University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Course -taking patterns of Chinese students native and non -native speakers of English at community college

(USC Thesis Other)

Course -taking patterns of Chinese students native and non -native speakers of English at community college

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NOTE TO USERS Page(s) missing in number only; text follows. Page(s) were scanned as received. This reproduction is the best copy available. ® UMI Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF CHINESE STUDENTS NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH AT COMMUNITY COLLEGE by Andrew Zdzislaw Chlebek A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (EDUCATION) December 2004 Copyright 2004 Andrew Z. Chlebek Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 3155394 Copyright 2004 by Chlebek, Andrew Zdzislaw 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 3155394 Copyright 2005 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 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION To Mother Mary, full of Grace my wife Emilia, my mom Aleksandra, my professors Linda S. Hagedom and Nelly Stromquist, and all the women and men, friends and professors alike, who supported me when pursuing my doctoral degree. / Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS With all my heart, I would like to express my sincere thanks and gratitude to all the members of my dissertation committee for taking time to help me get through the qualifying examination and tenuous writing dissertation process. My deepest appreciation especially goes to Dr. Linda Serra Hagedom, Chair of my committee and who was an exceptional research mentor. I am grateful for having this excellent opportunity to work with such a wonderful chair, professor, researcher and friend. Her exceptional guidance, invaluable input, and constant care during my research assistantship are deeply appreciated. In addition, my sincere thanks goes to Dr. William M. Rideout, a member of my committee, for his sage advice, support, and guidance, not only for my dissertation, but also for his help throughout my international and intercultural graduate work in the School of Education. My sincere gratitude goes to Dr. Dominic Cheung, a Department Chair of East Asian Languages and Cultures, a second and outside member of my committee, for all his assistance through my qualifying examination and dissertation process. Without the friendship of students, professors, and many other individuals, my journey in pursuing a graduate degree in education would have been a very lonely and far more difficult process. I want to thank all of my friends who helped along the way, and those who helped in the final process of proofreading, especially Rizza Gonzales, Willette Salamasina, Paul Prebe, Dr. Keith Plummer and Dr. Tim Gust. I would also like to thank significant others including those living far away who were close through their emotional support and prayers, especially members Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iv of my family. First, I would like to thank my wife Emilia for her love and continuous support in assisting me during my coursework, qualifying examination, and dissertation process. Second, I thank my mother, Aleksandra, not only for giving me life, but also for her caring heart in devoting time for prayer from afar as well as visiting from Poland twice during my doctoral studies and sharing the domestic burden. Although geographical distance and busy schedules have prevented me from seeing my brothers, their constant support has always been evident in all my personal and career pursuits. My only sorrow is that my father is not longer alive to see his son come of age academically; nevertheless I always felt his intercessions and invisible presence. Most importantly, I am grateful to my brother and priest, Fr. Stanley, who always supported me spiritually throughout this difficult and demanding journey. In addition, my sincere thanks go to Dr. Nelly Stromquist, who made it possible for me to begin my research- insights on a gender studies career while working for her in the beginning of my doctoral studies. Her support was invaluable and afforded memorable moments during my doctoral studies. Lastly, I want to thank all of my wonderful classmates, students, and research colleagues at Rossier School of Education who not only gave ideas of lasting value but also made my doctoral studies more valuable and my enthusiasm for cultural research grow. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. V TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Iii LIST OF TABLES xii LIST OF FIGURES xvi LIST OF ABREVIATIONS xviii ABSTRACT xix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.......................................................... ............ 