bailey, 2003). President Lyndon Johnson changed the role of federal support for college access by providing financial aid directly to the students instead of the institutions, resulting in today’s Pell Grant Program (Astin, 1982). From these legislative actions, the policy of affirmative action evolved, intended to remedy or level the significant underrepre sentation of certain racial, ethnic or other groups and to provide them equal opportunity and access to higher educational opportunities and group memberships. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. Title IX of the Educational Amendment Act of 1972 prohibits gender-based admission practices. In the state of California, California Education Code, Section 66010, mandates access to education and the opportunity for education services for all qualified Californians and delineates the roles for each segment of the public school system; elementary, secondary, community colleges, state colleges and universities. Perhaps the clearest example of equal opportunity in education is California’s Master Plan for Higher Education, passed 45 years ago to insure the state’s citizens a place in college. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 The California Master Plan for Education The California Master Plan for Education was written in 1959. Forty-five years later, faced with the sobering reality that the state’s education system did not provide the conditions for students to learn to the highest standards and to prepare them for their future learning needs, the California Legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 29 in 1999 to create a new Master Plan for Education. Compelling issues that led to a reconstruction of a more comprehensive Master Plan included the following: 1. Students least well served, largely from low-income families and of color make up an increasingly greater portion of California’s population. 2. Over the next decade, a large increase in California’s postsecondary education enrollment known as “Tidal Wave II” challenges higher education. 3. California’s current K-12 system is fragmented, overlapping and operates in conflict that prevents K-12 and postsecondary segments from effective alignment and reducing the obstacles students face in their transition from one system to another. 4. California’s K-12 system is operating without a clear vision or direction. 5. California’s educational institutions are often too rigidly structured to accommodate for the increasingly diverse student needs. 6. Continued economic viability of the state depends on high quality education that helps learners achieve their potential and objectives and a successful R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 transition to the evolving world economy, enabling them to pursue economic prosperity that better both the learner and society. Two primary goals drive this new Master Plan: 1. Provide every family with the information, resources, services, involvement and support to give the child the best possible start in life and in school. 2. Provide every public school, college and university with the resources and authority necessary to ensure that all students receive a rigorous, quality education that prepares them to become self-initiating, self-sustaining learners. 3. The goal is that a child entering preschool in 2002 can expect to graduate from high school in 2016 and complete a bachelor’s degree by 2020. Immediate Issues Confronting the Community Colleges A growing and diverse student population and shrinking dollars confront today’s community colleges. The projected enrollment growth referred to as “Tidal Wave II” will cause the UC, CSU and the community colleges to exceed their capacities within the next decade (Little Hoover Commission, 2000). The 2-year colleges, intended to offer opportunities to many students who otherwise may not go to college (Bragg, 2001; Fusch, 1996), are already challenged to adapt and increase their roles. Current budget woes have caused California’s public colleges to scale back their enrollment growth goals (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2003) and has resulted in thousands of qualified students meeting university requirements to be R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 diverted to already-overcrowded community colleges (The Sacramento Bee, 2004), affecting the opportunities for “disadvantaged students” to obtain higher education. Tidal Wave II Undergraduate enrollment is anticipated to increase by 16.5% by 2011, with more than 2.7 million students attending California’s public colleges that year (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2003). In order to meet the commitment mandated by The California Master Plan to provide higher education to all who can benefit, the following options have been raised to address the crucial need to increase service levels (Little Hoover Commission, 2000). 1. New Construction. $547 million in expenditures will increase capacity for 29,000 full-time students at CSUs with corresponding increases for additional capacity at UCs and community college campuses. 2. Year-Round Operations. Operating campuses during the same, at the same level in spring, fall and winter will increase present capacity by one-third without requiring new facilities. 3. Greater Use of Community Colleges. Historically the most economic avenue to higher education has been most inaccessible to underrepresented minorities. The alternative is to increase the number of students who begin their education at community colleges before transferring to UC or CSU campuses. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 The Characteristics o f Nontraditional Two-year College Students Students who attend community colleges differ from “traditional” students who come from families where education is a rite of passage and who are more likely to know how to navigate through and manipulate college traditions and practices to their advantage (Bourdieu, 1973). The most dropout-prone, those with poor academic record, low aspirations, poor study habits, and relatively uneducated parents, end up attending community colleges, the bottom tier of America’s higher education hierarchy (Astin, 1982). Bean and Metzner (1985) find nontraditional students attending 2-year colleges to be typically older, attending part-time and commuting to campus. A 44% increase in students over age 25 in 1995, coupled with a projected drop in non-Hispanic White high school students by 50%, will change traditional community college classrooms as they currently exist (Hansen, 1998). Students 35 and older make up a greater percentage of part-time enrollees than full time enrollees (Byrant, 2001). The AACC (2004) reports the average student age at these institutions is now 29-years-old. Only 35% of today’s community college students are traditional students, 18 through 21 as of 1999 (Bragg, 2001). The community colleges are the last chance for nontraditional and minority students to fulfill their education aspirations. Today African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Latinos and women make up three-quarters of community college students (New York University School of Education, 2001). Whereas minority students make up 6% to 8% of all students in R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 higher education, they make up nearly 60% of students in community colleges (Nora, 1993, as cited in Bragg, 2001). Although research figures vary, California is indeed rapidly moving towards pluralism and becoming a “minority majority” state (Chancellor’s Office, California Community Colleges, and California Department of Finance, 1993, as cited in Little Hoover Commission, 2000). For instance, Latinos and Asians are the fastest-growing groups of community college students in California (Hune, 2002; Little Hoover Commission, 2000). Figure 6 demonstrates the decline of White and the growth of non-White students at California community colleges. Ethnic Diversity 54% 54% 52% 50% Percentage 48% 46% 44% 42% 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year □ White Students ■ Non-White Figure 6. Decline and Growth of White and Nonwhite Students at California Community Colleges (Chancellor’s Office, California Community Colleges, California Department of Finance, 1993) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 California's Budget and Its Impact on Higher Education The mid-year 2003 state budget adjustment by the governor slashed $161 million from the community colleges and additional cuts of $530 million are proposed for the coming academic year (American Association of Community Colleges, 2004). Such cuts place unprecedented limits on enrollment, threatening the ability o f the state’s community colleges to live up to a long-held promise of providing access to higher education (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2003). Ironically, despite the guarantee that the top one-eighth and the top one-third of the state’s high school graduates will be able to enroll at one of nine UC and one of 23 CSU campuses, respectively (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2004), more than 11,000 qualified applicants will be turned away and be offered slots as junior transfers if they start higher education at the community colleges (The Sacramento Bee, May 19, 2004). The following articles about changes in tuition fees and admission requirements forecast future trends facing California’s 2-year institutions that will impact the opportunities for “disadvantaged” students to obtain higher education: 1. Rise of College Tuition (The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2004): a. Public university tuition this year will increase between 9% to 10%. Although this is less than last year’s 14% increase, this increase is on top of last year’s increase. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 b. Private university will jump 6% the same rate as last year (2003), this increase is on top of last year’s increase. 2. University of California Diverson Plan (The Sacramento Bee, June 6, (2004). a. Intends to decrease freshmen enrollment by 6.7%. b. Promises a coveted spot in the UC system after those would- be freshmen first attend a 2-year college. c. Diverts roughly 6,200 students who may rebuffed the transfer option and opt to go to a private university, a California State University or an out-of-state school. 3. Raised GPA Bar for Entry at UCs (The Sacramento Bee, July 14, 2004): a. A political battle is sparked in an already fierce competition for admission to the University of California. b. This adjustment will shrink UC’s eligibility pool by 6,500 students. c. The GPA requirement for entering freshmen is raised from 2.80 to 3.10. 4. California Community Colleges Doubled their Fee from $11.00 per unit to $26.00 per unit (The Sacramento Bee, September 16, 2004): a. Applications for fee waivers and financial aid increase. b. More students decide to live at home. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 c. Applications for federal work study jobs on campus increase. More Students, Less Money California’s higher education budget cuts are made amidst the projected mounting Tidal Wave II. Figures 7, 8 and 9 present the projected pictures of growing enrollment with diminishing dollars at all three college systems. I University of California Undergraduate Enrollment i 250.000 - - - ........ .................... 2 0 0 .0 0 0 -i ___i— 150.000 i I I 100.000 I I I 50,000 ! i 0 - — — — ■ — — I — — — —I □ 2003 D2004 D2005 B2006 02007 B2008 D2009 B2010 B2011 Figure 7 . University of California Undergraduate Enrollment. Note, http://chronicle.com. (2003). Section: Government & Politics, 50(7), p. A21. (1) The UC system will not consider application from 1,500 California community college students seeking to transfer in the winter of 2004; and (2) The UC system may freeze or reduce enrollment of new freshmen, transfer students, and graduate students for the 2004-2005 school year. The increased academic and financial requirements and budget-driven cuts will divert potential entering students who would otherwise go to a 4-year university to 2-year colleges and will also increase the competition for admission in the 2-year colleges. Furthermore, this forecast of demographics and social conditions provide evidence that urban community colleges will not only be confronted with R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 450 000 California State University Undergraduate Enrollment______ 400.000 ' — 350.000 • ___,— | I — I I 300.000 • 250.000 200.000 | 150.000 ! 100.000 , i 50,000 I O ' I — — — — — — — — — _ □ 2003 □ 2004 □ 2005 ■ 2006 1 2 0 0 7 H 2008 Q 2009 ■ 2010 n 2 0 1 0 Figure 8. California State University Undergraduate Enrollment. Note, http://chronicle.com. (2003), Section: Government & Politics, 50(1), p. A21. (1) About 30,000 potential students are expected to be turned away this academic year as enrollment growth drops to 4.3% in 2003-2004 from the 7% originally expected; and (2) CSU will not permit further growth in enrollment in academic year 2004-2005. Community College Enrollment 2500000 - 2000000 ------ £ 1500000 - o 1 E 1000000 - 1 500000 - 1 0 i B 2003 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Figure 9. Community College Enrollment Note, http://chronicle.com, (2003), Section: Government & Politics, 50(7), p. A21. Community colleges eliminated 8,2000 course sections in the spring of 2003 resulting in a reduction of 90,000 more students than expected. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 contradicting needs of a growing mass of minority, older, part-time, lower-income, and underprepared students, but that the traditional practices of preparing recent high school graduates for transfer to a 4-year university are demanded. Growing Poverty Added to these trends is the growing poverty in the United States. The Sacramento Bee (August 27, 2004) reports the number of poor Americans grew by 1.3 million last year in 2003. For year 2003, an estimated 35.9 million U. S. residents, one out of eight people were living in poverty; for a family of four, the federal annual income poverty is at $18,810; and 12.5% of Americans were considered poor. California’s average poverty rate of 12.9% over the past 3 years is slightly above the national average. Children poverty rate jumped last year to 17.6% from 16.7% from the year before. Poverty increase among Asians while holding steady for the Latinos and African Americans. Census Bureau analyst Daniel Weinberg (2004) suggests the number of improverished Asian immigrants will increase over the next year as approximately 16,000 Hmong refugees now living in Thailand will be resettling in the United States. California and Minnesota in general are the states they settle in (The Sacramento Bee, September, 12, 2004). The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) The LACCD is the largest community college district in the United States and one of the largest in the world. The LACCD consists of nine colleges and covers an area of more than 882 square miles as depicted in figure 10. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 f f a n F ’ l h O L o s A n g e l a s | ffm M ission Collcg*? J I*i « r «:o V alley C o l l e g e ( l o llc q c J I o s A n g e l e s I Los A n g e l e s K oJ I / m' doc/ ^ C i l f C o ° ^ ! P i F l» le s | »pg>J I d s t Los A n g e l e s Cull(;i|tf O — r— ...........— J Los A n g n l c s S o u t h w e s t Col lo g o L o s A n g e l e s rr<jt]e-Ter:hni( e l e s | ;«il CulleijR I I o s A n g e l e s 1 llor h or C o l l e g e ■ > , Figure 10. Los Angeles Community College District. Note. http://www.laccd.edu/our_colleges_(2004) Demographics In Los Angeles County, the continuing population explosion and large limited English proficient (LEP) population adds further to the county’s economic woes. Incoming community college students are expected to doubled from 1997 through 2005 (California Community Colleges, 1998) and includes many LEP students. The colleges are not only very diverse but serve an 11% LEP population. Growth in student population at the LACCD is as much as 15% a year (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Specific demographics regarding LACCD students are from (http://marlin.laccd.edu/research/digest/Summaryfl.htm) and show the following: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 1. More than 51 % are over the age of 25 (almost 25% are over the age of 34). 2. More than 78% are ethnic minorities, including Asian/Pacific Islanders, African Americans and Hispanics. 3. More than 59% are female. 4. Eighty-one percent are focused on transfer, attaining an AA degree, or completing vocational and technical training. The LACCD educates almost three times as many Latino students and nearly four times as many Africa American students as all of the University of California (UC) campus combined (www.laccd.edu, 2004). District-wide ethnic percentages 2002 are reflected in Figure 11. 2002 District Wide Ethnic Percentages 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 2 0 .00% - 10.00% j 0 .00% Asian Black Hispanic 1 White □ Series 1 14.60% 16.90% 45.90% 19.90% Figure 11. 2002 District Wide Ethnic Percentages Note. LACCD on-line Website, 2003 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 More so than the universities, the community college student tends to reflect the ethnic composition of the institution’s community (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Specific neighborhood attendance is as reported in LACCD’s 1994 statistics: East Los Angeles College 73% Hispanics Los Angeles Southwest College 76% Black Los Angeles Pierce College 56% White Los Angeles City College 25% Asian LACCD Instructional Staffing LACCD instructional staffing is determined by weekly student contact hours (WSCH) per faculty full time enrollment (FTE). A Comparative Staffing Study is conducted yearly to facilitate the development of staffing standards appropriate to specific disciplines or program areas (LACCD, Office of Instructional and Student Services Instructional Research Section, 2004). The weekly student contact hours/full time enrollment faculty (WSCH/FTEF) established in this study provides data for setting the benchmarks by instructional areas across the District and the state. The WSCH/FTEF of LACCD reported by Prather (1998) indicates a large fluctuation of staff/student contact ranging from a high of 527 students per faculty hour in 1975 to a low of 415 students per faculty hours in 1984 and 1985. On the whole, the ratio of LACCD students per staff contact hours is smaller than that of community colleges statewide but larger than that of California’s smaller community colleges. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 Educational Outcome An on-going longitudinal study by the Postsecondary Institutional Studies Program finds more than 38% of students beginning an associate’s degree program in 1989 stopped out at least once, or have not completed the degree 8 years later (The Condition of Education, NCES, 1999). A close inspection of the 1997-1998 LACCD transfer rates indicate 3.43% transferred into state colleges and universities with 3.38% transferring to the California State University system and .05% transferring to the University of California (Appendix A). The following figures 12 and 13, compare the educational attainment between the State of California as a whole and Los Angeles county by race, and ethnicity in two categories: percentage of population with no years of college and percentage of population with a bachelor’s degree or higher. Percentage of Population With No College 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% - A sian African Am erican White Multiracial Latino g Los A ngeles 17.80% 20.70%o 40.70%. 10.60% 35.00% 57.90% ■ California 19.60%> 19.50% 32.50%, 10.20%o 28.70%, 53.30% 1 Los A ngeles ■ California Figure 12. Percentage of Population with No College (California Postsecondary Education Commission, Educational Demographic Profile Los Angeles County) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 Percentage of Population with a Bachelor's and Higher 60.00% 40.00% - 20.00% - 1 I B » 1) E B 0.00% Asian African America White Multiracia Latino H Los A ngeles 42.40% 17.80% 11.60% 37.70% 20.10% 6.70% ■ California 40.90% 17.20% 11.40% 33.80% 20.20% 7.70% □ Los A ngeles ■ California Figure 13. Percentage of Population with a Bachelor’s and Higher (California Postsecondary Education Commission, Educational Demographic Profile Los Angeles County) The transfer rates of the nine community LACCD colleges are further disaggregated and are presented in the following charts in Appendix A. The Transfer and Retention o f Urban Community College Students Project (TRUCCS) The Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) is funded through a grant awarded to the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California by the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. The TRUCCS Project, directed by the chairperson of the Community College Leadership Program, Dr. Linda Serra Hagedom is studying 5,000 community college students from the nine campuses in LACCD and is charged with the investigation of both organizational and individual R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 factors that promote retention of and persistence by urban community college students. The diversity of LACCD allows for multiple comparisons of different groups of students according to factors such as ethnicity, age, and economics. To ensure the TRUCCS population sample matches the entire LACCD student population, a comparison of the TRUCCS population sample and the entire LACCD population was conducted based on ethnicity, primary language, and student age. Figures 14, 15, and 16 illustrate the samples obtained from each of three main categories. Ethnic Comparison of TRUCCS Sample to All Students in LACCD 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% □ All Students Fall 2000 ■ Sampled Classes Figure 14. Ethnic Comparison of TRUCCS Sample to All Students in LACCD (Research on Urban Community College Transfer and Retention: The Los Angeles TRUCCS Project, 1999) Asian Black Hispanic White Other R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 0 Comparison of TRUCCS Sample with LACCD Population by Primary Language English Spanish Armenian Chinese Other 1 1 All Students Fall 2000 ■ Sampled Classes Figure 15. Comparison of TRUCCS Sample with LACCD Population by Primary Language (Research on Urban Community College Transfer and Retention: The Los Angeles TRUCCS Project, 1999) Comparison by Student Age of the TRUCCS Sample and the LACCD Population 40% A y 30% / ' 20% tjif' 10% M 0% Under 20 20-24 25-34 35 Plus (□ All Students Fall 2000 ■ Sampled Classes Figure 16. Comparison by Student Age of the TRUCCS Sample and the LACCD Population (Research on Urban Community College Transfer and Retention: The Los Angeles TRUCCS Project, 1999) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 The All American Game: A Conceptual Framework to Study Transfer Readiness A proposed framework to measure transfer readiness, to view and measure community college students whose stated goal is transfer and ultimately bachelor degree attainment, is an outgrowth of the TRUCCS Project. If one were to view the “All American Game” of baseball, in which the game is to score a “homerun” by progressing through a series of “ bases,” the object of the Transfer Game is for students to become transfer ready by successfully progressing through modules of predetermined transfer level courses. These courses have been translated into “bases” to measure progress toward the goal. Continuing in the metaphor, it is suggested that community colleges “keep scores” of the number or proportions of runs-batted-in (RBIs), and in this study, are the number of students transferred (Readied by the Institution). Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) To facilitate transfer, a common general education core curriculum was mutually developed, maintained and disseminated as agreed between the California community colleges and the public 4-year universities. This core curriculum consists of modules of courses in six to seven distinct areas that a student must passed with a grade of “C” or better to satisfy the lower-division education requirements of the public university system. Using the baseball paradigm, a student advances through a series of bases by completing the following requirements in any order: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 2 1. IGETC English requirement 2. IGETC mathematical concepts 3. Completing any two of the remaining four modules a. Arts and humanities b. Social and Behavioral Sciences c. Physical and Biological Sciences 4. Completing the last two modules a. Language Requirements b. History and American Ideals Students who have not completed any of the modules are said to be “on the deck.” In viewing student progress, advancing bases is completing IGETC modules. Much research has substantiated the challenge in defining transfer because of unique characteristics and enrollment patterns of community college students. In attempting to define all the possible permutations of courses fulfilling the IGETC requirements, the following questions served to analyze transfer readiness and address the restrictive nature of studying transfer linearly or dichotomously. 1. Which “bases” are students reaching? Which seem to be most difficult and distant? 2. Are there relationships between gender, age, ethnicity, native language or other demographic and progress along the transfer baseline? 3. What separates those students who have scored a “homerun” from those who are struggling to advance? R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 Implications for Research The results from this sample yield interesting results as to differences among ethnic groups as they strive to attain the different modules. The identification of factors that predict progress along and completion of specific bases yields information about the barriers in the “infield” and can be used to design policies to assist students to “score.” This framework to measure transfer will be utilized to study the factors contributing to the persistence behaviors of Asian students in LACCD. Conclusions The Asian population is one of the fastest-growing racial groups in the United States and in higher education (Hune, 2002). Due to historical events, immigrant patterns and language differences, a large variation exists among this student group (Le, 2002). A review of the literature indicates increasing Asian subgroup diversity and the widening bimodal gap between Asian students challenge community colleges already facing poor student outcomes. The misperception of Asians as “model minorities” who have attained success through higher education is misleading. Annual income for Asian families in 1990 fluctuates from $41,251 to $14,327 (PIR, 1997). Whereas some Asians enjoy the economic status afforded by a baccalaureate degree, there are those whose median family income places them below the $18,800 poverty line. Embedded in both the 50% of minority students who begin their higher education at 2-year colleges and the 75% of minority students in community colleges R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 are the Asian students. Forty-six percent of them attend 2-year colleges. Attrition rates reported by the 2-year colleges are as high as 44%, with research finding community college students to more likely to lower their degree aspirations after college entry than students who start at four-year institutions. Even with billions of dollars spent on financial aid awards, gaps in community college enrollment and degree completion, persists documenting differences in academic success and retention between 2- and 4-year institutions. Research substantiates that Asians face educational at-risk factors that contribute to their withdrawal from higher education. Yeh (2002) has categorized these factors into three groups, individual, socioeconomic and institutional. However, research on Asians in higher education is scant. Little exists to illustrate Asian subgroup differences and their resulting interaction nor the distinct variables that pertain to each of these subgroups and how their college attainment pathways are impacted according to these variations in factors and variables. Attempts at governmental legislation and funding and retention program effectiveness have been limited because of the scant research. Given this, two major models, Tinto’s (1975) Conceptual Schema for Dropout from College and Bourdieu’s (1973) Social Reproduction Theory, are critiqued as to explaining student persistence behavior through successful integration into institutions of higher education as well as the resources required by this population for successful integration. Further inquiry in Spady’s and Tinto’s Conceptual Models o f College Dropouts by Pascarella and Terenzini (1979) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 confirms significant correlation exist between academic and social integration and student attrition. Their research also indicates these variables are influenced by a range of primary factors that are in turn, influenced by other factors. The conditions of Asian students in higher education support this research of the intersecting effects of primary factors that result in variables effecting persistence behavior. Their variations in higher education, attainment and socioeconomic status, which further diversify their academic potential, intellectual development and grade performance, is impacted by their social/cultural capital and thus, the inability to integrate into higher education. In this already complicated mix is yet another distinct set of variables that includes family backgrounds, normative congruence, and the friendships and faculty contacts established at the institution. These result from the factors of socioeconomics, family conditions, and school conditions identified to result in racial and ethnic achievement gaps by Grissmer, Flanagan and Williamson, (1998) and Hedges and Nowell (1998) and the individual, socioeconomic, and institutional educational risk factors described by Yeh (2002) that contribute to the withdrawal of Asian students from higher education Despite the guarantee of the California Education Code, Section 66010, and the California Master Plan for Education to insure that the state’s top one-eighth and top one-third of high school graduates may enroll at one of nine UC and one of 23 CSU campuses respectively, the snowballing growing student population and shrinking dollars have resulted in unprecedented limits on enrollment. The inability R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 6 to make good of the State’s plan for higher education has trickle-down effects on community colleges, exacerbating an already formidable challenge. The forecast of demographic trends, impending Tidal Wave II, growing diversity and increasing roles demanded of community colleges all indicate changes in current practices are inevitable. To this end, the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCs) grant through the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California holds promise as it studies the organizational and individual factors that promote retention of and persistence by urban community college students. A conceptual framework, “The All American Game, ” has been developed by TRUCCS to measure transfer readiness. It uses the metaphor of the game of baseball to measure gaining “bases” as equated to the four IGETSU modules, to become transfer ready. The multivariates of student characteristics and the diverse reasons for which students attend community colleges restricts the study of transfer linearly or dichotomously. Therefore, the ‘ ‘ ‘ 'All American Game” study is expected to disaggregate the data as to which modules pose the most difficulties for students, the time needed to complete them and the barriers to “advancing bases” so that policies and practices may be designed to assist students to “score.” Implications Tremendous pressure is already on 2-year colleges that are grappling with how to serve the least prepared, underserved citizens seeking last-chance opportunity for higher education. The forecasts of exploding populations, increasing diversity R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 within the minority student population and the growing bimodality of traditional and non-traditional students place additional weight on the multiplicity of roles the community colleges must already assume. Further exacerbating their problems are the enrollment limits now set by the 4-year universities. In this mix is a growing Asian population, including international students, with a large number of them beginning their higher education in community colleges that must not be overlooked. The variations among Asian students that make their educational experiences and outcomes different must be acknowledged and institutional practices must be driven by research data. Given today’s limited resources, the information gleaned from research can help community colleges pinpoint the design of effective interventions. As shown by current intervention programs and retention models, a one-size-fit-all program or model does not fit this special group. Sophistical research designs that disaggregate subgroup differences to isolate variables of with-in and between group differences to determine the specificity of their needs aid in targeting assistance that improve educational outcomes for this group of Asians in higher education. The lifetime benefits of a baccalaureate degree improve not only an individual’s well-being but the well-being of our economy which depends upon the economic health of all our citizens. As projected by Cohen and Brawer (2003), demands of the 21st century workforce require a more literate and skilled workforce. The current attrition rates project an at-risk community not ready to meet the challenges of demanding workforce skills. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 Implication for Future Research The synthesis of applicable findings in the available literature supports this study and its implications for future research. Interventions must now be lazer- pointed to implement the retention programs specific to the varying needs of Asian students in order to result in improved education outcomes. As shown, the intersecting variables affecting the success of Asians in higher education are complex. Research must be designed to study the interaction of individual factors and institutional practices and analyze the multivariates that exist in between. Findings from such research would assist in forming sound policies and fair practices that are guided by accurate data-driven decision-making. The policies and practices of higher education must uphold the promise made to the state’s citizens of a place in college, as outlined by California’s Education Code and the California Master Plan. As stated by the California Master Plan, “ the continued economic viability of the state depends on a high-quality education that helps learners achieve potential and objectives and successful transition to the evolving world of economic enabling them to pursue the economic prosperity that better both them and society.” The insufficient research provides ample reasons to conduct lazer-pointed research to effect changes but at the same time, one must keep in mind the challenges are complex, wide-reaching and misunderstood. It is anticipated the data from the TRUCCS project will provide a solid basis for study in this fertile field of research. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY A Conceptual Model of Transfer Readiness for Asian Students in Community Colleges emerged from the review of the literature and the study of the research pertaining to Asian students in community colleges. This model is based on two construct models: (a) academic and social integration posited by Tinto (1975) in his Conceptual Schema for Dropout from College as it correlates to student persistence, and (b) the social and cultural capital required to integrate successfully into the institution as posited by Bourdieu’s (1973) in his Social Reproduction Theory and is presented in figure 17. The findings from this study aim to provide evidence that could further research to amplify the scant body of knowledge about Asian students in higher education. Research Questions The goal of this study was to isolate, describe and define the factors that affect student persistence behavior and transfer readiness. In this study, the intersecting effects of student characteristics, construct models of retention, social reproduction, and resulting variables on student behavior were examined. The framework proposed in Tinto’s and Bourdieu’s (1973) works is supported in theory but have not been tested on the Asian population in community colleges. To identify the correlates of transfer readiness as influenced by these students’ characteristics, their socioeconomic status (as determined by cultural and social capital), their interaction with the environment (as determined by social and academic integration), R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Primary Factors Entering Characteristic S o c i o P a r e n t e c o n o m i c O c c u p a t i o n N u m b e r o f C h i l d r e n In d ivid u al In stitu tio n a l N a t i v e L a n g u a g e A s p i r a t i o n s D e g r e e s E a r n e d S c h o o l A t t e n d e d G r a d e P e r f o r m a n c e Cultural/ Social Capital L a n g u a g e P r o f i c i e n c y A b i l i t y t o P a y S o c i a l C l a s s P a r e n t E d u c a t i o n Interaction with Environment (Social and Academic Integration) Social I n v o l v e m e n t i n e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s P e e r - g r o u p r e l a t i o n s i n f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h f a c u l t y F r e q u e n c y o f i n f o r m a l c o n t a c t w i t h s t a f f t o d i s c u s s c a m p u s i s s u e s , s o c i a l i z e i n f o r m a l l y , o r r e s o l v e a p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m A c a d e m i c F r e s h m e n g r a d e p o i n t a v e r a g e A c a d e m i c a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t F a c u l t y c o n c e r n f o r t e a c h i n g a n d s t u d e n t d e v e l o p m e n t I n f o r m a l c o n t a c t w i t h s t a f f t o o b t a i n a d v i c e a n d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t a c a d e m i c p r o g r a m D i s c u s s i o n o f i n t e l l e c t u a l m a t t e r s a n d c a r e e r p r o g r a m w ith ctaff Resulting Variables I n t e l l e c t u a l D e v e l o p m e n t G r a d e P e r f o r m a n c e F a m i l y S u p p o r t N o r m a t i v e C o n g r u e n c e Advance Bases IGETC Modules 1 . E n g l i s h 2 . M a t h e m a t i c s 3 . T w o o f f o u r m o d u l e s 4 . L a s t t w o m o d u l e s Figure 17. Conceptual Model of Transfer Readiness for Asian Students in Community Colleges Transfer Readiness 71 and the resulting variables that influence their persistence behavior, this study attempted to answer the following research questions 1. What are the correlates o f success for Asian community college students? 2. How does transfer readiness differ among various Asian groups? 3. How do transfer-readiness rates o f Asian students compare to those o f other ethnic groups o f students? The research questions generated the following hypotheses: 1. Factors having significant effect on transfer readiness are: (a) entering student characteristics, (b) cultural/social capital, (c) social and academic integration, and (d) variables resulting from the intersections of these factors. 2. Differences in transfer-readiness rates are significantly related to differences among the various Asian groups. 3. Significant differences exist between the transfer-readiness rates of Asian students and other ethnic groups of students. Research Design This study is a secondary analysis of data that has been gathered through the TRUCCS Project. The description of the research population is taken directly from LACCD reports produced by the research team (Hagedom et al., 1999). The sample consists of 4,967 students from the nine LACCD campuses; in which the sample for this study pertains to 570 Asian students. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 Regression analysis and one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to study the intersecting effects of variables that influence student persistence. The dependent variable, student persistence was measured by transfer readiness rates as determined by the conceptual framework “The All American Game''’ (Hagedom, 2003). Using a baseball metaphor, transfer readiness was determined by “bases advanced” and equates program completion and student readiness to transfer with a “homerun.” The independent variables are the characteristics which Asian students enter the institutions with such as native language, educational aspirations, degrees earned, parent education, parent occupation, number of children, wage earners, martial status, previous school attended, and GPA. These independent variables were studied as to their interaction with environmental variables such as cultural and social capital leading to institutional integration that produces the resulting variables to result in “base advancement.” A multiple regression analysis studied the factors hypothesized to be correlates of success for Asian students in higher education. One-way ANOVAs studied both the differences between Asian students’ transfer readiness and that of other ethnic groups of students as well as the within group variance among Asian students. This method allowed for an analysis of the descriptive of frequencies of the variables selected to study the correlates of student persistence. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 Population and Sample The sample of Asian students was drawn from the data collected by the TRUCCS Project. Five subgroups: Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Koreans and Southeast Asians, comprise the sample. The ethnic breakdown of the sample include: Chinese n = 167; Filipinos « = 157; Japanese, n = 85; Koreans n = 68; Southeast Asians n = 93; Total n = 570 Instrumentation A 47-item questionnaire was developed by the TRUCCS Project research team specifically for an urban campus with significant student diversity and large numbers of non-native English speakers. The survey instrument was administered to 5,000 students from nine colleges within the LACCD. Participating classrooms were identified through a stratified random sampling method that relied heavily on three levels of English courses (two levels below transfer, one level below transfer, and transfer level), occupational programs stratified by gender, remedial courses, academic credit courses, learning communities, and traditional gateway courses. In addition, the project acquired transcript data from LACCD for all students who had signed the requisite consent forms (96% of the sample). The final sample consisted R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 of 4,967 LACCD students who participated in the TRUCCS survey and for whom transcript data could be assessed. Data Collection This study is a secondary analysis of data that has been gathered, analyzed and validated through the TRUCCS Project. The description of the research population is taken directly from reports produced by the TRUCCS research team (Hagedom et al., 2002). The final sample for the project consisted of 4,967 students representing all nine college campuses within the LACCD. A population of 570 Asian students was extracted from that sample for this study. Data Analysis This study used both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics to investigate the existence and extent of relationships among selected variables. Descriptive analysis including frequencies, means and standard deviations for the dependent variable that is transfer readiness used to determine student success will be measured by the TRUCCS Project metaphor of “advancing bases.” Statistical analysis was conducted by using SPSS software for PCs. Regression analysis was used to isolate the correlates that contribute to student success. One-way ANOVAS was used to determine if there are significant differences between the academic success of Asian students and other ethnic groups and if there are in-group differences among the five Asian student subgroups. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Introduction This chapter presents the results and interpretations of the statistical analyses in the context of the research questions presented in chapter 1. Statistical findings are interpreted in relation to the extent to which they support or fail to support the research hypothesis. The first section of the chapter presents a descriptive profile of the population under study. The second presents construct validity and reliability with the principal component analysis of each measure. The third section examines the correlations and relationships among observed variables. The fourth section presents the results of the regression analysis and one-way analysis of covariance (ANOVA) to determine if the results support the hypothesis that there are specific factors and differences that affect the transfer readiness of Asian students. The fifth section addresses answers to the research questions. Descriptive Statistics The sample comprises of 570 Asian students enrolled in credit and noncredit courses at nine colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District. This sample was drawn from the larger TRUCCS data of approximately 5,000 students. Female respondents outnumbered male respondents by approximately 60%. Further disaggregation of the statistical data is detailed in the (a) Age, (b) Parent Occupation, (c) Parent Education, (d) Parent Occupation Status Scores, (e) Wage Earners, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 (f) Native Language, (g) Immigration, (h) Degrees, (i) Aspirations, (j) Children in Household, (k) Marital Status, and (1) Grade Point Average tables. Age According to table 4, Filipino and Korean students tend to be younger while Southeast Asian students tend to be older. The majority of the students are between 21 to 24-years old with approximately half of the Japanese students in this age group. T a b l e 4 . Descriptive Statistics o f the Sample Population A g e E t h n i c 5 5 o r g r o u p 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 2 1 - 2 4 2 5 - 2 9 3 0 - 3 9 4 0 - 5 4 m o r e M i s s i n g C h i n e s e . 6 % 7 . 2 % 9 . 6 % 3 7 . 7 % 1 6 . 8 % 1 8 . 6 % 7 . 2 % 2 . 4 % 0 % ( « = 1 6 7 ) F i l i p i n o . 6 % 3 . 2 % 1 3 . 4 % 1 6 . 6 % 3 1 . 2 % 1 1 . 5 % 8 . 9 % 1 2 . 7 % 1 . 9 % 0 % ( « = 1 5 7 ) J a p a n e s e 5 . 9 % 5 . 9 . 0 % 4 8 . 2 % 1 7 . 6 % 1 6 . 5 % 4 . 7 % 1 . 2 % 0 % ( n = 8 5 ) K o r e a n 1 . 5 % 11 . 8 % 1 0 . 3 % 2 5 . 0 % 2 5 . 0 % 11 . 8 % 1 3 . 2 % 1 . 5 % 0 % (n = 68 ) S . E . A s i a n 2 . 2 % 1 2 . 9 % 1 2 . 9 % 1 8 . 3 % 2 0 . 4 % 1 5 . 1 % 1 5 . 1 % 3 . 2 % 0 % ( n = 9 3 ) Occupation Table 5 describes the types of jobs held by Asian parents. Both Filipino parents tend to have lower rates of unemployment. A large percentage of Filipino parents appear to be in the professional field while a larger percentage of Korean and Southeast Asian mothers, and Chinese and Korean fathers tend to own small businesses. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T a b l e 5 . Descriptive Statistics o f the Sample Population P a r e n t o c c u p a t i o n : M o t h e r E t h n i c g r o u p R e t i r e d D a y l a b o r e r W o r k e r / h o u r l y e m p l o y e r F a c t o r y w o r k e r S k i l l e d t r a d e s w o m a n S u p e r v i s o r / m a n a g e r S m a l l b u s i n e s s o w n e r P r o f e s s i o n a l F l o u s e w o r k e r U n e m p l o y e d / w e l f a r e D o n ’ t k n o w M i s s i n g C h i n e s e 9 . 6 % 3 . 6 % 7 . 2 % 6 . 6 % 4 . 2 % 3 . 6 % 9 . 6 % 12 . 6 % 2 3 . 4 % 1. 2 % 7 . 2 % 11. 0 % (n = 1 6 7 ) F i l i p i n o 1 . 3 % 5 . 7 % 1 5 . 9 % . 6 % 1 1 . 5 % 5 . 1 % 7 . 0 % 2 2 . 9 % 12 . 1 % . 6 % 4 . 5 % 1 2 . 7 % (n = 1 5 7 ) J a p a n e s e 4 . 7 % 2 . 4 % 11. 8% 2 . 4 % 8 . 2 % 2 . 4 % 9 . 4 % 1 5 . 3 % 2 5 . 3 % 2 . 4 % 3 . 5 % 1 1 . 7 % ( n = 8 5 ) K o r e a n 8 . 8 % 2 . 9 % 11 . 8% 2 . 9 % 7 . 4 % 1 . 5 % 2 3 . 5 % 4 . 4 % 1 9 . 1 % 2 . 9 % 1 4 . 7 % ( n = 68 ) S . E A s i a n 4 . 3 % 4 . 3 % 8 . 6 % 3 . 2 % 3 . 2 % 2 . 2 % 2 1 . 5 % 7 . 5 % 1 7 . 2 % 8 . 6 % 7 . 9 % ( « = 9 3 ) P a r e n t o c c u p a t i o n : F a t h e r W o r k e r / S k i l l e d S m a l l D o n ’ t E t h n i c D a y h o u r l y F a c t o r y t r a d e s S u p e r v i s o r / b u s i n e s s U n e m p l o y e d / k n o w M i s s i n g g r o u p R e t i r e d l a b o r e r e m p l o y e r w o r k e r w o m a n m a n a g e r o w n e r P r o f e s s i o n a l H o u s e w o r k e r w e l f a r e C h i n e s e 8 . 4 % 3 . 0 % 6 . 0 % 6 . 6 % 6 . 6 % 1 1 . 4 % 21 . 0 % 1 3 . 2 % . 6 % 1 0 . 5 % 1 4 % (n= 1 6 7 ) F i l i p i n o 5 . 7 % 5 . 1 % 1 1 . 5 % 1 . 9 % 10 . 8% 6 . 4 % 10 . 8 % 2 6 . 1 % . 6 % 8 . 9 % 12% (n = 1 5 7 ) J a p a n e s e 4 . 7 % 5 . 9 % 2 . 4 % 1 2 . 9 % 1 6 . 5 % 1 4 . 1 % 2 5 . 9 % 1. 2 % 5 . 9 % 1 0 . 5 % (n = 8 5 ) K o r e a n 1 4 . 7 % 1 . 5 % 7 . 4 % 1 . 5 % 1 3 . 2 % 5 . 9 % 20 . 6 % 1 9 . 1 % 2 . 9 % 1 6 % (n = 68 ) S . E A s i a n 7 . 5 % 5 . 4 % 10 . 8% 5 . 4 % 6 . 5 % 7 . 5 % 1 6 . 1 % 9 . 7 % 1. 1 % 1 4 . 0 % 7 . 5 % ( " = 9 3 ) — 1 - 4 T a b l e 6 . Descriptive Statistics o f th e Sample Population 78 S 3 O D ' 'o E ^ o o S j c C / 5 Ji E M c O o O ° u B & B g R o 2 G b b p J oo O X 00 fcb 00 A 5 ) O '- '? v ® sO C T 1 O' ©' ^ in Tt * —1 c o r t n © y- yw vO \0 yO o'- O ' 0 s O ' o ' (N ^ N O 7 © »/S 00 1/0 O S ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ( N < 0 ( N O N C N T t oo oo i n r-i N ® S ® V ® N ® N ® o- o- ©' — o ' O 0 0 N ^ M sO \0 sO yO yp 0 s- O ' 0 s- O ' o ' r j oo O; N O o N r i o y© y © yp yp yp o'- O ' o ' O ' o ' 0 0 © ON p T f i n o r i \® vP S ® - y ® N ® 0 5 - - C © - C © ' ( N N O 00 O n »0 ^ oo r i yp y © y© y© yp O' O' O' O- O' c o o ' t o n n (N ^ y© y © yp y© y © O ' O ' O ' O'- 0 s vo oo r - r r « N ® -P yO y© y © o - O ' O ' o ' © ' 0 0 •— O n 0 0 i / S o n i / S ■ y© y © y© y© y © o ' o ' o - O ' o - < n n >n ^ w o S 12 00 oo H I I I I “ I S ' S ' - S - T T - s | w O C /3 — K S > is ,s s S < E 0 - 3 a ■ x = f t q W O £ > 5 ^ 00 1 L u H o 3 T 3 c d O h § ° o £ 'O < L> 0 ) 'O o' p j a O ^ % ^ 0 0 < 5 0 ) * 3 « 2 o S ^ o -a § o b o a B & B : B S > B g 8 9 2 O 5b W c/5 a x B o C/5 £ 3 jq £ ’ & 5 00 A ^ ^ £ £ n oo q q >o i / S r o c m ^ s ? ^ ^ 2 oo on i/S ' y© y© y © O' O' O' (N (N r j T f — N ® s© S ® --P s® O ' © ' © ' © ' © ' OO 'O — o q i 1 o n y© y© y© y© N° o ' © ' © ' © ' © ' (S rf q N f O r f i / i r n T t n ? " - P - - P '? '? o ' o ' O ' O ' O ' p p p cn i/S rj- oo -P V ® -P 'P -P O' O' O' o ' o ' ^ ( N ( N d ; > i/S © CO O n y© y© y© yp yp o ' o ' o ' o ' o ' (N ON OO <N p N O 00 00 N O 00 yp yp y© y© y © o ' o ' o ' o ' O ' O 0 0 ( N ' t p O n r*S OO C''~ 0 0 y© y© y© y© yO © '© '© '© '© ' ' t co m q q oo r*S — <N d - £ P CS ON o ~ yO y© O' o' ON p lO N O £5I8s?8 l l k ~ k a f 8 f J « -5 c S i 5 5 c as 2< 3 9 * Q u a , u w R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 Education As shown by table 6, more Filipino mothers appear to hold 4-year degrees, some graduate degrees, and graduate degrees while more Japanese fathers appear to have 4-year degrees. More Filipino fathers appear to have graduate degrees. Compared to the other Asian ethnic groups, a larger proportion of Chinese mothers and fathers tend to have below an eighth grade education. Socioeconomic Status Table 7 provides a breakdown by ethnicity of the occupational status scores of both the Asian mothers and fathers. The occupational status scores are taken from the 1990 and 1980 Nam-Powers-Terrie Occupational Status Scores. This scale was first developed in the 1950s and has been revised each decade thereafter to provide a consistently defined and current set of measures of the socio-economic status of detailed census occupations. The 1990 and 1980 Occupational Status Scores contains newly calculated scores for 505 occupations classified in the 1990 U. S. Census. Very high comparability was found between the 1980 and 1990 occupational classification systems and the scores of both decades are presented in the Nam- Powers-Terrie paper. Steps in calculating the scores include arraying the occupations according to median educational and median income levels and determining the cumulative number of persons in each occupation below the specific occupation for each of the above two arrays to rank them. The average of the midpoints of the two cumulative intervals that is divided by the total number of persons in all occupations R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 and multiplying by 100 results in the score for the particular occupation. The higher the score determines the higher the occupational status of the parents. Using this measure, Filipino mothers appear to have the highest scores in occupational status and Southeast Asian parents appear to have the lowest occupation status scores. Both Southeast Asian mothers and fathers were found to have the highest percentage in the lowest occupation score (less than 5) at 29% and 47%, respectively. Wage Earners Table 8 describes the statistics for students as primary wage earners and shows that although a large percentage of students appear to support themselves while attending school (33.5% to 49%), the primary wage earners of a larger number of students are their partners and guardians (44% to 54%). More Southeast Asian students appear to be the primary wage earners while attending school and more Filipino students appear to have partners and guardians as primary wage earners while attending school. T a b l e 8 . Descriptive Statistics o f the Sample Population E t h n i c g r o u p Y o u r s e l f P a r t n e r / s p o u s e W a g e e a r n e r s P a r t n e r s / C h i l d r e n / g u a r d i a n s s t e p c h i l d r e n O t h e r M i s s i n g C h i n e s e (n = 1 6 7 ) 3 3 . 5 % 2 4 . 6 % 4 9 . 7 % 0 . 0 % 3 . 6 % 0 % F i l i p i n o ( n = 1 5 7 ) 4 0 . 1 % 1 9 . 7 % 5 4 . 0 % 2 . 5 % 4 . 5 % 0 % J a p a n e s e (n = 8 5 ) 3 8 . 8 % 1 4 . 1 % 5 0 . 6 % 0 . 0 % 8 . 2 % 0 % K o r e a n ( n = 68 ) 4 5 . 6 % 20 . 6 % 5 1 . 5 % 1 . 5 % 4 . 4 % 0 % S . E . A s i a n (n - 9 3 ) 4 9 . 5 % 1 8 . 3 % 4 4 . 1 % 1 . 1% 6 . 5 % 0 % R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 English Language As indicated by Table 9, it appears English is not the native language for a majority of the Asian students. In comparing the groups, it appears English is the native language for one-third of Japanese students whereas it appears 81.4% of Chinese students report English is not their native language. Only 8.4% of Chinese students report their native language as English. T a b l e 9 . Descriptive Statistics o f the Sample Population N a t i v e l a n g u a g e : I s E n g l i s h y o u r n a t i v e l a n g u a g e ? E t h n i c g r o u p No Y e s M i s s i n g C h i n e s e (n = 1 6 7 ) 8 1 . 4 % 8 . 4 % 10 . 0 % F i l i p i n o (n = 1 5 7 ) 66 . 2 % 2 8 . 7 % 5 . 0 % J a p a n e s e (n = 8 5 ) 68 . 2 % 3 0 . 6 % 1. 1% K o r e a n (n = 68 ) 7 3 . 5 % 2 3 . 5 % 2 . 9 % S . E . A s i a n (n = 9 3 ) 7 7 . 4 % 1 6 . 1 % 6 . 4 % Immigration Table 10 measures immigration by student’s school attendance and shows less than half of the students appear to have attended schools in the USA. Of the Asian student groups, Southeast Asian students appear to be the largest group attending USA schools and consist of 40.9% of the population. This table also shows a large number of Asian students appear to have attended high school in another country with over half of the Chinese and Japanese students appearing to have attended high school in another country. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 Table 10. Descriptive Statistics o f the Sample Population I m m i g r a t i o n p e r s c h o o l a t t e n d a n c e E t h n i c g r o u p I n U S A E l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l i n o t h e r c o u n t r y J u n i o r h i g h i n o t h e r c o u n t r y H i g h s c h o o l i n a n o t h e r c o u n t r y C h i n e s e (n = 1 6 7 ) 2 5 . 0 % 6 . 0 % 1 3 . 2 % 5 5 . 7 % F i l i p i n o (n = 1 5 7 3 8 . 2 % 1 4 . 0 % 9 . 6 % 3 8 . 2 % J a p a n e s e ( n = 8 5 ) 3 2 . 9 % 9 . 4 % 5 7 . 6 % K o r e a n ( n = 68 ) 3 9 . 7 % 5 . 9 % 8 . 8 % 4 5 . 6 % S . E . A s i a n ( n = 9 3 ) 4 0 . 9 % 6 . 5 % 11 . 8% 4 0 . 9 % Degrees According to table 11, with the exception of Southeast Asian students, Asian students appear to have a higher percentage of foreign degrees than American degrees. This table highlights over three-quarters to nine-tenths of the Asian student population does not tend to have American degrees. In total, from this table, it seems that less than one-quarter of this student group have degrees of either type, foreign or American. T a b l e 1 1 . Descriptive Statistics o f the Sample Population D e g r e e s : A m e r i c a n a n d f o r e i g n # A m e r i c a n E t h n i c g r o u p d e g r e e A m e r i c a n d e g r e e N o f o r e i g n d e g r e e F o r e i g n d e g r e e C h i n e s e (n = 1 6 7 ) 8 2 . 0 % 1 8 . 0 % 7 1 . 9 % 2 8 . 1 % F i l i p i n o (n = 1 5 7 9 2 . 4 % 7 . 6 % 8 3 . 4 % 1 6 . 6 % J a p a n e s e (n = 8 5 ) 8 1 . 2 % 1 8 . 8 % 7 8 . 8 % 21 . 2 % K o r e a n (n = 68 ) 8 5 . 3 % 1 4 . 7 % 7 5 . 0 % 2 5 % S . E . A s i a n ( n = 9 3 ) 7 9 . 6 % 2 0 . 4 % 8 0 . 6 % 1 9 . 4 % Student Aspirations Within this sample, table 12 reveals the following: more Southeast Asian students seem to aspire to obtaining a bachelor’s degree, more Chinese students seem R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 to aspire to obtaining a masters degree, and more Filipino students seem to aspire to obtaining doctoral degrees. A larger proportion of Japanese and Korean students were noted to enrolling in courses that did not result in acquiring a degree. Finally, a larger number of Japanese students appear to obtain only an associate degree. T a b l e 1 2 . Descriptive Statistics o f the Sample Population S t u d e n t a s p i r a t i o n s E t h n i c g r o u p T a k e c l a s s e s / n o d e g r e e V o c c e r t A s s o c i a t e B a c h e l o r ’ s M a y b e : : B a c h e l o r s M a s t e r ’ s D o c t o r a t e C h i n e s e ( n = 1 6 7 ) 1. 2 % . 6 % 12. 6 % 12 . 6 % 2 5 . 1 % 3 1 . 7 % 1 5 . 6 % F i l i p i n o (n = 1 5 7 1 . 3 % . 6 % 3 . 2 % 1 3 . 4 % 2 5 . 5 % 2 8 . 0 % 2 6 . 1 % J a p a n e s e ( n = 8 5 ) 2 . 4 % 20 . 0 % 1 4 . 1 % 10 . 6 % 3 0 . 6 % 21 . 2 % K o r e a n (n = 68 ) 4 . 4 % 2 . 9 % 5 . 9 % 11 . 8 % 2 9 . 4 % 1 9 . 1 % 2 5 . 0 % S . E . A s i a n (n = 9 3 ) 1. 1% 1 . 1% 5 . 4 % 1 7 . 2 % 3 0 . 1 % 1 9 . 4 % 2 1 . 5 % Number o f Children in Household As presented by table 13, a high proportion of Southeast Asian students appear to be from families with five or more children or stepchildren in the household. On the other hand, 84% of Japanese students tend to be from smaller families or are living in families with no children. One-third of the Korean students appear to be from families with one to two children or stepchildren in the household. Fewer Chinese students appear to be from families with five or more children or stepchildren. Marital Status According to table 14, approximately three-quarters of the students are unmarried. The largest unmarried student group appears to be the Japanese students R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 Table 13. Descriptive Statistics o f the Sample Population N u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n / s t e p c h i l d r e n i n h o u s e h o l d E t h n i c g r o u p s N o n e 1-2 3 - 4 5 o r m o r e M i s s i n g C h i n e s e ( n = 1 6 7 ) 7 3 . 7 % 1 6 . 8 % 6 . 0 % . 6 % 2 . 9 % F i l i p i n o (n = 1 5 7 ) 6 1 . 1 % 21 % 7 . 6 % 1 . 9 % 8 . 2 % J a p a n e s e (n = 8 5 ) 8 4 . 7 % 10 . 6 % 1. 2 % 1 . 2 % 2 . 3 % K o r e a n ( n = 68 ) 66 . 2 % 3 0 . 9 % 1 . 5 % 1 . 5 % 0 . 0 % S . E . A s i a n (n = 9 3 ) 6 6 . 7 % 1 7 . 2 % 8 . 6 % 5 . 4 % 2 . 1% (95.3%) compared to Southeast Asians who appear to be the largest married student group (23.7%). T a b l e 1 4 . Descriptive Statistics o f the Sample Population M a r t i a l s t a t u s : A r e y o u c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d ? E t h n i c g r o u p s No Y e s M i s s i n g C h i n e s e ( « = 1 6 7 ) 7 8 . 4 % 21 . 6 % 0 % F i l i p i n o (n = 1 5 7 ) 7 9 . 6 % 2 0 . 4 % 0 % J a p a n e s e (n = 8 5 ) 9 5 . 3 % 4 . 7 % 0 % K o r e a n (n = 68 ) 8 0 . 9 % 1 9 . 1 % 0 % S . E . A s i a n (n = 9 3 ) 7 5 . 3 % 2 3 . 7 % 0 % High School Grade Point Average From table 15, it appears that the Chinese and Southeast Asian students have the highest grade-point-average with 13.2% and 14.3% respectively obtaining A’s, and 15% and 15.1%, respectively obtaining A minuses. Japanese students tend to have the lowest grade point average with 4.7% of them having grades of D or lower. In comparison, Chinese and Filipino students did not appear to have grades of D or lower. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 Table 15. Descriptive Statistics o f the Sample Population H i g h s c h o o l g r a d e p o i n t a v e r a g e E t h n i c g r o u p s D o r l o w e r C - C C + B - B B + A - A M i s s i n g C h i n e s e (n = 1 6 7 ) 1. 8% 8 . 4 % 7 . 8 % 1 5 . 6 % 1 7 . 4 % 1 8 . 6 % 1 5 . 0 % 1 3 . 2 % 2 . 3 % F i l i p i n o (n = 1 5 7 ) 1 . 3 % 6 . 4 % 8 . 3 % 2 6 . 1 % 2 2 . 9 % 1 9 . 1 % 10 . 2 % 4 . 5 1 . 3 % J a p a n e s e in = 8 5 ) 4 . 7 % 2 . 4 % 9 . 4 % 9 . 4 % 21 . 2 % 1 6 . 5 % 1 7 . 6 % 1 2 . 9 % 5 . 9 % 0 % K o r e a n (n = 68 ) 1 . 5 % 5 . 9 % 5 . 9 % 1 3 . 2 % 1 4 . 7 % 1 4 . 7 % 1 9 . 1 % 1 3 . 2 % 1 0 . 3 % 1 . 5 % S . E . A s i a n (n = 9 3 ) 1. 1 % 1. 1 % 9 . 7 % 7 . 5 % 1 6 . 1 % 1 8 . 3 % 1 5 . 1 % 1 5 . 1 % 1 4 . 3 % 2 . 2 % Reliability o f Data Construct validity of the independent variables chosen in this study has been established as reliable through prior research examined by Dr. Linda Serra Hagedom and used in the 2002 TRUCCS study and determined to be valid (Table 16). Item Selection Used to Hypothecate the Model for Student Transfer Readiness Rates outlines the structure of the intersecting constructs to be studied as they correlate to the survey items and transcript data from the TRUCCS project. Five constructs are analyzed, four independent and one dependent. The four independent constructs are represented by 20 variables and three factors and are presented in Table 17, Constructs and Their Factors. Reliability of survey items and scales was established at a Cronbach alpha > 0.7. To test for construct validity of the factors, an exploratory factor analysis was used to establish the inter-relationships among sets of variables and at which a principal components analysis was performed using a Varimax rotation. Only items with factor loadings greater than .3 in absolute value were retained. The factors were R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T a b l e 1 6 . Item Selection Used to Hypothecate the Model fo r Student Transfer Readiness 87 Constructs 1. Entering Characteristics 2. Social and Cultural Capital 3. Social and Academic Integration 4. Resulting Variables 5. Dependent Variable 1 . E n t e r i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s T R U C C S Q # I t e m d e t a i l s N a t i v e l a n g u a g e Q 2 0 I s E n g l i s h y o u r n a t i v e l a n g u a g e ? A s p i r a t i o n Q 1 2 a I f t h e r e a r e n o o b s t a c l e s , w h a t i s t h e h i g h e s t a c a d e m i c d e g r e e y o u w o u l d l i k e t o e a r n ? D e g r e e s e a r n e d D e g r e e 1 D e g r e e 2 U . S F o r e i g n N u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n Q 3 H o w m a n y c h i l d r e n / s t e p c h i l d r e n l i v i n g i n h o u s e h o l d W a g e e a r n e r s Q 3 2 1 W h o i s t h e p r i m a r y w a g e e a r n e r M a r i t a l s t a t u s Q 3 1 A r e y o u c u r r e n t l y m a r r i e d ? I m m i g r a t i o n I m m i g r a n t S c h o o l a t t e n d e d H i g h S c h o o l G P A Q 2 4 A v e r a g e g r a d e i n h i g h s c h o o l A G E a g e c l e n 3 A g e a s o f D e c e m b e r 3 1 s t 2 . S o c i a l a n d c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l L a n g p r o f a c t o r F a c t o r l o a d i n g L a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y z Q 1 9 - 2 . 8 6 1 H o w w e l l a b l e t o w r i t e i n E n g l i s h z Q 1 9 - 5 . 8 2 6 H o w w e l l a b l e t o w r i t e a n e s s a y i n E n g l i s h z Q 1 9 6 . 8 0 6 H o w w e l l a b l e t o w r i t e a t e r m p a p e r i n E n g l i s h z Q 1 9 3 . 8 0 1 H o w w e l l a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d a c o l l e g e l e c t u r e i n E n g z Q 1 9 1 . 8 0 0 H o w w e l l a b l e t o r e a d i n E n g l i s h z Q 1 9 4 . 7 9 1 H o w w e l l a b l e t o r e a d a c o l l e g e t e x t b o o k i n E n g l i s h Z Q 1 9 _ 7 . 7 6 4 H o w w e l l a b l e t o u s e E n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s z Q 1 9 _ 8 . 7 5 1 H o w w e l l a b l e t o c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h t h e i n s t r u c t o r s z Q 1 6 _ 7 o p - . 7 4 6 U n d e r s t a n d i n g E n g i s a p r o b l e m i n g e t t i n g a c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n z Q 1 7 2 . 6 4 6 H o w o f t e n c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h f r i e n d s i n E n g l i s h z Q 1 7 _ 1 . 6 4 0 H o w o f t e n c o m m u n i c a t e w i t h p a r e n t s i n E n g l i s h z Q l _ 1 8 o p - . 5 4 3 L e a r n E n g l i s h f o r w o r k z Q 1 8 _ l o p - . 4 8 3 H o w o f t e n u s e a l a n g u a g e o t h e r t h a n E n g l i s h w / p a r e n t z Q 1 8 _ 2 o p - . 4 8 1 H o w o f t e n u s e a l a n g u a g e o t h e r t h a n E n g l i s h w / f r i e n d s A b i l i t y t o P a y Q 1 6 5 H o w l a r g e a p r o b l e m i s p a y i n g f o r c o l l e g e e x p e c t e d t o g e t t i n g a c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n S o c i a l C l a s s s o c l a s s H i g h e r o f t h e M O S S a n d F O S S v a r i a b l e s P a r e n t E d u c a t i o n Q 4 1 1 Q 4 1 _ 2 M o t h e r h i g h e s t l e v e l o f f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n F a t h e r h i g h e s t l e v e l o f f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n 3 . I n t e g r a t i o n S o c i n t e r f a c t o r F a c t o r l o a d i n g S o c i a l z Q l 1 4 . 7 0 9 F r i e n d s a t t e n d h e r e z Q l 5 . 6 7 2 C o l l e g e h a s g o o d s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s z Q 2 . 5 9 8 N u m b e r o f c l o s e f r i e n d s a t t e n d h e r e z Q l 8 . 5 6 9 H i g h s c h o o l o r o t h e r c o u n s e l i n g a d v i s e z Q l O 9 . 