1 Introduction 1 Background of the Problem 2 Changing Asian Population 2 Changes in the Ethnic Mix at American Colleges 4 Community College Educational Model 4 The Model Minority 7 Poverty among Asians 8 English Proficiency 9 Preparing Future Occupational Success 10 Statement of the Problem 11 Purpose of the Study 13 Significance of the Problem 14 Research Questions 16 Hypotheses 17 Assumptions 19 Limitations 20 Delimitations 20 Definition of Terms 21 Organization of the Study 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. v i CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE......................................... 27 Introduction 27 Literature Review 29 Short Overview of Chinese History in the United States 29 Chinese Assimilation into American Society or On Becoming American Chinese 31 American Chinese Academic Success/Failure 36 Variability in Response to Schooling in America 40 Are Chinese really a “model minority” made up solely of high achievers? 43 English Language and Academic Success 52 Background 52 Language Learning 53 Language Literacy and Proficiency 54 English Language Proficiency 58 Key Factors Affecting Minority Students L2 Success 59 Socio-cultural and political Factors 60 Language and Culture 61 Chinese and English 64 Individual Learner Differences 64 Models of language Acquisition 68 Characteristics of Community College 71 Community College a Model for Success 71 LACCD Mission and Functions 71 Low Enrollment Fees and Financial Aides 74 About College Transfer 75 IGETC 76 Exploring Course-Taking Patterns 78 Course-taking at Community College 79 Asians and course-taking patterns 82 The Yin-Yang Principle and Classification of Community College Courses 82 A New perspective 82 The Meaning of Yin-Yang 84 Yin-Yang Division of Courses 84 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii Yin-Yang Academic and Occupational Career Choices Among Asian Students 86 Conclusion 87 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY...................................................................... 89 Introduction 89 Research questions 90 Methodology 91 Research Populations and Sample 91 Chinese Ethnicity and CCCS Research Population 94 Research Design 95 Typology of Analyzed Courses 96 Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures 101 Students’ Characteristics - Variables Used in the Study 102 Construct Validity and Reliability 106 Data Analysis 108 Analysis of Course-Taking Patterns 109 The Analyses of Transfer Modules (UC/CSU and IGETC) 112 Yin - Yang Module 113 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS 115 Introduction 115 Chapter Overview 117 Section 1: Description of Research Population 117 Place of Enrollment - School Campus 118 Native and Non-Native Speakers of English 119 Findings by Research Questions 120 Section 2: Research Question No. 1 120 Characteristics of Chinese Students (CCCS) 121 Personal 121 Language 127 Education or Schooling 132 College 135 Situational or Financial 141 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. v iii Section 3: Research Question No. 1(B). 146 Distribution of Courses Among CCCS, Hispanics and Whites - Transcript Data Analysis 146 Academic Transferable Courses: UC/CSU and IGETC Module 146 Vocational and Remedial 147 English and ESL 148 Mathematics 149 Y in-Y ang Module 151 Summary of Question 1 (B) 152 Section 4: Research Question No. 1(C) 153 Native vs. Non-Native Speakers of English Enrollment in Courses 153 Enrollment Differences between CCCS -N SE and NNSE 154 Enrollment of NNSE in English and Mathematics - CCCS 160 vs. Hispanics and Whites Summary of Research Question 1 (C) j ^ Section 5: Research Question No. 2 jgg CCCS NSE and NNSE Course-Taking Patterns j ^ Course Participation Ratios (CPR) CCCS Academic Success: CCR and GPA CCCS GPA in Various Types of Courses j ^ Comparisons of NNSE across CCCS, Hispanic, and White Populations ^ NNSE Course Participation Ratio (CPR) ^ NNSE Academic Success (CCR and GPA) Summary of Question No.2 j^g Section 6: Research Question No.3 Regression Analyses 183 Multiple Regressions for CCR 184 Multiple Regressions for GPA 188 Summary of the GPA and CCR Regressions Results 191 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ix CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS................................................................................................ 193 The purpose of the Study 193 Summary of Findings 194 Research question number 1 (A) 194 Research question number 1 (B) 197 Research question number 1 (C) 198 Research question number 2 200 Research question number 3 203 Discussions 204 LANGUAGE 205 Ethnic group considerations 205 Education abroad and education in the U.S. 206 Language implications and conclusions 207 MODEL MINORITY (DE)CONSTRUCTED 210 Construction of Model Minority 210 Deconstruction of the Model Minority 211 PERSONAL 211 LANGUAGE 212 SCHOOLING 212 FINANCIAL 213 COLLEGE 213 Implications and conclusions 213 PREDICTORS OF CHINESE ACADEMIC SUCCES 217 Implications and conclusions 218 YIN-YANG PERSPECTIVE 219 Implications and conclusions 220 Recommendations 221 To Community College Personnel 221 To Chinese Students 224 To Future Researchers 226 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. X Conclusion REFERENCES APPENDIX A l: Community College Student Survey APPENDIX A2: Student Records Authorization Form APPENDIX B: SYNTAX for Creating Hispanic and Compound Groups APPENDIX C: Procedures for Calculating Course Participation Ratio (CPR) APPENDIX D: Procedures and Syntax for Calculating GPA APPENDIX E: SYNTAX for Creating Success - Course Completion Ratios Appendix F: Distribution of Enrollments for CCCS NSE and NNSE. Descriptive Statistics and Chi-Square. Appendix G: Distribution of Courses for CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites. Descriptive Statistics. Appendix HI: Differences on CPR for CCCS NSE and NNSE. Descriptive Statistics and T-test. Appendix H2: Differences on CCR for CCCS NSE and NNSE. Descriptive Statistics and T-test. Appendix H3: Differences on GPA for CCCS NSE and NNSE. Descriptive Statistics and T-test. 227 230 248 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. XI Appendix II: NNSE Differences on CPR Between CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites. Descriptive Statistics and ANOYA tests. Appendix 12: NNSE Differences on CCR for CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites. Descriptive Statistics and ANOYA tests. Appendix 13: NNSE Differences on GPA for CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA tests. Appendix 14: NNSE Courses Attempted and Courses Passed, by Population. Descriptive Statistics. APPENDIX J: Intersegmental General Education Transfer APPENDIX K: Selective Students Characteristics (CCCS -Community College Chinese Students) by percent 264 266 268 270 272 273 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table x ii LIST OF TABLES 1: Research Populations (CCCS, Hispanics, Whites), by number 93 and percent of cases 2: Classification of Courses 99 3: Student Characteristics (Variables used in the study) 103 4: Construction Validity and Reliability of Selected Independent 107 Variables 5: Data Source and Statistical Analyses Performed in the Study 116 6: CCCS Hispanics, Whites Native and Non-Native Speakers of 120 English 7: Distribution of Three Age Categories Among Populations, by 122 number and percent 8: Distribution of GENDER, by CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites 123 9: “Are You Currently Married?” (Populations by number and 124 percent) 10: Populations by Parental Education: Mother (Q 411) and Father 126 (Q41_2) 11: Is English Your Native Language? (By number and percent) 127 12: Self-Reported English Language Abilities, Populations by 128 number and percent 13: Problem with Understanding the English Language, Populations 129 by percent 14: English Language Usage with Parents, Friends, and Teachers, by 131 percent 15: CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites Populations by Education Abroad 133 and/or in U.S A . 16: CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites Populations by Self-reported High 135 School Grade 17: Populations by First Generation in College, by number and 136 percent Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. X lll Table 18: College Belonging - “I feel I belong to this college” (Q 3718) 136 Table 19: Transfer to a 4-year College or university, by number and 137 percent Table 20: Populations by “I Want to Get a Bachelor Degree” 137 Table 21: CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites Populations by Highest Academic 138 Degree Desired Table 22: Academic Determination, Populations by number and percent 139 Table 23: CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites, Populations by College Degree 141 Earned in US/Abroad Table 24: Self-determined Academic Status: How do You Primarily Think 142 of Yourself? Populations by number and percent. Table 25: Current Employment Status, Populations by number and percent 143 Table 26: Recipients of Financial Assistance -Scholarship and/or Loan, 143 Populations by percent Table 27: Problem with Paying for College, Population by number and 144 percent Table 28: Reasons for Attending This College, Populations by number and 145 percent Table 29: Enrollment in Academic Transferable Courses Across 147 Population Groups, by number and percent Table 30: Enrollment in Occupational and Remedial Course Across 148 Population Groups, by number and percent Table 31: CCCS Enrollment in English and ESL Courses Across 149 Population Groups, by number and percent Table 32: Enrollment in English (ESL) Level Courses