5 2 6 D e v e l o p c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s w i t h n e w s t u d e n t s R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 Table 16 (continued). 3 . I n t e g r a t i o n S o c i n t e r f a c t o r F a c t o r l o a d i n g I t e m d e t a i l s z Q 1 4 2 . 4 7 3 P h o n e o r e m a i l a n o t h e r s t u d e n t a b o u t s t u d i e s z Q 1 5 7 . 4 3 1 S t u d y w i t h s t u d e n t s f r o m t h i s c o u r s e z Q l O 3 . 4 2 9 P l a y v a r s i t y / i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e a t h l e t i c s z Q 1 5 8 . 3 6 9 S t u d y w i t h s t u d e n t s f r o m o t h e r c o u r s e s z Q l O 10 . 3 4 3 T a l k r e g u l a r l y w i t h a n i n s t r u c t o r a t t h i s c o l l e g e z Q 3 7 1 . 3 1 9 T e a c h e r s e n c o u r a g e m e i n m y s t u d i e s z Q 1 3 _ 6 . 3 1 1 S t u d y i n s m a l l g r o u p s o u t s i d e o f c l a s s A c a d e m i c a c a i n t e r f a c t o r f a c t o r l o a d i n g z Q 1 3 2 . 7 2 6 T a l k w i t h i n s t r u c t o r s b e f o r e o r a f t e r s c h o o l z Q 1 3 5 . 7 1 0 H e l p a n o t h e r s t u d e n t u n d e r s t a n d h o m e w o r k z Q 1 3 3 . 6 8 1 T a l k t o i n s t r u c t o r d u r i n g o f f i c e h o u r s z Q 1 4 3 . 6 5 1 A s k i n s t r u c t o r q u e s t i o n s z Q 1 3 7 . 6 3 9 S p e a k w i t h a n a c a d e m i c c o u n s e l o r z Q 1 3 6 . 6 2 3 S t u d y i n s m a l l g r o u p s o u t s i d e o f c l a s s z Q l O 2 . 3 8 9 G r a d u a t e w i t h h o n o r s 4 . R e s u l t i n g V a r i a b l e s z Q 1 5 _ 8 T R U C C S Q # G P A . 3 2 9 S t u d y w i t h s t u d e n t s f r o m o t h e r c o u r s e s G r a d e P e r f o r m a n c e G r a d e - p o i n t - a v e r a g e i n c o l l e g e I n t e l l e c t u a l D e v e l o p m e n t I n t e l d e v C o m p o s i t e o f M a t h a n d S c i e n c e s c o r e s F a m i l y S u p p o r t Q i J P a r e n t s w a n t m e t o c o m e h e r e N o r m a t i v e C o n g r u e n c e Q 3 7 _ 1 8 S e n s e o f b e l o n g i n g 5 . D e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e T r a n s f e r R e a d i n e s s t o t i g e t c T o t a l o f I G E T C b a s e s a d v a n c e d R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 Table 17. Constructs and Their Factors V a r i a b l e s N a m e C o n s t r u c t s N a t i v e L a n g u a g e l a n g u a g e A s p i r a t i o n s a s p i r a t i o n D e g r e e s e a r n e d d e g 1, d e g 2 N u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n c h i l d r e n W a g e e a r n e r s e a r n i n g s M a r i t a l s t a t u s m a r i t a l I m m i g r a t i o n i m m i g r a t H i g h s c h o o l G P A h s g p a A g e a g e c l e n 3 a g e L a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y l a n g p r o A b i l i t y t o p a y a b i l i t y p a y S o c i a l c l a s s s o c l a s s P a r e n t e d u c a t i o n p a r e n t e d S o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n s o c i n t e r A c a d e m i c i n t e g r a t i o n a c a i n t e r G r a d e p e r f o r m a n c e G P A I n t e l l e c t u a l d e v e l o p m e n t I n t e l d e v F a m i l y s u p p o r t p a r e n t s w a n t N o r m a t i v e c o n g r u e n c e b e l o n g i n T r a n s f e r r e a d i n e s s t o t i g e t c E n t e r i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s S o c i a l a n d c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l I n t e g r a t i o n R e s u l t i n g v a r i a b l e s S t u d e n t o u t c o m e chosen on the basis of eigenvalues, percent of variance explained and interpretability of the factors. Factor analysis of the social and cultural capital construct indicated several items loaded on four factors. One factor named language proficiency was extracted from this analysis and retained. This factor accounted for 13% of the variance. Table 18, Language Proficiency presents the factor loading and the percentage of variance explained. Factor analysis of the integration construct indicated several items loaded on two different factors. Two factors named social integration and academic integration R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 Table 18. Language Proficiency R o t a t e d c o m p o n e n t m a t r i x C o m p o n e n t 1.000 W r i t e .861 W r i t e a n e s s a y e x a m .826 U n d e r s t a n d a c o l l e g e l e c t u r e .806 W r i t e a t e r m p a p e r .801 R e a d .800 R e a d a c o l l e g e t e x t b o o k .791 P a r t i c i p a t e i n c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n s .764 C o m m u n i c a t e w i t h i n s t r u c t o r s .751 U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e .746 C o m m u n i c a t e w i t h f r i e n d s .646 C o m m u n i c a t e w i t h p a r e n t s .640 L e a m E n g l i s h f o r w o r k -.543 O t h e r l a n g u a g e w i t h p a r e n t s -.483 O t h e r l a n g u a g e w i t h f r i e n d s -.483 E xtraction M ethod: Principal C om ponent Analysis. R otation M ethod: V arim ax w ith K aiser N orm alization, a R otation converged in 5 iterations. C o m p o n e n t R o t a t i o n s u m s o f s q u a r e d l o a d i n g s % o f C u m u l a t i v e T o t a l V a r i a n c e % 1 8 . 1 3 7 1 3 . 3 4 0 1 3 . 3 4 0 2 7 . 4 5 1 1 2 . 2 1 4 2 5 . 5 5 4 3 4 . 0 0 9 6 . 5 7 2 3 2 . 1 2 5 4 3 . 5 4 2 5 . 8 0 6 3 7 . 9 3 2 E x t r a c t i o n m e t h o d : P r i n c i p a l c o m p o n e n t a n a l y s i s were retained that accounted for 31% of the variance. Table 19, Social and Academic Integration, presents the factor loading and the percentage of variance explained. Reliability analysis of items in the factor supported the scale to be reliable and have high internal consistency reliabilities with alpha ratings between a = .74 to a - .93 and is presented in Table 20. The variable social class was derived from the highest of the MOSS and FOSS score. The use of MOSS and FOSS is taken from the 1990 and 1980 Nam- R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 Table 19. Social and Academic Integration R o t a t e d c o m p o n e n t m a t r i x ( a ) C o m p o n e n t 1 2 Z s c o r e : T a l k w / i n s t r u c t o r b e f o r e / a f t e r c l a s s . 7 2 6 Z s c o r e : H e l p a n o t h e r s t u d e n t u n d e r s t a n d h o m e w o r k . 7 1 0 Z s c o r e : T a l k w i t h i n s t r u c t o r d u r i n g o f f i c e h o u r s . 6 8 1 Z s c o r e : A s k t h e i n s t r u c t o r q u e s t i o n s . 6 5 1 Z s c o r e : S p e a k w i t h a n a c a d e m i c c o u n s e l o r . 6 3 9 Z s c o r e : S t u d y i n s m a l l g r o u p s o u t s i d e o f c l a s s . 6 2 3 . 3 1 1 Z s c o r e : G r a d u a t e w i t h h o n o r s . 3 8 9 Z s c o r e : S p e n d o n t h i s c a m p u s ( i n c l u d i n g c l a s s Z s c o r e : W a t c h T V Z s c o r e : M y f r i e n d s a r e a t t e n d i n g h e r e . 7 0 9 Z s c o r e : T h i s c o l l e g e h a s g o o d s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . 6 7 2 Z s c o r e : N u m b e r o f c l o s e f r i e n d s a t t e n d t h i s c o l l e g e . 5 9 8 Z s c o r e : H S o r o t h e r c o u n s e l o r a d v i s e d m e . 5 6 9 Z s c o r e : D e v e l o p c l o s e n e w r e l a t i o n s h i p s . 5 2 6 Z s c o r e : T e l e p h o n e / e m a i l / s t u d e n t a b o u t s t u d i e s . 3 2 4 . 4 7 3 Z s c o r e : S t u d y w i t h s t u d e n t s f r o m o t h e r c o u r s e s . 3 2 9 . 4 3 1 Z s c o r e : P l a y v a r s i t y / i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e . 4 2 9 Z s c o r e : S t u d y a l o n e i n t h e c o l l e g e l i b r a r y . 3 6 9 Z s c o r e : T a l k r e g u l a r l y w / i n s t r u c t o r s a t t h i s c o l l e g e . 3 1 4 . 3 4 3 Z s c o r e : T e a c h e r s e n c o u r a g e m e i n m y s t u d i e s . 3 1 9 Z s c o r e : A t t e n d e d o r i e n t a t i o n a t t h i s c o l l e g e E x t r a c t i o n M e t h o d : P r i n c i p a l C o m p o n e n t A n a l y s i s . R o t a t i o n M e t h o d : V a r i m a x w i t h K a i s e r N o r m a l i z a t i o n . A R o t a t i o n c o n v e r g e d i n 3 i t e r a t i o n s . T o t a l v a r i a n c e e x p l a i n e d C o m p o n e n t R o t a t i o n s u m s o f s q u a r e d l o a d i n g s % o f C u m u l a t i v e T o t a l v a r i a n c e % 1 3 . 4 6 7 1 6 . 5 0 7 1 6 . 5 0 7 2 3 . 0 9 8 1 4 . 7 5 1 3 1 . 2 5 9 E x t r a c t i o n M e t h o d : P r i n c i p a l C o m p o n e n t A n a l y s i s . R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 Table 20. Reliability Analysis o f Factors F a c t o r : L a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y , a l p h a = . 9 3 W r i t e i n E n g l i s h Z Q l 9 2 W r i t e a n e s s a y i n E n g l i s h Z Q l 9 5 W r i t e a t e r m p a p e r i n E n g l i s h Z Q l 9 6 U n d e r s t a n d a c o l l e g e l e c t u r e i n E n g l i s h Z Q 1 9 3 R e a d i n E n g l i s h Z Q l 9 1 R e a d a c o l l e g e t e x t b o o k i n E n g l i s h Z Q 1 9 _ 4 U s e E n g l i s h t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n c l a s s d i s c u s s i o n Z Q l 9 7 C o m m u n i c a t e w i t h i n s t r u c t o r s Z Q l 9 8 U n d e r s t a n d i n g E n g l i s h i s a p r o b l e m Z Q l 6 7 o p C o m m u n i c a t e w i t h f r i e n d s i n E n g l i s h Z Q 1 7 2 C o m m u n i c a t e w i t h p a r e n t s i n E n g l i s h Z Q l 7 1 L e a r n E n g l i s h f o r w o r k Z Q l 1 8 o p U s e a l a n g u a g e o t h e r t h a n E n g l i s h w p a r e n t s Z Q 1 8 _ l o p U s e a l a n g u a g e o t h e r t h a n E n g l i s h w f r i e n d s Z Q 1 8 _ 2 o p F a c t o r : S o c i a l i n t e g r a t i o n , a l p h a = ; . 7 4 F r i e n d s a t t e n d h e r e Z Q l 1 4 C o l l e g e h a s g o o d s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s Z Q l 5 N u m b e r o f c l o s e f r i e n d s a t t e n d h e r e Z Q 2 H i g h s c h o o l o r o t h e r c o u n s e l i n g Z Q l 8 C l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s w i t h n e w s t u d e n t s Z Q l O 9 P h o n e o r e m a i l a n o t h e r s t u d e n t a b o u t s t u d i e s Z Q 1 4 2 S t u d y w i t h o t h e r s t u d e n t s Z Q l 5 7 P l a y v a r s i t y / c o l l e g i a t e a t h l e t i c s Z Q l O 3 S t u d y w i t h s t u d e n t s f r o m o t h e r c o u r s e s Z Q 1 5 8 T a l k r e g u l a r l y w i t h a n i n s t r u c t o r Z Q l O 1 0 T e a c h e r e n c o u r a g e m e Z Q 3 7 1 S t u d y i n s m a l l g r o u p s Z Q l 3 6 F a c t o r : A c a d e m i c i n t e g r a t i o n , a l p h a = . 7 9 T a l k w i t h i n s t r u c t o r s b e f o r e / a f t e r s c h o o l Z Q l 3 2 H e l p a n o t h e r s t u d e n t Z Q l 3 5 T a l k t o i n s t r u c t o r d u r i n g o f f i c e h o u r s Z Q l 3 3 A s k i n s t r u c t o r q u e s t i o n s Z Q 1 4 3 S p e a k w i t h a c a d e m i c c o u n s e l o r Z Q l 3 7 S t u d y i n s m a l l g r o u p s Z Q l 3 6 G r a d u a t e w i t h h o n o r s Z Q l O 2 S t u d y w i t h s t u d e n t s f r o m o t h e r c o u r s e s Z Q l 5 8 Powers-Terrie Occupational Status Scores. These research-based occupational status scores are commonly used as an index scale for the hierarchical ranking of occupations and for measuring socioeconomic status of detailed census occupations and was discussed earlier in the descriptive statistics of the socioeconomic status of the student population. A caution to be mentioned regarding R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 the scores is that it represents the average of a typical person in a given occupation and does not include its variability in an occupational status. Socioeconomic scores developed with occupational scores introduce additional information to allow for more precise placement in a stratification hierarchy. Discussion of multiple-item measures can be found in Nam and Powers (1983). Correlations and Relations Table 21 provides a correlation matrix between the study’s dependent variable, TOTIGETC and variables measuring entering characteristics, social and cultural capital, integration, and resulting variables. Significant positive correlations were found between TOTIGETC and student aspirations indicating there is a significant relationship between a desire of earning the highest academic degree and finishing a larger number of IGETC modules [r = .157, n = 357,/? = <005]; social integration indicating that there is a significant relationship between integrating socially into the campus life and finishing a larger number of IGETC modules [r =.169, n = 357, p = <.005]; academic integration indicating there is a significant relationship between integrating academically to the institution and finishing a larger number of IGETC modules [r =163, n = 357, p = <.005]; grade performance indicating that there is a significant relationship between high school GPA and college GPA and finishing a larger number of IGETC modules [r =.339, n = 357, p — <.005]; intellectual development indicating that there is a significant relationship between math and science preparation and finishing a larger number of IGETC R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T a b l e 2 1 . Zero Order Correlation Matrix o f TOTIGETC and Variables o f the Model V a r i a b l e s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 20 21 1 E n g l a n g 1.00 2 A s p i r a t i o n . 201 * * 1.00 3 U . S . d e g r e e - . 0 5 1 - . 0 5 1 1.00 4 F o r e i g n d e g r e e - . 2 2 4 * * - . 0 8 5 - . 0 7 2 1.00 5 # o f c h i l d r e n . 0 3 0 - . 0 5 3 . 0 4 9 . 0 1 9 1.00 6 P r i m a r y e a r n e r - . 0 1 3 - . 0 5 8 . 1 5 0 * * . 1 1 6 * * . 1 0 5 * * 1.00 7 M a r i t a l s t a t u s - . 1 3 1 * * - . 0 9 0 - . 0 5 0 . 3 0 8 * * 1 4 9 * * . 0 8 9 1.00 8 I m m i g r a t i o n - . 5 6 8 * * - . 2 3 3 * * . . 1 3 3 * * . 3 5 7 * * . 0 3 6 . 0 9 9 . 1 3 4 * * 1 .00 9 A g e - . 1 7 3 * * . . 2 3 2 * * - . 1 5 9 * * . 4 4 5 * * . 1 7 7 * * . 3 9 9 * * . 4 7 6 * * 3 3 0 * * 1.00 1 0 L a n g u a g e p r o f . 5 7 7 * * . 3 6 3 * * - . 1 4 4 * * - . 2 7 1 * . 0 1 4 .000 - . 0 8 7 - 6 4 1 * * . 2 1 6 * * 1.00 1 1 M o t h e r e d . 211 * * 2 2 9 * * - . 0 5 9 - . 1 3 6 * * - . 1 2 8 * * - . 1 3 3 * * - . 2 1 6 * * - 1 1 9 * * - . 3 4 6 * * . . 2 9 2 * * 1.00 1 2 F a t h e r e d .100 . 1 8 3 * * . 0 4 5 - . 1 0 6 * * - . 0 4 8 - . 0 9 5 - . 1 5 4 * * - 0 8 4 - . 2 4 9 * * . 2 4 4 * * . 6 9 0 * * 1.00 1 3 A b i l i t y t o p a y -.100 . 0 0 8 . 1 4 0 * * . 0 2 6 - . 0 3 4 . 1 0 9 * * . 1 3 0 * * 1 6 9 * * .001 - . 1 5 7 * * .011 . 0 0 3 1.00 1 4 S o c i a l c l a s s . 2 1 4 * * . 1 5 8 * * - . 0 6 7 - . 1 2 3 * * - . 1 0 6 * * - . 1 3 1 * * - . 0 5 4 - 1 0 5 * * - . 1 3 5 * * . 2 0 5 * * 3 5 0 * * 3 2 8 * * - . 0 5 2 1.00 1 5 S o c i n t e r g r a t - . 2 0 3 * * . 0 9 6 . 0 9 8 . 112 * * . 0 5 0 - . 0 8 5 - . 0 2 6 2 9 0 * * - . 0 2 5 . 211 * * . 0 0 4 - . 0 4 6 . 102 * * - . 0 9 5 1.00 1 6 A c a i n t e r g r a t - . 0 3 6 . 0 7 3 . 0 7 2 -.011 . 0 9 6 - . 0 4 5 . 0 7 3 0 4 0 - . 0 5 5 . 0 8 6 .011 - . 0 1 5 . 0 3 6 - . 0 1 8 . 5 8 5 * * 1.00 1 7 G P A - . 1 9 6 * * . 0 2 3 . 0 8 2 . 2 5 8 * * - . 0 6 6 . 0 8 6 . 2 5 0 * * 3 2 4 * * . 2 8 2 * * - . 2 4 1 * * - . 1 5 9 * * 1 2 4 * * . 0 6 2 - . 0 6 4 . 1 1 6 * * . 0 5 9 1.00 1 8 I n t e l d e v . . 0 1 4 . 200 * * . 1 6 3 * * . 0 2 7 - . 0 2 7 . 0 2 6 . 0 6 6 0 7 3 -.012 .021 . 0 6 2 . 0 7 7 . 0 4 7 - . 0 4 9 - . 0 0 7 1 1 3 * * 217 * * 1.00 1 9 P a r e n t s w a n t - . 0 7 3 - . 0 2 3 . 0 6 2 - . 0 7 2 . 0 4 2 - . 1 6 4 * * . 110 * * 0 1 9 - . 1 5 4 * * - . 1 0 4 * * . 0 5 0 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 6 - . 0 1 6 . 3 8 3 * * . 1 6 8 * * . 0 3 2 - . 0 0 7 1.00 2 0 N o r m c o n g r u - . 1 4 0 * * - . 0 4 7 . 0 8 0 . 0 6 8 . 0 3 8 . 0 9 5 . 112 * * 2 4 5 * * . 2 6 8 * * - . 1 3 8 * * - . 0 6 5 - . 0 8 3 . 0 2 6 - . 0 5 8 . 3 0 9 * * . 100 * * . 1 3 7 * * - . 1 3 4 * * . 1 6 3 * * 1.00 2 1 T O T 1 G E T - . 0 3 6 . 1 5 7 * * . 0 4 4 - . 120 * * - . 0 9 6 - . 1 3 1 * * - . 111 * * 0 2 3 - . 1 5 8 * * -.001 - . 0 4 9 - . 0 4 7 - . 0 0 8 - . 0 2 9 . 1 6 9 * * 1 6 3 * * 3 3 ^ * * . 1 7 5 * * . 1 6 6 * * n o * * 1.00 S O 4 ^ 95 significant relationship between parents wanting the student to attend the institution and finishing a larger number of IGETC modules [r = .166, n = 351, p = <005]; and normative congruence indicating that there is a significant relationship between a sense of belonging on campus and finishing a larger number of IGETC modules \r = 110, « = 357,^ = <005], Significant negative correlations were found between TOTIGETC and foreign degrees indicating students with foreign degrees tend to finish a smaller number of IGETC modules [r = -.120, n = 357, p = <.005]; primary earners indicating students who support themselves tend to finish a smaller number of IGETC modules [r = -.131, n = 357,p = <005]; marital status indicating students who are married tend to finish a smaller number of IGETC modules [r = -. 111, n = 357, p = <005]; and age indicating the older the student, the less IGETC modules they appear to finish [r = -.158, n = 357,p = <005]. Regression Analysis A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine how well the set of variables selected predicts the transfer readiness of Asian students. The results found that the constructs entering characteristics (.003), integration (.002) and resulting variables (.000) significantly predicted TOTIGETC. The independent variables explained 29% of the variance of the dependant variable. The multivariate test suggested the variables identified in this study predicted TOTIGETC (.000). Variables that significantly predicted TOTIGETC are marital status (.014), high school and college GPA (.000), intellectual development (.038), and sense of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 belonging (.003). The hierarchical multiple regression model was designed to analyze what are the correlates of success for Asian students in community colleges. Table 22 provides the descriptive statistics of the regression analysis. The mean of the TOTIGETC is 1.9580. T a b l e 2 2 . Descriptive Statistics o f the Regression Analysis M e a n SD N T O T I G E T C t o t a l n u m b e r o f I G E T C a r e a s f i n i s h e d i n c l u d i n g U C a r e a 6 1 . 9 5 8 0 1 . 8 0 5 4 0 3 5 7 E n g l i s h a s t h e n a t i v e l a n g u a g e 1 .2 2 0 0 . 4 1 8 0 0 3 5 7 S t u d e n t A s p i r a t i o n 5 . 3 6 4 1 1 . 3 0 3 2 6 3 5 7 U . S . D e g r e e . 1 5 9 7 . 3 6 6 8 1 3 5 7 F o r e i g n D e g r e e . 1 8 7 7 . 3 9 1 0 0 3 5 7 N u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n / s t e p c h i l d r e n i n h o u s e h o l d 1 . 3 6 0 0 . 6 9 2 0 3 5 7 P r i m a r y W a g e E a r n e r 1 . 3 6 0 0 . 4 8 1 0 0 3 5 7 M a r i t a l S t a t u s 1 . 1 7 0 0 . 3 7 2 0 0 3 5 7 I m m i g r a t i o n S t a t u s 1 . 7 2 8 3 1 . 3 5 3 9 8 3 5 7 A g e 6 . 3 3 0 5 1 . 4 9 8 1 2 3 5 7 L a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y . 4 0 2 4 . 7 7 3 8 7 3 5 7 H i g h e s t M o t h e r E d u c a t i o n 5 . 3 5 0 0 2 . 7 1 4 0 0 3 5 7 H i g h e s t F a t h e r E d u c a t i o n 6 .0 1 0 0 2 . 6 9 5 0 0 3 5 7 P a y i n g f o r c o l l e g e 2 . 4 6 0 0 1 . 4 0 7 0 0 3 5 7 S O C L A S S 5 6 . 2 9 1 6 3 0 . 4 1 7 9 0 3 5 7 S o c i a l I n t e g r a t i o n - . 0 2 5 6 . 5 2 0 7 3 3 5 7 A c a d e m i c I n t e g r a t i o n - . 0 2 5 3 . 5 3 4 9 3 3 5 7 G r a d e P e r f o r m a n c e 2 . 7 4 2 0 . 8 4 3 2 3 3 5 7 I n t e l l e c t u a l D e v e l o p m e n t . 1 0 5 8 1 . 6 3 3 1 1 3 5 7 F a m i l y B a c k g r o u n d 3 . 5 2 0 0 2 . 1 6 0 0 0 3 5 7 N o r m a t i v e C o n g r u e n c e 4 . 5 7 0 0 1 . 5 9 7 0 0 3 5 7 Table 23 presents the results of a block forward entry multiple regression of transfer rates (TOTIGETC) on the four constructs exploring the relationship between a series of variables identified in the Conceptual Model of Transfer Readiness for Asian Students in Community Colleges. Four variables that make a statistically significant contribution (less than .05) are ordered in their importance; high school and college GPA (beta =.404), marital status (beta = -.137), normative congruence (beta = .113), and intellectual development (beta = .106). The unstandardized (B) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 Table 23. Coefficients(a) Multiple Regression o f TOTIGETC U n s t a n d a r d i z e d S t a n d a r d i z e d M o d e l c o e f f i c i e n t s c o e f f i c i e n t s T S i g . C o l l i n e a r i t y s t a t i s t i c s B SD B e t a T o l e r a n c e V I F 1 ( C o n s t a n t ) 2 . 5 7 5 . 7 8 4 3 . 2 8 6 .0 0 1 E n g l i s h a s t h e n a t i v e l a n g u a g e - . 3 6 2 . 2 7 5 - . 0 8 4 - 1 . 3 1 7 . 1 8 9 . 6 6 3 1 . 5 0 9 S t u d e n t A s p i r a t i o n . 2 0 9 . 0 7 5 . 1 5 1 2 . 7 6 7 . 0 0 6 . 9 0 5 1 . 1 0 5 U . S . D e g r e e . 3 0 6 . 2 6 7 . 0 6 2 1 . 1 4 6 . 2 5 2 . 9 1 3 1 . 0 9 5 F o r e i g n D e g r e e - . 3 7 7 . 2 8 4 - . 0 8 2 - 1 . 3 2 9 . 1 8 5 . 7 0 9 1 . 4 1 1 N u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n / s t e p c h i l d r e n i n h o u s e h o l d - . 1 6 4 . 1 3 9 - . 0 6 3 - 1 . 1 8 1 . 2 3 8 . 9 5 1 1 . 0 5 2 P r i m a r y W a g e E a r n e r - . 3 6 0 . 2 1 5 - . 0 9 6 - 1 . 6 7 2 . 0 9 5 . 8 1 6 1 . 2 2 5 M a r i t a l S t a t u s - . 2 0 4 . 2 9 5 - . 0 4 2 - . 6 9 1 . 4 9 0 . 7 2 8 1 . 3 7 4 I m m i g r a t i o n S t a t u s . 0 2 5 . 0 9 1 . 0 1 9 . 2 7 4 . 7 8 5 . 5 8 0 1 . 7 2 4 A g e - . 0 5 8 . 0 8 8 - . 0 4 8 - . 6 5 5 . 5 1 3 . 5 0 4 1 . 9 8 4 2 ( C o n s t a n t ) 3 . 2 8 8 . 8 6 3 3 . 8 0 9 .0 0 0 E n g l i s h a s t h e n a t i v e l a n g u a g e -.2 2 2 . 2 9 6 - . 0 5 1 - . 7 4 8 . 4 5 5 . 5 6 7 1 . 7 6 5 S t u d e n t A s p i r a t i o n . 2 4 3 . 0 7 9 . 1 7 5 3 . 0 8 2 .0 0 2 . 8 2 2 1 . 2 1 6 U . S . D e g r e e . 3 0 4 . 2 6 9 . 0 6 2 1 . 1 2 9 . 2 6 0 . 8 9 1 1 .1 2 2 F o r e i g n D e g r e e - . 3 7 8 . 2 8 6 - . 0 8 2 - 1 . 3 2 2 . 1 8 7 . 6 9 6 1 . 4 3 7 N u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n / s t e p c h i l d r e n i n h o u s e h o l d - . 1 9 5 . 1 4 0 - . 0 7 5 - 1 . 3 9 6 . 1 6 3 . 9 3 1 1 . 0 7 4 P r i m a r y W a g e E a r n e r - . 3 6 7 . 2 1 8 - . 0 9 8 - 1 . 6 8 7 . 0 9 3 . 7 9 2 1 . 2 6 3 M a r i t a l S t a t u s - . 2 5 0 . 2 9 7 - . 0 5 1 - . 8 4 3 . 4 0 0 . 7 1 4 1 . 4 0 1 I m m i g r a t i o n S t a t u s . 0 5 6 .1 0 2 . 0 4 2 . 5 5 2 . 5 8 1 . 4 5 7 2 . 1 8 8 A g e - . 1 0 6 . 0 9 0 - . 0 8 8 - 1 . 1 6 9 . 2 4 3 . 4 7 5 2 . 1 0 6 L a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y -.0 0 2 . 1 8 2 -.0 0 1 - . 0 0 9 . 9 9 3 . 4 3 7 2 . 2 8 8 H i g h e s t M o t h e r E d u c a t i o n - . 0 7 4 . 0 5 1 -.111 - 1 . 