Across Population 149 Groups, by number and percent Table 33: Enrollment in Math Level Courses Across Population Groups, 150 by number and percent Table 34: Enrollment in Yin and Yang Courses Across Population Groups, 151 by number and percent Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 35: Table 36: Table 37: Table 38: Table 39: Table 40: Table 41: Table 42: Table 43: Table 44: Table 45: Table 46: Table 47: Table 48: Table 49: x iv CCCS NSE and NNSE Course Enrollment, by number of 155 subjects, number of courses enrolled, and percent CCCS NSE and NNSE Enrollment in Transferable Courses, by 156 number and percent CCCS NSE and NNSE Enrollment in Occupational and 157 Remedial Courses, by number and percent CCCS NSE and NNSE Enrollment in English, by number and 157 percent CCCS NSE and NNSE Enrollment in English Level Courses by 158 number and percent CCCS NSE and NNSE Enrollment in Math Level Courses, by 159 number and percent CCCS (NSE and NNSE) Enrollment in Yin-Yang Module, by 160 number and percent Course Enrollment of NSE and NNSE, by number of subjects, 161 number of courses enrolled, and percent Enrollment of NNSE in English and ESL Across NNSE 162 Population Groups, by number and percent Enrollment of NNSE in English Across NNSE Population 163 Groups, by level, number, and percent Enrollment of NNSE in Math Level Courses Across NNSE 164 Population Groups, by number and percent CPR of CCCS NSE and NNSE in Various Types of Courses, by 168 average number of courses, and average number of semesters CCR of CCCS NSE and NNSE in Various Types of Courses, by 172 number of courses attempted, and courses passed CPR for CCCS, Hispanics and Whites in Types of Courses, by 176 average number of courses, average number of semesters, and percent CCR for NNSE (CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites) in Various 179 Types of Courses, by number of courses attempted and courses passed Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. XV Table 50: CCR and GPA for NNSE in Various Types of Courses, by 180 population Table 51: Blocks of Variables Used for Multiple Regressions 183 Table 52: Multiple Regression - CCR 185 Table 53: ANOVA - CCR 185 Table 54: Regression Model Coefficients - Model 5 186 Table 55: Multiple Regression - GPA* Model Summary 189 Table 56: ANOVA -G P A 189 Table 57: Regression Model Coefficients - Model 5: GPA 190 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. XVI LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Yin-Yang Principle and Classification of Academic Courses 85 Figure 2: Diversity of Populations at LACCD, by percent 92 Figure 3: CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites Research Populations, by number of cases 94 Figure 4: CCCS Research Population, by number of cases 95 Figure 5: Yin-Yang Classification of Academic Courses 98 Figure 6: CCCS Choice of College/School Campus at LACCD, by percent 119 Figure 7: Distribution of AGE Categories, Populations by percent 122 Figure 8: GENDER, Populations (CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites) by percent 123 Figure 9: CCCS and Hispanic Parental Level of Formal Education, by percent 125 Figure 10: CCCS and Whites Parental Level of Formal Education, by percent 125 Figure 11: Populations by Native and Non-Native Speakers of English, by percent 127 Figure 12: English Language Abilities, Populations by percent 129 Figure 13: Problem with understanding English language, by percent 130 Figure 14: Using English with Parents 131 Figure 15: Using English with Friends 132 Figure 16: Research populations by Levels of Education Abroad, by percent 133 Figure 17: Research populations by Levels of Education in the U.S., by percent 134 Figure 18: CCCS Levels of Formal Education Abroad and in the USA, by percent 134 Figure 19: Highest Academic Degree Desired, Populations by percent 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. X V II Figure 20: College Degree Earned in Another Country and in the U.S. 140 Figure 21: CCCR CPR in Yin and Yang Courses 169 Figure 22: CCCS CCR in Various Types of Courses 171 Figure 23: CCCS CPR in Yin-Yang Courses 175 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. x v iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ANOVA Analysis of Variance APA American Pacific Asians CCCS Community College Chinese Students CCCS NSE Community College Chinese Student Native Speakers of English CCR Course Completion Ratio CPR Course Participation Ratio ESL English as a Second Language IM Involuntary Minorities GPA Grade Point Average GRE General Record Examination LACCD Los Angeles Community College District MM(M) Model Minority (Myth) NNSE Non-Native Speakers of English or ESL subjects NSE Native Speakers of English SPSS Statistical Package of Social Sciences TRUCCS Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students VM Voluntary Minorities Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. xix ABSTRACT This study intends to identify the relationship between course-taking practices of Chinese both native and non-native speakers of English (NSE and NNSE) enrolled in classes at Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). In addition to Chinese, Hispanic and Whites samples have been utilized for comparison purposes. Community college Chinese students (CCCS)’ course taking patterns have been examined with respect to six types/modules of courses. In addition to English (ESL) and Mathematics, Transferable (UC/CSU and IGETC), Remedial, Occupational, and the Yin-Yang course taking patterns were examined with respect to course participation, completion and GPA and compared to Hispanics and Whites. The Yin-Yang forces represent the ancient Chinese (Taoist) understanding of how things work in the universe and that they are in constant struggle towards balance and harmony (Ebrey, 1993). In this study, the Yin-Yang principle was applied to a division of the whole “universe” of courses offered at community college. According to the Yin-Yang principle, all courses offered by a community college are contained within the circle. The universe of courses can be divided into Yin-Yang categories represented by courses classified into Yin and Yang areas (modules). Consequently, Yin represents courses that primarily require the extensive knowledge and use of the English language skills (Social Sciences) and the Yang represents courses that primarily require extensive use of mathematic and science skills (Physical Sciences). The combined Yin-Yang category represented a category of neutral courses such as tutoring, learning instruction or assisted learning, and Physical Education. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. XX The purpose of this study was fourfold: (1) to identify the particular characteristics of Chinese community college students (CCCS) within the LACCD and make comparisons to those of Hispanics and Whites; (2) to analyze the Chinese students’ course-taking behaviors by identifying trends in their course- enrollment patterns in specified types of courses and making comparisons between Chinese non-native speakers of English (NNSE) and Hispanic and White NNSE; (3) to identify differences and relationships in course participation ratio (CPR), course-completion ratio (CCR), and grade point average (GPA) between Chinese NSE and Chinese NNSE as well as between Chinese NNSE and other NNSE (Hispanics and Whites); (4) to find the best predictors of academic success (in terms of CCR and GPA) of the Chinese students at LACCD. Figure 1: Yin-Yang division of Courses English Intensive Academic Courses (Social Sciences) YIN Less English Intensive Academic Courses (Physical Sciences)) YANG Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1 1 COURSE-TAKING PATTERNS OF CHINESE STUDENTS NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH AT COMMUNITY COLLEGE Introduction With the influx of Asian migration to the United States causing an explosive growth of the Asian American population, the United States is projecting into a “Pacific Century” (Hu-DeHart, 1999). American society has become increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-cultural with an increase in society’s demands for education. In the past three decades, course-taking patterns tracking general changes in student enrollments and their interests in academic programs have been of interest to many researchers (Anton, 1980; Ayers, 1995; Horn & Carroll, 1989; Kaufman, 1990; Mattice, 1983; Milner, 2002; Nishimoto, 2004; Ripps, 1985; Shelton, 1981; Stegall, 1985; West, Miller, & Diodato, 1985). However, research specifically on the course-taking patterns of American Asian students at community colleges is limited to only one recent study conducted by Nishimoto (2004). In the context of a steadily growing number of Asian minority students attending community colleges, Laanan (2000) and Hsia (1988) suggested that more research on Asian community college students is needed. This study sought to analyze the demographic characteristics and course taking patterns of Chinese community college students, in particular, while making comparisons to other Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 native and non-native speakers of English, and identifying factors which contribute to non-native speakers of English academic success. Background of the Problem Historically, many ethnic groups have immigrated to America to pursue their dreams in the ‘land of great opportunities’. Although many Asians were among them, they were excluded in the beginning from a “new race of man” (Okihiro, 2000), and only after the 1965 Immigration Act did Asia become a major source of united immigration (Ong & Liu, 2000). Prior to 1965, nine