4 4 5 . 1 4 9 . 4 5 0 2 . 2 2 4 H i g h e s t F a t h e r E d u c a t i o n -.0 2 1 . 0 4 9 - . 0 3 1 - . 4 2 4 . 6 7 2 . 5 0 2 1 . 9 9 2 P a y i n g f o r c o l l e g e - . 0 3 1 . 0 6 9 - . 0 2 4 - . 4 5 1 . 6 5 3 . 9 1 8 1 . 0 9 0 S O C L A S S -.0 0 2 . 0 0 3 - . 0 3 4 - . 6 0 0 . 5 4 9 . 8 1 1 1 . 2 3 3 3 ( C o n s t a n t ) 3 . 1 2 5 . 8 5 4 3 . 6 6 0 .0 0 0 E n g l i s h a s t h e n a t i v e l a n g u a g e - . 1 6 5 . 2 9 3 - . 0 3 8 - . 5 6 3 . 5 7 4 . 5 6 4 1 . 7 7 2 S t u d e n t A s p i r a t i o n . 2 5 0 . 0 7 8 . 1 8 0 3 . 2 0 1 .0 0 1 . 8 1 4 1 . 2 2 8 U . S . D e g r e e . 1 9 8 . 2 6 7 . 0 4 0 . 7 4 2 . 4 5 9 . 8 7 9 1 . 1 3 7 F o r e i g n D e g r e e - . 4 3 7 . 2 8 2 - . 0 9 5 - 1 . 5 4 7 . 1 2 3 . 6 9 1 1 . 4 4 6 N u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n / s t e p c h i l d r e n i n h o u s e h o l d - . 2 3 8 . 1 3 8 - . 0 9 1 - 1 . 7 2 2 . 0 8 6 . 9 2 2 1 . 0 8 4 P r i m a r y W a g e E a r n e r - . 3 0 8 . 2 1 5 - . 0 8 2 - 1 . 4 2 9 . 1 5 4 . 7 8 6 1 . 2 7 2 M a r i t a l S t a t u s - . 3 3 2 . 2 9 4 - . 0 6 8 - 1 . 1 2 9 . 2 6 0 . 7 0 5 1 . 4 1 9 I m m i g r a t i o n S t a t u s -.0 1 0 .1 0 2 - . 0 0 7 - . 0 9 8 . 9 2 2 . 4 4 0 2 . 2 7 3 A g e - . 0 6 0 . 0 9 0 - . 0 5 0 -.6 6 8 . 5 0 5 . 4 6 5 2 . 1 5 1 L a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y - . 0 5 3 . 1 8 3 - . 0 2 3 - . 2 9 1 . 7 7 1 . 4 2 0 2 . 3 8 2 H i g h e s t M o t h e r E d u c a t i o n - . 0 8 1 . 0 5 1 -.1 2 2 - 1 . 6 0 6 . 1 0 9 . 4 4 4 2 . 2 5 1 H i g h e s t F a t h e r E d u c a t i o n -.0 1 0 . 0 4 8 - . 0 1 4 -.2 0 1 . 8 4 1 . 5 0 0 2 .0 0 2 P a y i n g f o r c o l l e g e - . 0 4 5 . 0 6 8 - . 0 3 5 - . 6 6 5 . 5 0 6 . 9 1 5 1 . 0 9 3 S O C L A S S -.0 0 1 . 0 0 3 - . 0 2 5 - . 4 3 6 . 6 6 3 . 8 0 7 1 . 2 3 8 S o c i a l I n t e g r a t i o n . 4 8 3 . 2 3 9 . 1 3 9 2 . 0 2 3 . 0 4 4 . 5 4 5 1 . 8 3 3 A c a d e m i c I n t e g r a i o n . 2 4 4 . 2 2 4 . 0 7 2 1 . 0 8 7 . 2 7 8 . 5 8 7 1 . 7 0 3 4 ( C o n s t a n t ) 1 . 5 6 3 . 8 3 7 1 .8 6 8 . 0 6 3 E n g l i s h a s t h e n a t i v e l a n g u a g e - . 2 0 8 . 2 6 6 - . 0 4 8 - . 7 8 5 . 4 3 3 . 5 6 3 1 . 7 7 8 S t u d e n t A s p i r a t i o n . 1 1 7 . 0 7 3 . 0 8 5 1 . 6 0 9 . 1 0 8 . 7 6 5 1 . 3 0 8 U . S . D e g r e e . 0 2 4 . 2 4 6 . 0 0 5 . 0 9 9 . 9 2 1 . 8 5 1 1 . 1 7 5 F o r e i g n D e g r e e - . 4 7 7 . 2 5 9 - . 1 0 3 - 1 . 8 4 0 . 0 6 7 . 6 7 4 1 . 4 8 4 N u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n / s t e p c h i l d r e n i n h o u s e h o l d - . 0 9 8 . 1 2 7 - . 0 3 8 - . 7 7 5 . 4 3 9 . 8 9 9 1 . 1 1 3 P r i m a r y W a g e E a r n e r - . 2 9 2 . 1 9 6 - . 0 7 8 - 1 . 4 9 2 . 1 3 7 . 7 7 9 1 . 2 8 3 M a r i t a l S t a t u s - . 6 6 7 . 2 7 1 - . 1 3 7 - 2 . 4 6 5 . 0 1 4 . 6 8 2 1 . 4 6 7 I m m i g r a t i o n S t a t u s - . 1 5 1 . 0 9 5 - . 1 1 3 - 1 . 5 8 7 . 1 1 3 . 4 1 5 2 . 4 1 0 A g e - . 1 4 9 . 0 8 4 - . 1 2 4 - 1 . 7 6 2 . 0 7 9 . 4 3 2 2 . 3 1 7 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 Table 23 (continued). M o d e l U n s t a n d a r d i z e d c o e f f i c i e n t s S t a n d a r d i z e d c o e f f i c i e n t s T S i g . C o l l i n e a r i t y s t a t i s t i c s L a n g u a g e p r o f i c i e n c y . 0 3 4 . 1 6 7 . 0 1 5 . 2 0 5 . 8 3 8 . 4 1 4 2 . 4 1 3 H i g h e s t M o t h e r E d u c a t i o n - . 0 6 8 . 0 4 6 - . 1 0 3 - 1 . 4 8 0 . 1 4 0 . 4 4 1 2 . 2 6 5 H i g h e s t F a t h e r E d u c a t i o n - . 0 0 8 . 0 4 4 -.0 1 2 - . 1 8 9 . 8 5 0 . 4 9 8 2 .0 1 0 P a y i n g f o r c o l l e g e - . 0 5 2 . 0 6 2 - . 0 4 1 - . 8 4 3 . 4 0 0 . 9 1 2 1 . 0 9 6 S O C L A S S - .0 0 1 . 0 0 3 - . 0 1 3 - . 2 6 0 . 7 9 5 . 7 9 8 1 . 2 5 4 S o c i a l I n t e g r a t i o n . 2 2 3 . 2 3 9 . 0 6 4 . 9 3 6 . 3 5 0 . 4 4 8 2 . 2 3 3 A c a d e m i c I n t e g r a t i o n . 2 0 9 . 2 0 6 . 0 6 2 1 . 0 1 6 . 3 1 0 . 5 7 1 1 . 7 5 0 G r a d e P e r f o r m a n c e . 8 6 5 . 1 1 3 . 4 0 4 7 . 6 6 1 .0 0 0 . 7 6 2 1 . 3 1 2 I n t e l l e c t u a l D e v e l o p m e n t . 1 1 7 . 0 5 6 . 1 0 6 2 . 0 8 4 . 0 3 8 . 8 2 4 1 . 2 1 4 F a m i l y b a c k g r o u n d . 0 6 7 . 0 4 3 . 0 8 1 1 . 5 4 9 .1 2 2 . 7 8 4 1 . 2 7 5 N o r m a t i v e c o n g r u e n c e . 1 2 8 . 0 6 0 . 1 1 3 2 . 1 3 9 . 0 3 3 . 7 6 2 1 . 3 1 2 Note. A d e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e : T O T I G E T C t o t a l n u m b e r o f I G E T C a r e a s f i n i s h e d i n c l u d i n g U C a r e a 6 . coefficient for the four variables in rank order is high school and college GPA (B = .865), marital status (B = -.667), normative congruence (B = .128) and intellectual development (B = .117). The Model Summary as presented in Table 24 show statistical analysis conducted was significant in Block 1, Entering Characteristics; Block 3, Integration; and Block 4, Resulting Variables. Block 1, Entering Characteristics explains 7 percent of the variance. By adding Block 2, both entering characteristics and social and cultural capital explain 9% of the variance is explained. With the addition of Block 3, entering characteristics, social and cultural capital and integration explain 12% of the variance. Finally, after entering the four blocks of entering characteristics, social and cultural capital, integration and resulting variables, 28.7% of the variance is explained. As shown by Table 25, the final entry of the regression model is significant (F — 6.772, df= 20, p = 000). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 Table 24. Model Summary o f Multiple Regressions M o d e l R R s q u a r e A d j u s t e d R s q u a r e S t d . e r r o r o f t h e e s t i m a t e C h a n g e s t a t i s t i c s R S q u a r e c h a n g e F C h a n g e Dfl dfl S i g . F C h a n g e 1 . 2 6 4 ( a ) . 0 7 0 . 0 4 5 1 . 7 6 3 9 2 . 0 7 0 2 . 8 8 2 9 3 4 7 . 0 0 3 2 . 2 9 8 ( b ) . 0 8 9 . 0 5 1 1 . 7 5 8 4 9 . 0 1 9 1 . 4 2 9 5 3 4 2 . 2 1 3 3 . 3 4 8 ( c ) .1 2 1 . 0 8 0 1 . 7 3 2 0 9 . 0 3 2 6 . 2 5 3 2 3 4 0 .0 0 2 4 . 5 3 6 ( d ) . 2 8 7 . 2 4 5 1 . 5 6 8 8 5 . 1 6 6 1 9 . 6 0 8 4 3 3 6 .0 0 0 T a b l e 2 5 . ANOVA(e) Final Entry o f the Regression Model M o d e l S u m o f S q u a r e s D f M e a n s q u a r e F S i g . 1 R e g r e s s i o n 8 0 . 7 1 3 9 8 . 9 6 8 2 . 8 8 2 . 0 0 3 ( a ) R e s i d u a l 1 0 7 9 . 6 5 7 3 4 7 3 . 1 1 1 T o t a l 1 1 6 0 . 3 7 0 3 5 6 2 R e g r e s s i o n 1 0 2 . 8 0 2 1 4 7 . 3 4 3 2 . 3 7 5 . 0 0 4 ( b ) R e s i d u a l 1 0 5 7 . 5 6 7 3 4 2 3 . 0 9 2 T o t a l 3 5 6 1 1 6 0 . 3 7 0 3 R e g r e s s i o n 1 4 0 . 3 2 3 1 6 8 . 7 7 0 2 . 9 2 3 . 0 0 0 ( c ) R e s i d u a l 1 0 2 0 . 0 4 7 3 4 0 3 . 0 0 0 T o t a l 1 1 6 0 . 3 7 0 3 5 6 4 R e g r e s s i o n 3 3 3 . 3 7 3 2 0 1 6 . 6 6 9 6 . 7 7 2 . 0 0 0 ( d ) R e s i d u a l 8 2 6 . 9 9 7 3 3 6 2 . 4 6 1 T o t a l 1 1 6 0 . 3 7 0 3 5 6 ANOVAs A one-way between-group analysis of variance was conducted to explore the differences of transfer readiness among the various Asian student groups as measured by TOTIGETC. The Asian subject groups studied in this research are: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Southeast Asian (eth_asia). Another one-way between-group analysis of variance was also conducted to explore how transfer readiness of Asian students compares to those of other ethnic groups of students. Students considered to be in the “other ethnic groups” are: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 (a) South Asian Indians, (b) Arabs, (c) African American/Blacks, (d) Mexicans, (e) Mexican-American Chicanos, (f) South Americans, (g) Central Americans, (h) Other Latino/Hispanics, (i) Alaskan Natives, (j) American Indians, (k) Pacific Islander/Samoans, (1) Hawaiians, (m) Guamanians, (n) Other Pacific Islanders, (o) Caucausian/Whites, and (p) Others. These student groups were compressed into one multiethnic group of African American, White, Asian and Hispanic and Other students to study how they compare in TOTIGETC. Differences Among the Asian Students Statistically significant differences at thep <.05 level were found in TOTIGETC by the five Asian student groups [F(4, 536) = 5.8, j? = .00]. Despite reaching statistical significance, the actual difference in mean scores between the groups is greater than small, but not moderate. The effect size, calculated using eta squared was .04. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated the mean score for Chinese students (M = 2.37, SD = 1.90) was significantly different from Filipino students (M= 1.52, SD = 1.74), Japanese students (M= 1.52, SD = 1.48), and Korean students (M= 1.52, SD = 1.99). Southeast Asian students (M= 1.90, SD = 1.84) did not differ significantly from these groups. Based on this finding, the Chinese appear to be transferring at a higher rate than the other Asian subgroups. Additional ANOVAs were conducted to explore the effects of the correlates of success found in this study on the five Asian student groups. These ANOVAs found Chinese students who scored the highest TOTIGETC also scored significantly higher in the correlates of success, high school and college GPA and intellectual R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 development that predict transfer readiness. Significant differences were not found among the five Asian subgroups in normative congruence and other correlates of success. Comparison o f Asian Students and Other Ethnic Groups o f Students The one-way ANOVA conducted to compare multi-ethnic groups differences finds statistically significant differences at the p <.05 level in TOTIGETC [F[5, 4714) = 5.5, p = .000]. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated the mean score for Asian students (M= 1.78, SD = 1.80) was significantly higher than African American (M= 1.32, SD = 1.62) and White (M= 1.48, SD = 1.80) students; and the mean scores of African American students (M = 1.32, SD = 1.62) was significantly lower than that of Mexican students (M= 1.68, SD = 1.81). Statistics o f Transfer Readiness In total, 4,967 students are included in the sample population. With 5% of students not responding to the questions about TOTIGETC areas completed, the total number of responses is 4,720. Twenty-two ethnic groups are included in this study, of which eight make up the Asian American group; Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and Southeast Asians (Thai, Laotian, Cambodian, and Vietnamese students). Cross-tabulations between Asian international and non-intemational students, and the Asian and other ethnic groups were conducted to describe each group’s transfer readiness by TOTIGETC. Tables 26 and 27 provide a detailed look at the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 cross-tabulations conducted to determine the transfer rates of international and non- intemational Asian students, and Asian students and other ethnic groups. The comparison of the multi-ethnic group indicates, with the exception of African American/Black student group, fewer students were shown to complete IGETC areas as the TOTIGETC increased. English and Math Completion A study on the differences between the Asian groups and the completion of English and Math bases was also conducted. The results show the Math base was completed at a higher rate than the English base at the comparison of 38% to 12%, respectively. The Chinese students completed the highest percentage of both the English (4.6%) and Math (17%) bases. Table 28 presents the comparison of the English and Math completion in the following crosstabulation. Research Questions Question 1 What are the correlates o f success fo r Asian community college students? Significant positive correlation was found between the students’ entering characteristics (student aspirations, high school GPA, and marital status), integration (social and academic) and resulting variables (grade performance, intellectual development, family background, and normative congruence) and TOTIGETC. Significant negative correlation was found between student’s entering characteristics (foreign degree, primary wage earner, marital status, and age) and TOTIGETC. Using a hierarchical multiple regression to analyze these correlations further, grade R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. T a b l e 2 6 . Comparison ofTOTIGEIL by International and Noninternational Student Immigration U.S. ed = 282 Foreign ed = 259 Chinese A = 151 Filipino N = 147 Japanese N = 82 Korean A = 64 Southeast Asians IV = 87 Totigetc bases U S ed Foreign ed US ed Foreign ed US ed Foreign ed U Sed Foreign ed US ed Foreign ed .00 20 19 32 27 8 17 15 16 17 13 1.00 8 16 17 12 9 5 6 4 6 7 2.00 10 9 13 10 5 8 6 3 6 6 3.00 13 13 11 4 6 2 0 0 7 4 4.00 7 20 6 1 4 5 4 2 8 3 5.00 9 8 6 2 2 1 2 1 6 2 6.00 1 4 5 1 0 0 3 2 1 1 7.00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104 Table 27. Comparison o f TOTIGETC by Multi-ethnic Groups A s i a n A m e r i c a n g r o u p s N u m b e r o f I G E T C s c o m p l e t e d N % .0 0 1 .0 0 2 .0 0 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 6 .0 0 7 . 0 0 C h i n e s e 2 0 4 4 . 1 4 7 3 1 2 7 3 4 3 2 1 9 5 2 F i l i p i n o 1 7 8 3 . 6 6 5 3 5 2 5 1 7 9 1 0 6 0 J a p a n e s e 1 0 4 2 .1 3 1 2 9 1 6 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 K o r e a n 8 0 1 .6 3 7 1 2 1 0 1 7 3 5 0 S o u t h e a s t A s i a n 1 2 9 2 . 7 3 0 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 8 2 0 O t h e r e t h n i c g r o u p s N u m b e r o f I G E T C s c o m p l e t e d N % .0 0 1 .0 0 2 .0 0 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 6 .0 0 7 . 0 0 S o u t h A s i a n I n d i a n s 5 8 1 .2 2 4 8 4 4 6 7 1 0 A r a b 3 6 . 7 1 6 5 4 1 5 1 2 0 A f r i c a n 7 7 6 1 5 . 6 3 4 1 1 5 0 9 1 4 0 4 3 4 3 3 3 1 1 0 A m e r i c a n / B l a c k M e x i c a n 7 0 6 1 4 . 2 2 8 7 1 2 1 8 4 6 0 4 9 3 8 2 7 3 M e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n 9 7 8 1 9 . 7 3 4 7 1 4 6 1 4 9 9 6 8 9 6 6 3 9 7 C h i c a n o S o u t h A m e r i c a n 1 2 4 2 . 5 4 9 1 8 1 7 1 3 1 3 3 6 0 C e n t r a l A m e r i c a n 5 7 9 1 1 . 7 2 5 6 9 4 8 0 5 1 3 8 2 5 1 3 1 O t h e r L a t i n o / H i s p a n i c 4 1 6 8 . 4 1 8 7 6 5 5 3 3 3 2 9 1 2 8 2 A l a s k a n N a t i v e , 1 2 0 2 . 5 4 8 2 2 1 4 1 1 7 6 3 0 A m e r i c a n I n d i a n P a c i f i c I s l a n d e r / S a m o a n , 4 2 .8 1 7 7 5 3 2 1 0 0 H a w a i i a n , o r G u a m a n i a n , O t h e r P a c i f i c I s l a n d e r C a u c a s i a n / W h i t e 7 2 7 1 4 . 6 3 0 7 1 0 3 8 7 7 2 6 3 4 0 2 1 4 O t h e r 3 9 1 7 . 9 1 5 3 5 8 5 2 4 4 2 8 1 9 6 0 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 T a b l e 2 8 .Crosstabulation o f English and Math Bases Completed by Asian Students C a s e p r o c e s s i n g s u m m a r y C a s e s V a l i d M i s s i n g T o t a l N P e r c e n t N P e r c e n t N P e r c e n t B A S E 1 E n g l i s h B a s e 5 4 1 9 4 . 9 % 2 9 5 . 1 % 5 7 0 1 0 0 . 0 % * E T H A S I A A s i a n E t h n i c C a t a g o r i e s B A S E 1 E n g l i s h B a s e * E T H _ A S I A A s i a n e t h n i c c a t e g o r i e s E T H _ A s i a n e t h n i c c a t e g o r i e s C o u n t 5 . S o u t h e a s t 1 . C h i n e s e 2 . F i l i p i n o 3 . J a p a n e s e 4 . K o r e a n A s i a n T o t a l B a s e 1 E n g l i s h . 0 0 1 3 6 1 2 9 7 6 5 6 7 8 4 7 4 B a s e 1 0 0 2 5 1 8 6 8 9 8 8 C o m p l e t e d 1 6 1 1 4 7 8 2 6 4 8 7 5 4 1 T o t a l C a s e p r o c e s s i n g s u m m a r y C a s e s V a l i d M i s s i n g T o t a l N P e r c e n t N P e r c e n t N P e r c e n t B A S E 2 M a t h B a s e 5 4 1 9 4 . 9 2 9 5 . 1 5 7 0 1 0 0 .0 * E T H A S I A A s i a n E t h n i c C a t a g o r i e s B A S E 2 M a t h B a s e * E T H _ A S L A A s i a n e t h n i c c a t e g o r i e s E T H _ A s i a n e t h n i c c a t e g o r i e s C o u n t 5 . S o u t h e a s t 1 . C h i n e s e 2 . F i l i p i n o 3 . J a p a n e s e 4 . K o r e a n A s i a n T o t a l B a s e 1 M a t h . 0 0 6 9 1 1 8 5 8 4 1 5 1 3 3 7 B a s e 1 . 0 0 C o m p l e t e d 9 2 2 9 2 4 2 3 3 6 2 0 4 T o t a l 1 6 1 1 4 7 8 2 6 4 8 7 5 4 1 performance, marital status, intellectual development and normative congruence were found to predict TOTIGETC. The correlates of success for Asian community R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 students as found in this study are grade performance, intellectual development and normative congruence. Marital status has significant predictive value of TOTIGETC to the negative (beta = -.137), suggesting fewer TOTIGETC are completed by married students. Question 2 How does transfer readiness differ among various Asian groups? This study demonstrates that transfer readiness differs significantly among the five Asian American student groups. Chinese students have the highest TOTIGETC rate and Southeast Asian students have the second highest TOTIGETC rate. This study also found Chinese students to have the highest scores in two of the four variables (grade performance and intellectual development) found to be correlates of success. Within the group of Japanese, Filipino and Korean students who scored the lowest on TOTIGETC, Japanese students received the lowest mean score in intellectual development and normative congruence and Filipino students received the lowest mean scores in grade performance. This study also found Chinese students completed the English and Math bases at higher rates than the other Asian groups. Question 3 How do transfer-readiness rates o f Asian students compared to those o f other ethnic groups o f students? Significant differences were found between the transfer- readiness of Asian students and those of other ethnic groups of students as measured by TOTIGETC. Asian students were found to have the highest rate of TOTIGETC while African American and White students completed significantly fewer R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TOTIGETC. Significant differences were also found between the Mexican and African American student groups in which African American students completed significantly fewer TOTIGETC than Mexican students. The one-way ANOVA conducted rank the completion of TOTIGETC by ethnic group from highest to lowest: (a) Asian students, (b) Other students, (c) Mexican students, (d) White students, and (d) African American students. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 Question 3 How do transfer-readiness rates o f Asian students compared to those o f other ethnic groups o f students? Significant differences were found between the transfer- readiness of Asian students and those of other ethnic groups of students as measured by TOTIGETC. Asian students were found to have the highest rate of TOTIGETC while African American and White students completed significantly fewer TOTIGETC. Significant differences were also found between the Mexican and African American student groups in which African American students completed significantly fewer TOTIGETC than Mexican students. The one-way ANOVA conducted rank the completion of TOTIGETC by ethnic group from highest to lowest: (a) Asian students, (b) Other students, (c) Mexican students, (d) White students, and (d) African American students. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This chapter begins with an introduction and a review of the purpose of the study. A summary of the findings, a review of the hypothesis, and a conclusion regarding those findings are presented to discuss the significance of the study and its implications for further research. Introduction Student retention and transfer is of great concern to the 2-year colleges. Less than one-half of their full-time students complete their programs within three years to transfer to a 4-year university to earn their baccalaureate degrees (Tinto, 1993; Seldman, 1996). Contributing to this concern is a growing minority population exercising its right to better its economic status through higher education. Embedded in the minority students who now comprise three-quarters of the community college student population (New York University School of Education, 2004), one particular minority group, Asians, demands immediate attention because of its accelerating growth rate and its subgroup differences. A widening bimodal gap accompanies the increasing numbers of Asian students at 2-year institutions. The long-held perception of Asians as a model minority does not apply today and instead has resulted in negative consequences in which their serious needs are overlooked (Suzuki, 2002). Whereas the California Department of Education (2003) reports Asian high school seniors are the largest racial group to meet both UC and CSU entrance requirements, Ting (1998) finds R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 other Asian students to have lower first-semester grades and to be more likely to drop out during the first semester. While a large number of Japanese students are placed in the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) programs (Kitano & DiJosia, 2002), English deficiency in Asian students has grown by 107.8% (CPEC, 2000). Annual family incomes of Asians have been shown to fluctuate as wide as $46,637 to $18,709 (Hune, 2002). Against this factual backdrop, Asian students pose a challenge to change the educational landscape of the community colleges and how current roles and practices meet their needs. Few studies exist to investigate this minority group, their subgroup differences and how their college attainment pathways differ. Understanding their unique characteristics and the interactions resulting from their subgroup differences must precede any changes adopted by the community colleges. This study applies the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) project to study Asian students in the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD), examining their variations and the effects on their educational experiences and outcomes. This study contributed significantly to the understanding of this special group and generated the need for further research that will ultimately result in effective practices. The Purpose o f the Study The purpose of this study was to isolate, describe and define the intersecting factors that affect the persistence behavior and transfer readiness of Asian students. This study borrowed from two existing frameworks, Tinto’s Conceptual Schema for R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 Dropout from College and Bourdieu’s Social Reproduction Theory, to examine the variables representing the entering characteristics of Asian students, their social and cultural capital, their social and academic integration, and the resulting variables. Their intersecting effects were analyzed to determine if they have significant relationships to determine transfer readiness. The findings provided a basis from which to recognize the differences among Asian subgroups, their increasing diversity, and the widening bimodal gap. From them, arise the implication for further research in this scant field and its potential to shape policies and practices in higher education, upholding the promise of the California Master Plan made to its citizens of a place in college. Summary o f Findings The results of this investigation supported the conceptual model that has been developed from Bourdieu’s and Tinto’s work that states resulting variables derived from the intersections of entering student characteristics, their social/cultural capital, and their social/academic integration have significant relationships to student retention as measured by the total of IGETC completed. Those resulting variables are grade performance (r = .339), intellectual development (r = .175), family background (r = .166) and normative congruence (r = .110). Using a hierarchical multiple regression to analyze these correlations further, three of the four resulting variables, grade performance, intellectual development, and normative congruence, predict TOTIGETC. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I l l This study did not completely support the thesis that all the variables of the four constructs have significant positive correlations to TOTIGETC but three of the four constructs were found to predict TOTIGETC. For instance, in Construct One, Entering Student Characteristics, student aspirations (r =.157) were found to have positive correlation to TOTIGETC, while foreign degrees (r = -.120), primary wage earner (r = .131), marital status (r = -.111) and age (r = -.158) were found to have negative correlation to TOTIGETC. Four variables in this construct, English language, U. S. degree, number of children, and immigration status were found to not have any significance to TOTIGETC. Despite these results, the predictive value of Construct One, Entering Student Characteristics, on TOTIGETC was significant (r2 = .070,< .003). The second construct, Social/Cultural Capital, was not found to have significant relationships among the variables or predictive value on TOTIGETC. In Construct Three, Integration, both the variables, social (r = .169) and academic (r = .163), were found to have positive correlation to TOTIGETC. The predictive value of this construct, Integration was significant (r2 = .121,/? <.002). The predictive value of Construct Four was significant (r2 = .287, p<.000), with three of its four variables predicting TOTIGETC. The causal model of this study explains 28.7% of the overall variance of the successful completion of TOTIGETC. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 Hypothesis 1 Factors having significant effect on transfer readiness are: (a) student characteristics, (b) social/cultural capital, (c) social and academic integration, and (d) variables resulting from the intersections o f these factors. The block entry regression table was the primary source supporting the factors and their effect on transfer readiness. As the results indicated, of the constructs tested on the variables identified in the Conceptual Model of Transfer Readiness for Asian Students in Community Colleges, three of the four were found to significantly predict TOTIGETC: (a) entering student characteristics, (b) social and academic integration, and (c) the variables resulting from the intersection of these factors. Although cultural and social capital was not found to be statistically significant, the last block entry of the resulting variable factor accounts for 28.7% of the variance (r2 = .287, p < .000) of the successful completion of TOTIGETC. The multivariate test conducted in this regression analysis suggested the variables identified in this study predict TOTIGETC (.000). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is true within the limitations of these findings. Hypothesis 2 Differences in these transfer readiness rates are significantly related to differences among the various Asian subgroups. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on several measures to test this hypothesis and included a direct measure of the correlates of success found to increase the transfer rates of Asian American students. Results of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 this analysis were consistent with the hypothesis that transfer rates are the result of differences among the various Asian American subgroups. For example, Chinese students had the highest TOTIGETC rate and the highest scores in two of the four variables, grade performance and intellectual development, which were found to predict TOTIGETC. Chinese students were also found to receive higher scores than the other Asian American groups in their completion of the English and Math bases in which they received higher scores than the other Asian groups. The groups that completed the fewest TOTIGETC were the Filipino, Japanese, and Korean students, who also had the lowest mean scores in the three correlates of success, intellectual development, normative congruence and grade performance. The Filipino students had the lowest GPA and the Japanese students had the lowest mean scores in normative congruence and intellectual development. The variations in transfer rates as measured by TOTIGETC is the result of differences in high school/college GPA and intellectual development. Differences in transfer rates were not found between the international and non-international Asian students. As the cross-tabulation in Table 26 indicates, insignificant differences in TOTIGETC between the U. S. and foreign educated students further supports the variable immigration does not have direct relationships to transfer rates as studied under the conditions of this investigation. Hypothesis 3 Significant differences exist between the transfer readiness rates o f Asian students and other ethnic groups o f students. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 Significant differences were found by an ANOVA conducted to determine the transfer readiness of Asian students and other ethnic groups of students. Asian students were found to a higher rate of TOTIGETC compared to African American and white students, who completed significantly fewer TOTIGETC. The ANOVA ranked the completion rate of TOTIGETC by ethnic group in the following order, from the least to the most TOTIGETC: African Americans; White; Mexican American students; other students and Asian students. Discussion The exploration conducted in the study produced a model built on the work of Yeh (2002), Bourdieu and Tinto. The goal of the study was to test the Conceptual Model of Transfer Readiness for Asian Students in Community Colleges. To do so, statistical designs of ANOVA and a multiple hierarchical regression were employed to analyze and predict the key factors that lead to successful transfer and retention as defined by TOTIGETC. Construct Validity The results of the principal components analysis supported the conclusion that there are separate identifiable constructs which are significantly correlated and which mediate TOTIGETC by Asian community college students. Internal Validity The factors of socioeconomics, family conditions, and school conditions cited by the existing literature to result in variables that affect academic success were R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 incongruent to the extant research. Chinese students in this study who were found to have the highest TOTIGETC appeared to have parents with the least education and tended to be the least proficient in English. Filipino students who appeared to have the highest socioeconomic level, as indicated by a higher level of parent education, higher occupational status scores, lower parent rates of unemployment, largest number of parents paying for their education, and aspirations to achieve higher degrees, are among the Asian groups who completed the fewest TOTIGETC. The Japanese students, who are among the group with the least TOTIGETC tended to be unmarried, more proficient in English and from families with fewer children. These incongruities may be explained by the correlations between the variables studied to suggest that there are indirect correlations that may impact the key factors that influence transfer readiness. An example is offered by looking at how the relationships in the Social and Cultural Capital Construct overlap. The variables in this construct, language proficiency, ability to pay, and parent education have a positive correlation with grade performance, a predictor of TOTIGETC. Language proficiency also has a positive correlation with normative congruence, a predictor of TOTIGETC. The normative congruence variable enforces this relationship by its positive correlation with social integration, a variable in the Integration construct, and a predictor of TOTIGETC. The variable of social class did not have any correlation to any predictors of TOTIGETC; however, this variable correlates positively with native language, language proficiency, and ability to pay R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 variables, which were found to correlate positively with the Integration Construct, a predictor of TOTIGETC. Without further research, the correlations resulting from this study explaining transfer readiness cannot be fully determined. However, it can be said that this study yields implications that support Pascarella and Terenzini’s (1979) findings that student retention is directly affected by student characteristics and those variables are influenced by a range of primary factors which are further influenced by other factors. Conclusions The mean TOTIGETC score discovered in this study confirmed the formidable challenge faced by community colleges in which their students are completing approximately only one-third of their requirements needed for program completion and transfer to the four-year universities. Out of six areas of IGETC needed for transfer, an average 1.95 TOTIGETC painted a dismal picture, especially when considering the range of TOTIGETC among the Asian subgroups and between Asians and other ethnic groups. The range of TOTIGETC was from 2.4 completed by Chinese students to 1.3 completed by African American students. Asian students scored the highest TOTIGETC among all ethnic groups, averaging 1.8 TOTIGETC. The African American and white students scored significantly less TOTIGETC than the Asian students and African American students scored significantly less TOTIGETC than Mexican American students. The least TOTIGETC completed in the Asian group, by R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 Filipino, Japanese, and Korean American students was 1.5 areas, which was also the mean of TOTIGETC by all the other ethnic groups. The mean TOTIGETC for Mexican American students was 1.6 and 1.5 for White students. 'This study found the math base within the Asian American group was completed at a higher rate than the English base. The Chinese students scored the highest on the math base, at 17%, compared to the rest of the Asian subgroups. As the number of TOTIGETC increased, the number of students completing the modules decreased. Correlates o f Success The students’ low rate of TOTIGETC may result from not understanding the complexity of how the variables interact and their effects to produce the correlates of success. For instance, not all the variables predicting TOTIGETC were found in Chinese students, who nonetheless, completed the most TOTIGETC. This lack of understanding may be explained by the indirect correlations affecting the resulting variables found to predict TOTIGETC. These indirect correlations confirm the complexity of the interactions and the influence of the variables claimed by Pascarella and Terenzini in their 1979 study of the interaction effects of Spady’s and Tinto’s Conceptual Models o f College Dropout. This study provided evidence that the variables are influenced by a range of primary factors which further influence other factors. An example of the influences of the primary factors on other factors is the effect of marital status found on the ability to pay, which was found to affect the student’s social integration. This investigation provided further evidence to support another finding from Pascarella R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 and Terenzini’s 1979 study that student retention is directly affected by both the characteristics of the students involved and their level of social and academic integration. The Integration Construct illustrated both the claims made in that 1979 study. As confirmed by the model summary of the multiple regression analysis, this construct significantly predicts TOTIGETC. In analyzing this finding by disaggregating this construct, it was found that the variables of social and academic integration that comprise this construct did not have significant correlation with all the correlates of success to predict TOTIGETC. Significant positive correlations were found with both variables and normative congruence; but significant positive correlation with grade performance was found only in the social integration variable and significant positive correlation with intellectual development was found only in the academic integration variable. Thus, a student’s sense of belonging on campus affects their social and academic integration to positively predict his/her TOTIGETC. Although positive correlations were not found between all the correlates of success and both the integration variables, the strong positive correlation that exists between the social and integration variable (r = .585) lends weight that the two variables are connected and implies when there is a correlation with one, there is a correlation with the other. In essence, this construct shows the complex interactions of the variables and the influential role integration has on student retention as expressed in Pascarella and Terenzini’s 1979 findings. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 Differences among the Asian Subgroups The transfer readiness of Asian students reflected a bimodal trend in which the Chinese American students completed the most TOTIGETC and the Filipino, Japanese and Korean American students completed the least TOTIGETC. The trend was also reflected in their GPAs, marital status, intellectual development, and the numbers of math and English classes they completed. The Chinese American students received the highest scores in these five variables studied. The Filipino American students received the lowest GPA. The Japanese American students showed the lowest scores for marital status and intellectual development. Differences in TOTIGETC were not found between the international and non-international Asian students Of interest to investigate further was the low score of Chinese students on the variable of normative congruence (found to predict TOTIGETC). The high TOTIGETC score of the Chinese and their low normative congruence score, and the low TOTIGETC score of the Filipino American students and their high normative congruence score were inconsistent to the results of the multiple regression findings that normative congruence predicts TOTIGETC. Differences between the Asians and Other Ethnic Groups While the Asian’s completion of transfer readiness rates was low, other ethnic groups complete significantly less TOTIGETC. The TOTIGETC of many students from the other ethnic groups clustered around 0 to 4 bases implying even the best students have difficulties advancing to the third module. African American R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 students completed the fewest TOTIGETC with a mean of 1.32. The mean for Asian students was 1.78. The Mexican American students completed more TOTIGETC than African American and white students. The explanation for these differences among the other ethnic groups was not researched in this study, but it is speculated that the language support provided to particular ethnic groups may have a bearing on TOTIGETC. The bilingual/bicultural education that has been offered to second language learners since 1984 and recently revised by Proposition 227 to result in district Master Plans for Instruction of English Language Learners excluded both the African American and white populations. It would be worthwhile to investigate whether the language support received by Mexican American students and not by the African American and White students accounts for this difference. In summary, it is clear the conceptual model developed for this study, borrowed from Yeh’s, Bourdieu’s, and Tinto’s research, supports the intersecting effects purposed by the expansion of Spady’s (1970, 1971) and Tinto’s (1975) work by Pascarella and Terenzini (1979), which states that primary factors contribute to the characteristics with which students enter the institutions which, in turn, influence their interaction with the environment, affecting their social and academic integration and resulting in the variables that determine student outcome. This study found distinct differences among Asian subgroups but their intersecting effects are not adequately understood in order to develop the programs to help them succeed. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 Recommendations To recommend that community colleges find ways to increase their students’ intellectual development, raise their GPAs, and promote a sense of belonging on campus to increase student persistence is easier said than done. The difficulty lies in disaggregating the complex intersecting effects of the variables that influence these key factors of success. Finding the answers to actualize intellectual development, GPA, normative congruence, and the correlates of success found to increase transfer rates lies first in finding the answers to influence the variables that influence integration which is further influenced by other primary factors. The findings of this research pose several unanswered questions. One concerns the language support and services offered to second-language students. Is the higher transfer readiness of the Mexican students compared to that of the African American students the result of these services? If so, what are components of the bilingual language education, Puente Project, English language translation, and migrant education, and so on; and what factors can be learned and used to design intervention programs that increase student persistence for all students? Another is the incongruence found in the TOTIGETC results of Chinese students versus their low socioeconomic status cited by the extant literature to impede success. The direct and indirect correlations suggested by this research have not been studied extensively. What specific factors can be extracted from these relationships to design effective intervention programs for Asian student success? Finally, additional investigation is necessary as to the international and non-international students. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 Particular characteristics found by the TRUCCS data describe international students and yet differences in transfer readiness are not found. They are reported to be doing slightly bettter academically than their non-intemational peers. It is probable that multivariates exist amongst the factors that influence their academic outcomes, and those must be understood to address their influence for effective intervention. To answer these questions, a path analysis is recommended to extend this study by examining the intersecting effects of the relationships: (a) between the four constructs, (b) between the variables within the constructs, and (c) between the significant correlations of the model’s variables. Research has a significant role in improving students’ chances for success by uncovering the hidden factors to removing the barriers and supplying the valuable research-based findings to develop pro-active programs that follow Seldman’s (1996) intervention formula, R = E, Id = E & In, Iv (Retention equals Early Identification, Identification plus Early & Intensive, Intervention). Changes to community college policies and practices cannot be made until these questions are answered. Implications for Future Research Specific differences exist between the Asian student groups but a bigger challenge is their ever-evolving needs. As substantiated by the literature review, the Asian student group is growing rapidly, and with that, their increasingly diverse needs resemble a moving target. Continual research supported by learning communities, a concept advocated by Tinto is a possible solution and holds promise R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 for shaping the future of the 2-year colleges. Effective learning communities in which the students and professors learn from each other and professors cross disciplines to form a collegiate environment based on research and practice results in best pedagogic practices. It has already been suggested by Hagedom (2005) that the international student brings not only an economic resource to the community colleges but, adds to the culture and diversity of the campus given his/her experiences and global awareness. Such students’ diverse perspectives can create an environment promoting “international student as teacher” (Ewing, 1992, as cited in Hagedom, 2005). The forecast for the future is an ever-more-dynamic society where change is the constant and learning cannot be static. The community colleges are called upon to be equally fluid to adapt to the challenges brought to them by their communities. Without the ability to do so, gaps in community college enrollment and degree completion will continue to persist. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 REFERENCES R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 REFERENCES American Association of Community Colleges. (2004). Retrieved July 6, 2004, from http//: www. aacc. nche. edu/Content/NavigationMenu/About Community Colleges/FastFacts 1 Astin A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Astin A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Attinasi, L. (1994). Is going to college a rite o f passage? New Orleans, LA: American Research Association. Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review o f Educational Research, 55(4), 485- 540. Bennett, C., & Okinaka, A. M. (1990). Factors related to persistence among Asian, Black, Hispanic and White undergraduates at a predominately White university: Comparison between first and fourth year cohorts. The Urban Review, 22(1), 33-60. Boser, U. (2003). Closing the grad gap. U . S. News and World Report. 134 (10), 50. Bourdieu, P. (1973). Outline o f a theory ofpractice. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press. Bracey, G. (1994). Ethnicity and school achievement. Phi Delta Kappa. 76, 234-8. Bragg, D. (2001,1. Community college access, mission, and outcomes: Considering intriguing intersection and challenges. Peabody Journal o f Education,1, 93- 116. Braxton, R. (1999). Culture, family and Chinese and Korean American student achievement: An examination of student factors that affect student outcomes. College Student Journal, 33(2). Retrieved July 13, 2003, from http://newfirstsearch. ocloc. org/WEBZFTFETCH?sessionoid=sp0swl 1- 36745-dijev 7o-9vp Braxton, J.M. (2002). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 Brooks-Terry, M. (1988). Tracing the disadvantages of first-generation college students. An application of Sussman’s option sequence model. In S.K. Steinmetz (Ed), Family support systems across the life span (pp. 121-134). New York: Pleraum Press. Bui, K. V. T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first year experience. College Student Journal, 3(5(1), 3, 9. Bryant, A. N. (2001). Community college students: recent findings and trends. Community College Review, 29(3), 77. Cabrera. A. E., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence process: a structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571-593. Cabrera, A. E., Stampen, J. O., & Hansen, W. L. (1990). Exploring the effects of ability o pay on persistence in college. Review o f Higher Education, 13(3), 303-336. Cain, M. S. (1999). The community college in the twenty-first century. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc. California Department of Education. (2003). Education Demographics Unit-CBEDS. Retrieved July 14, 2003, from http://eddata.kl2.ca.us/county/countywide summary, asp ?tab=0&level+ 05 &ReportNum California Education Code Section 66010. Retrieved October 2, 2004 from http://www.leginfo.ca. ../waisgate? WAISdocID=7743 7815303+0+0+0& WAI Saction =retriev. California Master Plan for Education. (1960). Retrieved October, 26, 2002, from http://www.sen.ca.gov/masterplan/020909THEMASTERPLANLINKS.HTML California Postsecondary Education Commission. (2004). Educational and demographic Los Angeles County. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from http://www. cpec. ca.gov/CompleteReports/2004Profiles/Countyl 9. Camervale, A. P. (1999). Education = success: Empowering Hispanic youth and adults. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Chen, M. K, Konantz, J. L., & Rosenfeld, M. L. (2000) Working with urban schools that serve predominantly minority students. New Directions for Community Colleges, 11, 73-82. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 Chickering, A. W. (1974). Commuting versus resident students: Overcoming educational inequalities o f living off campus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass. Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (1996). The American community college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (2003). The American community college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, A. D., & York, R. L. (1996). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Crawford, J. (1999). Basic research on language acquisition. In Bilingual education: History, politics, theory, and practice. Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services, Inc. p. 117-136; 158-171. Cuseo, J. (2000). The case for careful attention to the transfer transition. Cincinnati, OH: Marymount College, Department of Psychology. Delucchi, M., & Do, H., (1994). The model minority myth and perception of Asian Americans as victims of racial harassment. College Student Journal, 30, 411- 414. Dumais, S. A. (2002). Cultural capital, gender, and school success: The role of habitus. Sociology o f Education, 75(1), 44-69. Fusch, G. E. (1996). The community colleges of the 21st century. British Columbia: Canada. Eric Reproduction Service. (Document No. ED 417 771). Gloria, A., & Ho, T. (2003). Environmental, social, and psychological experiences of Asian American undergraduates: Examining issues of academic persistence. Journal o f Counseling & Development, 81, 93-103. Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., & Williamson, S. (1998). Why did the black-white score gap narrow in the 1970s and the 1980s? In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap (pp. 182-226). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Hagedom, L. S., & Maxwell, W. (1999). Research on urban community college transfer and retention: The Los Angeles TRUCCS project. Los Angeles, California: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education/Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 8 Hagedom, L. (2005) International Community College Students: The Neglected Minority. Tampa, FL: University of Florida, College of Education. Hagedom, L. (2004). How to define retention: A new look at an old problem. Los Angeles, California: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education/Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. Hagedom, L., Moon, H. S,.Cypers, S., Maxwell, W., & Lester, J. (2003). Transfer between community colleges and four-year colleges: The all American game. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education. Hansen, E. J. (1998). Essential demographics of today’s college students. AAHE Bulletin, 51(3), 3-5. Hebei, S., (2003). California’s budget woes lead colleges to limit access. The Chronicle o f Higher Education. Retrieved July 6, 2004, from http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i07a02101.htm Hedges, L. V., & Nowell, A. (1998). Black-white test score convergence since 1965. In C. Jencks, & M. Phillips (Eds.), The black-white test score gap (pp. 182- 226). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Hollins, E. R. (1996). Transforming curriculum for a culturally diverse society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Hune, S. (2002). Demographics and diversity of Asian American college students. New Directions for Student Services, 97, 11-20. Jencks, C. (1992). Rethinking social policy: Race, poverty, and the underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kamens, D. H. (1977). Legitimating myths and educational organizations: The relationships between organization ideology and formal structure. American Sociological Review, 42, 208-219. Kim, H. (1997). Diversity among Asian American high school students. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Services. Kitano, M. (1997). Gifted Asian American women. Journal for the Education o f the Gifted, 21(1), 3-37. Kitano, M., & DiJiosia, M. (2002). Are Asian and Pacific Americans overrepresented in programs for the gifted? Roeper Review, 2. Retrieved R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 January 21, 2004, from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org/images/ WSOL ?wsppdfl/ HTML/00833/A5 VUK/9SO.HTM Lagdameo, A., Lee, S., Nguyen, B., Liang, C., Lee, S., Kodama, C., & McEwen, M. (2002, Spring). Voices o f Asian American students. New Directions for Student Services, 97, 5-10. Le, C. (2002). Asian-Nation the landscape o f Asian America: Demographics and issues. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from http://www.asian-nation.org. Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: reversing the progress toward equity. Educational Researcher, 57(1), 3-12. Little Hoover Commission. (2000). Open doors and open minds: Improving access and quality in California’s community colleges. London, H. B. (1992). First-generational students: confronting the cultural issues. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc. London, H. B. (1999). Breaking away: A study of first-generation college students and their families. American Journal o f Education, 97(2), 144-170. Los Angeles Community College District. Retrieved September 22, 2004, from www. laccd. edu/our_colleges/ Meyer, M. W., & Zucker, L. G. (1989). Permanently failing organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. McCabe, R. H. (2001). Developmental education: A policy primer. Leadership Abstracts, 14,(1), 1-4. McConnell, G. (2000). What community colleges should do to assist first-generation students. Community College Review, 28(3), 75-85. Meyer, M. W., & Zucker, L. G. (1989). Permanently failing organizations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Mumane, R., & Levy, R. J. (1996). Teaching the new basic skills. New York: The Free Press. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1999). The condition of education. Retrieved November 1, 2004, from http://nces/ed.gov//program/coe/ R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 New York University School of Education. (2004). Summary o f programs and initiatives. Center for Urban Community College Leadership. Retrieved July 10, 2004, from http://www.nyu.edu/education/alt/center. Nora, A. (1993). Two-year colleges and minority students’ educational aspirations. In Smart, J. (Ed). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. Vol. 9, 212-247. New York: Agathon Press. Obgu, J. U. (1994). Racial stratification and education in the United States. Why inequality persists. Teachers College Record, 96, 264-298. Ovando, C. J., (2003). Language diversity and education. Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspective (pp. 268-292). New York: John Wiley and Sons. Park, C. C. (1997). Learning style preferences of Asian American (Chinese, Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese) students in secondary schools. Equity and Excellence in Education, 30(2), 68-77. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1979). Interaction effects in Spady’s and Tinto’s conceptual models of college dropout. Sociology o f Education, 52, 197-210. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Peng, S., S., & Wright, D. (1994). Explanation of academic achievement of Asian American students. Journal o f Educational Research, 87, 346-352. Policy Information Report. (1997). Diversity among Asian American high school students. Princeton, NY: Educational Testing Service. Prather, G. Title wave II. (1998). Reflections on the purpose and methodology of enrollment Projects. The Los Angeles Community Colleges, Institutional Research and Information. Retrieved September 22, 2004, from http://research, laccd. edu/research. Public Policy Institute of California. (2001). A portrait o f race and ethnicity in California. San Francisco, CA Quigley, M. S., & Bailey, T. W. (2003). Community college movement in perspective. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press Inc. Rendon, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2002). Theoretical considerations in the study of minority student retention in higher education R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 Rhoades, R. A., & Valadez, J. R. (1996). Democracy, multiculturalism, and the community college: A critical perspective. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. Seldman, A. (1996). Retention revisited: RET = E Id + (E +I+C)Iv. College and University. 71 (4). Retrieved July 10, 2003, from http://www. collegeways. com/article_retention-revisited. htm Simpson, J. (2001). Racial differences in the factors influencing academic major between European Americans, Asian Americans, and African, Hispanic, and Native Americans. The Journal o f Higher Education, 72(1), 64-100. Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-14. Strage, A. (1999). Social and academic integration and college success: Similarities and differences as a function of ethnicity and family educational background. College Student Journal, 33(2), 198-205. Suzuki, B. H. (2002). Revisiting the model minority stereotype: Implications for student affairs practice and higher education. New Directions for Student Services, 97, 21-31. Tang, M. (2002). A comparison of Asian American, Caucasian American, and Chinese college students: An initial report. Journal o f Multicultural Counseling and Development, 30, 1-13, 124-134. Tang, M., & Fouad, N. (1997). Understanding Asian Americans’ career choices. Asocial cognitive approach to examine the factors affecting their choices. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Terrie, E. W., & Nam, C. B. (1994) 1990 and 1980 Nam-Powers-Terrie Occupational Status Scores (Working Paper Series 94-118). Center for the Study of Population. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University The Los Angeles Community Colleges. (1996, Fall). Comparative staffing study, executive summary. Office o f Instruction and Student Services Institutional Research Section. Retrieved September 22, 2004, from http: //marlin, laccd. edu/research R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 The Sacramento Bee. (2004, May 19). College fees set to rise again. Retrieved May 28, 2004, from http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/ca/budget/v- prin t/story/934 7099p-10271801c.html The Sacramento Bee. (2004, June 6). Eager to enter, they still shun UC: Transfer turn off local students, pp. B1 and B5. The Sacramento Bee. (2004, July 14). UC may raise the GPA bar for entry, pp. A1 and A15. The Sacramento Bee. (2004, August 27). Poverty keeps growing in U.S.: Number o f Americans without health coverage also rose again last year. Year, pp.Al and A28. The Sacramento Bee. (2004, September 12). Special report: The leftover people, pp. 1-20. The Sacramento B. (2004, September 16). Fee crunch: rising cost o f community college spurs growing demand for financial aid, pp. B1 and B4. The Wall Street Journal. (2004, June 24). Tuition increases start to ease: After 14% jump in costs last year, public colleges expect improved economy to boost their coffers, pp. Dland D2. Thelin, J. R. (1982). Higher education and its useful past. Rochester, VT: Schenkman Books. Tierney, W. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. Journal o f Higher Education, 63, 603-617. Tierney, W., & Hagedom, L. (2002). Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students. New York: Sunny. Ting, S. (1998). Predicting first-year grades and academic progress of college students of first-generation and low-income families. Journal o f College Admission, 158, 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. (1987) Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures o f student attrition (pp. 240). Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures o f student attrition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 Tinto, V. (2002). Promoting student retention through classroom practice. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse Library Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Retrieved July 17, 2004, from http://www. eeoc.golv/policy/vii. html Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972. Retrieved July 17, 2004, from http://www. dol.gov/ossam/regs/statues/titeix. html Vallejo City Unified School District. (2004). Master plan for instruction of English learners. Yeh, F. (2002, Spring). Asian American college students who are educationally at risk. New Directions for Student Services. No. 97. Retrieved July 13, 2003 from http://newfirstsearch. oclc. org/WebZ/FSPage?pagename= ftascii:pagetype=entityprinti R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDICES R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 APPENDIX A LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT FULL-YEAR TRANSFER R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 Los Angeles Community College D istrict Full-Year Transfers: 1999/2000 to 2003/2004 to Campuses o f the University o f California and California State University F o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n 1 9 9 9 / 2 0 0 0 East Los Angeles College 2 0 0 0 / 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 / 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 / 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 / 2 0 0 4 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y 1 2 1 0 1 2 7 1 3 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s 1 0 0 2 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , I r v i n e 1 4 1 7 2 3 1 8 2 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , L o s A n g e l e s 4 7 6 0 8 6 5 9 6 5 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , R i v e r s i d e 1 1 1 5 1 6 3 1 2 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n D i e g o 5 3 6 1 1 1 6 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a B a r b a r a 4 0 8 9 9 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a C r u z 4 6 7 1 6 U C T o t a l 9 8 1 1 1 1 5 8 1 3 8 1 5 3 C a l i f o r n i a M a r i t i m e A c a d e m y C a l i f o r n i a P o l y t e c h n i c S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N / A N / A N / A 0 0 S a n L u i s O b i s p o C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e P o l y t e c h n i c U n i v e r s i t y , 0 0 0 0 0 P o m o n a 4 5 4 5 5 8 5 0 4 8 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B a k e r s f i e l d 3 1 1 1 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h a n n e l I s l a n d s N / A N / A N / A 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h i c o 0 1 1 0 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , D o m i n g u e z H i l l s 6 0 9 9 1 0 4 7 3 9 8 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F r e s n o 0 0 1 1 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F u l l e r t o n 22 2 8 4 2 4 5 2 9 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , H a y w a r d 0 0 1 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o n g B e a c h 4 0 6 6 5 7 6 9 3 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o s A n g e l e s 3 5 6 3 8 3 4 4 5 4 4 8 4 5 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , M o n t e r e y B a y 0 0 0 1 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N o r t h r i d g e 1 5 1 8 2 0 1 4 1 5 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a c r a m e n t o 2 1 1 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n B e r n a r d i n o 12 6 4 5 6 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n M a r c o s 1 2 1 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n i s l a u s 0 0 1 0 1 H u m b o l d t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 3 3 2 1 5 S a n D i e g o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 3 5 3 1 2 S a n F r a n c i s c o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 2 2 2 3 4 S a n J o s e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 4 0 0 4 0 S o n o m a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1 1 0 1 0 C S U t o t a l 5 6 9 6 6 1 7 4 4 7 1 7 6 9 8 T o t a l 6 6 7 7 7 2 9 0 2 8 5 5 8 5 1 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 F o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n 1 9 9 9 / 2 0 0 0 L os A ngeles H arbor 2 0 0 0 /2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 / 2 0 0 2 C ollege 2 0 0 2 / 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 / 2 0 0 4 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y 3 3 1 4 3 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s 1 1 1 1 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , I r v i n e 4 4 9 1 4 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , L o s A n g e l e s 1 3 1 4 1 7 1 6 1 9 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , R i v e r s i d e 2 4 1 2 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n D i e g o 1 0 2 4 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a B a r b a r a 6 5 5 5 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a C r u z 0 0 1 2 1 U C T o t a l 3 0 3 1 3 7 4 8 3 1 C a l i f o r n i a M a r i t i m e A c a d e m y C a l i f o r n i a P o l y t e c h n i c S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N / A N / A N / A 1 0 S a n L u i s O b i s p o C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e P o l y t e c h n i c U n i v e r s i t y , 2 1 2 2 0 P o m o n a 4 6 5 5 5 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B a k e r s f i e l d 1 0 3 1 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h a n n e l I s l a n d s N / A N / A N / A 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h i c o 0 3 3 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , D o m i n g u e z H i l l s 1 7 1 1 4 9 1 7 4 1 8 2 1 9 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F r e s n o 0 0 0 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F u l l e r t o n 5 8 8 7 1 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , H a y w a r d 0 0 2 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o n g B e a c h 9 4 7 2 9 8 9 3 5 5 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o s A n g e l e s 1 0 9 1 4 1 9 7 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N o r t h r i d g e 5 8 1 3 1 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a c r a m e n t o 0 1 0 3 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n B e r n a r d i n o 1 5 2 3 4 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n M a r c o s 1 0 1 1 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n i s l a u s 0 0 1 0 0 H u m b o l d t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 2 1 1 2 2 S a n D i e g o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 2 7 1 1 2 S a n F r a n c i s c o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 3 3 2 3 4 S a n J o s e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 0 3 3 0 S o n o m a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 3 1 0 0 C S U T o t a l 3 0 2 2 7 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 2 9 2 T o t a l 3 3 2 3 0 4 3 7 0 3 8 6 3 2 3 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 L os A ngeles M ission C ollege Four-year institution 1 9 9 9 / 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 /2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 / 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 / 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 / 2 0 0 4 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y 1 0 0 0 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s 0 0 1 0 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , I r v i n e 0 2 0 0 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , L o s A n g e l e s 4 7 1 6 8 2 1 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , R i v e r s i d e 0 0 0 1 3 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n D i e g o 0 0 1 1 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a B a r b a r a 2 2 4 5 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a C r u z 2 0 0 0 2 U C t o t a l 9 1 1 2 2 1 5 3 0 C a l i f o r n i a M a r i t i m e A c a d e m y N / A N / A N / A 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a P o l y t e c h n i c S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n L u i s O b i s p o 0 0 0 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e P o l y t e c h n i c U n i v e r s i t y , P o m o n a 3 1 0 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B a k e r s f i e l d 2 3 2 3 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h a n n e l I s l a n d s N / A N / A N / A 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h i c o 0 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , D o m i n g u e z H i l l s 2 5 0 2 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F r e s n o 0 0 0 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F u l l e r t o n 2 0 2 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , H a y w a r d 1 2 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o n g B e a c h 1 1 1 2 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o s A n g e l e s 1 4 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 9 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , M o n t e r e y B a y 0 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N o r t h r i d g e 1 3 7 1 4 4 1 8 9 1 8 0 1 5 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a c r a m e n t o 1 0 0 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n B e r n a r d i n o 0 1 1 1 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n M a r c o s 1 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n i s l a u s 0 0 0 1 0 H u m b o l d t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 1 3 1 0 S a n D i e g o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 0 1 1 2 S a n F r a n c i s c o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1 0 1 0 1 S a n J o s e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 0 1 0 1 S o n o m a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 0 1 0 0 C S U T o t a l 1 6 5 1 6 8 2 1 3 2 0 1 1 8 4 Total 1 7 4 1 7 9 2 3 5 2 1 6 2 1 4 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 L o s A n g e le s P ie rc e C o lle g e F o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n 1 9 9 9 / 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 /2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 / 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 / 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 / 2 0 0 4 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y 10 10 1 4 21 11 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s 2 2 4 4 5 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , I r v i n e 1 3 1 8 1 9 1 3 1 4 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , L o s A n g e l e s 1 2 6 121 1 0 6 1 4 9 1 4 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , R i v e r s i d e 4 6 7 7 3 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n D i e g o 1 5 11 1 1 20 1 7 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a B a r b a r a 1 5 10 1 9 2 4 2 5 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a C r u z 6 4 6 1 0 4 U C T o t a l 1 9 1 1 8 2 1 8 6 1 4 8 221 C a l i f o r n i a M a r i t i m e A c a d e m y C a l i f o r n i a P o l y t e c h n i c S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N / A N / A N / A 0 0 S a n L u i s O b i s p o C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e P o l y t e c h n i c U n i v e r s i t y , 5 4 5 4 4 P o m o n a 10 1 4 1 6 8 6 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B a k e r s f i e l d 4 2 4 4 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h a n n e l I s l a n d s N / A N / A N / A 9 12 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h i c o 1 4 1 2 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , D o m i n g u e z H i l l s 9 12 8 6 6 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F r e s n o 4 0 2 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F u l l e r t o n 2 3 5 4 4 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , H a y w a r d 1 3 2 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o n g B e a c h 20 1 4 12 7 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o s A n g e l e s 2 4 2 8 2 4 3 0 2 9 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N o r t h r i d g e 5 4 8 6 1 4 5 5 1 5 4 4 6 5 7 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a c r a m e n t o 0 1 0 4 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n B e r n a r d i n o 5 0 1 4 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n M a r c o s 2 0 2 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n i s l a u s 0 0 0 0 1 H u m b o l d t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 3 4 4 0 2 S a n D i e g o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 6 8 8 4 5 S a n F r a n c i s c o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1 4 9 5 8 1 6 S a n J o s e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 5 7 2 2 1 S o n o m a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1 2 4 0 1 C S U t o t a l 6 6 4 7 2 9 6 5 7 6 4 1 7 7 0 T o t a l 8 5 5 9 1 1 8 4 3 8 8 9 9 9 1 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 140 L os A ngeles S outhw est C ollege Four-year institution 1 9 9 9 / 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 /2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 / 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 / 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 / 2 0 0 4 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y 0 0 0 0 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s 0 0 0 0 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , I r v i n e 0 1 1 0 1 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , L o s A n g e l e s 4 6 2 6 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , R i v e r s i d e 0 0 0 0 0 U n i v e r s i t y ' o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n D i e g o 0 3 3 4 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a B a r b a r a 0 0 0 0 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a C r u z 0 0 0 0 0 U C T o t a l 4 8 5 9 5 N / A N / A 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a P o l y t e c h n i c S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n L u i s O b i s p o 2 4 1 3 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e P o l y t e c h n i c U n i v e r s i t y , P o m o n a 2 4 1 3 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B a k e r s f i e l d 1 3 1 2 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h a n n e l I s l a n d s N / A N / A N / A 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h i c o 0 0 3 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , D o m i n g u e z H i l l s 1 0 9 9 3 1 0 6 9 5 9 4 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F r e s n o 0 0 1 0 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F u l l e r t o n 0 1 7 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , H a y w a r d 3 0 1 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o n g B e a c h 1 3 9 1 3 8 9 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o s A n g e l e s 2 1 2 3 2 4 3 8 3 7 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , M o n t e r e y B a y 0 1 1 2 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N o r t h r i d g e 9 2 1 3 3 5 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a c r a m e n t o 1 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n B e r n a r d i n o 2 2 5 2 4 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n M a r c o s 0 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n i s l a u s 0 0 0 0 0 H u m b o l d t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1 0 1 4 1 S a n D i e g o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 0 0 2 1 S a n F r a n c i s c o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 1 1 0 0 S a n J o s e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 2 3 0 3 0 S o n o m a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 0 0 1 0 C S U T o t a l 1 6 4 1 4 2 1 7 8 1 6 3 1 5 6 Total 1 6 8 1 5 0 1 8 3 1 7 2 1 6 1 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 L o s A n g e le s V a lle y C o lle g e Four-year institution 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y 11 11 9 18 9 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s 0 4 0 3 3 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , I r v i n e 10 8 10 14 6 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , L o s A n g e l e s 86 86 102 96 99 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , R i v e r s i d e 4 3 9 10 2 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n D i e g o 6 10 9 4 5 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a B a r b a r a 9 17 16 18 18 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a C r u z 3 2 4 11 6 U C T o t a l 129 141 159 174 148 C a l i f o r n i a M a r i t i m e A c a d e m y C a l i f o r n i a P o l y t e c h n i c S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N / A N / A N / A 0 0 S a n L u i s O b i s p o C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e P o l y t e c h n i c U n i v e r s i t y , 2 1 2 1 0 P o m o n a 8 7 9 8 7 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B a k e r s f i e l d 4 3 2 5 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h a n n e l I s l a n d s N / A N / A N / A 2 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h i c o 0 4 1 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , D o m i n g u e z H i l l s 17 10 8 9 11 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F r e s n o 0 3 0 3 4 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F u l l e r t o n 6 5 9 4 5 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , H a y w a r d 1 1 2 1 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o n g B e a c h 15 8 16 16 14 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o s A n g e l e s 6 3 45 65 73 59 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , M o n t e r e y B a y 0 2 2 1 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N o r t h r i d g e 528 522 545 587 525 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a c r a m e n t o 1 0 0 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n B e r n a r d i n o 1 3 0 1 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n M a r c o s 0 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n i s l a u s 0 1 1 4 0 H u m b o l d t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 12 3 1 5 4 S a n D i e g o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 7 8 4 5 1 S a n F r a n c i s c o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 8 4 3 7 11 S a n J o s e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 4 2 2 1 1 S o n o m a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 2 1 2 2 0 C S U t o t a l 679 633 674 737 654 Total 808 774 833 911 802 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 L os A ngeles T rade T echnical C ollege F o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n 1 9 9 9 / 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 /2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 / 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 / 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 / 2 0 0 4 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y 1 0 0 0 5 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s 2 1 1 1 1 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , I r v i n e 0 1 1 2 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , L o s A n g e l e s 6 5 9 4 3 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , R i v e r s i d e 3 1 4 1 6 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n D i e g o 0 0 0 1 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a B a r b a r a 1 0 1 0 1 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a C r u z 0 0 1 1 0 U C T o t a l 1 3 8 1 7 1 0 1 6 C a l i f o r n i a M a r i t i m e A c a d e m y C a l i f o r n i a P o l y t e c h n i c S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n N / A N / A N / A 0 0 L u i s O b i s p o C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e P o l y t e c h n i c U n i v e r s i t y , 0 0 0 0 0 P o m o n a 1 1 1 0 1 1 7 8 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B a k e r s f i e l d 1 2 1 3 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h a n n e l I s l a n d s N / A N / A N / A 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h i c o 0 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , D o m i n g u e z H i l l s 7 2 7 4 9 8 7 9 7 9 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F r e s n o 0 1 0 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F u l l e r t o n 3 3 6 3 5 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , H a y w a r d 3 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o n g B e a c h 1 9 1 3 1 3 1 6 9 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o s A n g e l e s 9 2 1 1 7 1 2 2 1 1 4 9 6 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , M o n t e r e y B a y 0 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N o r t h r i d g e 1 2 1 1 1 6 1 8 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a c r a m e n t o 0 0 0 1 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n B e r n a r d i n o 4 3 7 1 0 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n M a r c o s 0 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n i s l a u s 0 0 0 0 1 H u m b o l d t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 0 1 0 2 S a n D i e g o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 1 0 0 0 S a n F r a n c i s c o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 1 0 2 2 S a n J o s e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 0 2 0 0 S o n o m a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 0 0 1 0 C S U t o t a l 2 1 7 2 3 6 2 7 7 2 5 4 2 2 0 T o t a l 2 3 0 2 4 4 2 9 4 2 6 4 2 3 6 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 W e s t L o s A n g e le s C o lle g e Four-Y ear Institution 1 9 9 9 / 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 /2 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 /2 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 / 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 3 / 2 0 0 4 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , B e r k e l e y 0 3 3 2 3 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , D a v i s 0 1 0 0 1 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , I r v i n e 1 2 2 4 3 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , L o s A n g e l e s 2 4 1 9 2 0 3 5 3 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , R i v e r s i d e 2 3 2 3 4 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n D i e g o 0 0 1 0 1 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a B a r b a r a 2 0 1 0 0 U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , S a n t a C r u z 1 0 1 0 0 U C T o t a l 3 0 2 8 3 0 4 4 4 2 C a l i f o r n i a M a r i t i m e A c a d e m y N / A N / A N / A 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a P o l y t e c h n i c S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n L u i s O b i s p o 0 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e P o l y t e c h n i c U n i v e r s i t y , P o m o n a 3 0 3 5 2 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , B a k e r s f i e l d 0 2 1 1 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h a n n e l I s l a n d s N / A N / A N / A 1 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C h i c o 1 0 0 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , D o m i n g u e z H i l l s 9 7 9 5 7 7 7 2 6 3 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F r e s n o 2 1 0 1 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , F u l l e r t o n 0 1 3 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , H a y w a r d 1 0 3 0 1 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o n g B e a c h 2 2 1 5 1 6 1 4 9 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , L o s A n g e l e s 3 6 3 1 4 2 3 4 4 7 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , M o n t e r e y B a y 0 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , N o r t h r i d g e 4 0 4 5 3 9 3 2 3 6 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a c r a m e n t o 1 0 1 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n B e r n a r d i n o 2 4 1 2 7 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S a n M a r c o s 0 0 0 0 0 C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , S t a n i s l a u s 0 0 2 0 0 H u m b o l d t S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 2 0 0 1 1 S a n D i e g o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1 5 0 0 1 S a n F r a n c i s c o S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1 5 1 3 1 S a n J o s e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 4 0 3 2 2 S o n o m a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 0 0 0 0 0 C S U t o t a l 2 1 3 2 0 4 1 9 2 1 6 8 1 7 4 T o t a l 2 4 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 6 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 APPENDIX B LETTER OF PERMISSION R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 October 30, 2004 Los Angeles Community College District 770 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, Calfiomia 90017 Dear: Los Angeles Community College District Attention: Lynn Winter Gross I am a doctoral student from the University o f Southern California writing my dissertation tentatively titled Asian American Students in Community Colleges: A Study of Intersecting Effects o f Student Characteristics, Construct Models o f Retention, Social Reproduction and Resulting Variables on Persistence Behavior Outcomes as Applied to the Study o f Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) under the direction o f m y dissertation committee chaired by Dr. Linda Serra Hagedom. I would like your permission to reproduce from: Your website: AVww.laccd.edu/our colleges/ The map o f Los Angeles Community College District Specifically, I am requesting permission to reprint the two figures in my Chapter 2, the Literature Review o f the Los Angeles Community College District. I am requesting nonexclusive rights in all languages. These rights will in no way restrict publication o f your material in any other form by you or by others authorized by you. If you do not control these rights in their entirety, please inform me o f the proper agency to contact. Below is a release form for your convenience. Please sign all three copies o f this letter, return two copies to me, and keep the third copy for your files. Your prompt consideration o f this request will be very much appreciated. Lily L. Tsuda Doctorate Candidate Sincerely, I grant permission requested on the terms stated in this letter. Agreed to and accepted: Date: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
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
Academic success and student-parents in the Los Angeles Community College District
PDF
Community college students' perceptions of collaborative learning in developmental writing classes: Identifying the factors that promote positive active learning
PDF
Community college students: The effect of parenthood and selected variables on degree -seeking aspirations
PDF
Academic performance and persistence of Asian American students in the Los Angeles Community College District
PDF
A study of the profile and leadership traits of vice presidents of instruction in the California community college system
PDF
Achievement and retention of first-semester nursing students: The effects of a study skills course
PDF
Faculty characteristics: What are their relationships with academic outcomes of community college students?
PDF
Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college
PDF
Factors influencing academic success of Chinese international students in Los Angeles community colleges
PDF
Evaluating the California Community Colleges Registry
PDF
Community college English courses: The road less traveled by community college students
PDF
Community college students and achievement in mathematics: Predictors of success
PDF
Associate degree nursing students' perceptions of caring ability, parental care and nursing school climate: A quantitative and qualitative study of caring links among first semester nursing stud...
PDF
A study of student retentiveness, achievement, and program completion in a school -to -career program
PDF
Fulfilling the mission to serve the underserved: A case study of a private, Catholic, urban college's two -year program
PDF
A study of the Navy College Program for Afloat College Education: Implications for teaching and learning among nontraditional college students
PDF
An examination of the contract education program in a multi-college community college district in Southern California: A descriptive and qualitative case study investigation
PDF
International students: Patterns of success
PDF
Chinese parents' attitudes toward parental involvement: A case study of the ABC Unified School District
Asset Metadata
Creator
Tsuda, Lily Ling
(author)
Core Title
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...
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, community college,OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, ethnic and racial studies
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Hagedorn, Linda Serra (
committee chair
), Gothold, Stuart (
committee member
), Sundt, Melora (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-459787
Unique identifier
UC11340242
Identifier
3196905.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-459787 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3196905.pdf
Dmrecord
459787
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Tsuda, Lily Ling
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, community college
sociology, ethnic and racial studies