out of ten immigrants came from European countries; whereas, after 1965, nearly nine out of ten have come from Latin American, the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa (Keller, 2001). Changing Asian Population Immigrants from various parts of Asia and the Pacific Islands have formed the fastest growing ethnic group in the United States. The Asian Pacific American (APA) population in the U.S. has grown from a mere 1.5 million at the time of the 1970 census to 3.7 million in 1980, 7.9 in 1990, and 11.9 million in the 2000 census. This figure of 11.9 million people represents 4.2% of the total U.S. population. Of this, Chinese have become the largest group among Asians representing 25% (approximately 3 million people) of the total APA population. Interestingly, about one-half of the American Asians were found to be living in just three states: California, New York and Hawaii (Barnes & Bennett, 2002; Keller, 2001; Paisano, 1993; Tolbert, 2002). California in particular has been impacted the most with the APA comprising more than 10% of the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 state’s total population at the time of the 2000 Census. In Los Angeles County alone the Census accounted for 9,519,338 non-dominant majority inhabitants. Approximately 45% were found to be Hispanic, 31% White, 13% Asian, 9% African American and 1% other (Barnes & Bennett, 2002; Keller, 2001; Paisano, 1993; Tolbert, 2002). California has become an ethnic magnet drawing migration from all over the world, especially from Asia, and including both legal (documented) and illegal (undocumented) immigrants. Consequently, a tremendously high number of immigrants continue to affect the dynamics of the state. As of 1998, 59,897 legal immigrants were documented in the County of Los Angeles. That translated to 35.3% of all legal immigrants in the state of California that year. In addition, 32.7% of all Los Angeles County residents were bom in other countries. In fact, as of 1990, over half of all foreign-bom persons in LA County had entered the U.S. between the years 1980-1990. This contributes to a high number of first generation citizens in Los Angeles (Los Angeles Almanac, 2002a). However, undocumented immigrants in California are many. According to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, there are approximately 2 million illegal or undocumented residents believed to reside in California. The growth rate is estimated at about 100,000 per year since 1988. Most of these immigrants were expected to have arrived from Mexico though many illegal residents also come from China. Most are believed to reside in Los Angeles County (Los Angeles Almanac, 2002a). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 Changes in the Ethnic Mix at American Colleges Like society, the American college campus is experiencing an expansion of racial and ethnic diversity. The demographic trends are apparent in the enrollment patterns of American colleges and universities where ethnic minorities accounted for more than half of the 30% expansion in student enrollment between 1976 and 1994 (Laanan, 2000). In 1995, Asian Pacific American students comprised 5.6% of the total college enrollment with increases of 101.7%, 105.4% and 233.3%, respectively, for undergraduate, graduate, and professional schools between 1984 and 1995 (Hune & Chan, 1997). The number of Asian students attending community colleges within the Los Angeles Community College District is becoming more apparent. According to the LACCD Office of Institutional Research and Information, the number of Asian students enrolling in Los Angeles community colleges has steadily increased from 10.6% in 1990 to 14 % in 2000 and 15% in 2003 (LACCD, 2004d). Notably, at two schools, Los Angeles City College and Los Angeles Pierce College, Asian students comprised slightly above 20% of the entire student population in the Fall of 2003 (LACCD, 2004c). Community College Educational Model Since their inception, community colleges have responded to the needs and demands of diverse populations and disadvantaged groups seeking access to higher education (Brint & Karabel, 1989). Increasingly they continue to provide the possibility of “education access to all” (Chang, 2000) and help students achieve realistic academic and occupational ends (Cohen, 1986). Thus, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 multiple ethnic constituents (nationals, immigrants, and internationals) have been seeking access to higher education through America’s community colleges. With this growing multi-ethnic population, the demand for education at the community level has steadily increased. The continuing and evolving needs of the diverse population challenge the mission of the community colleges which are now supplying 44% of the total undergraduate enrollment at U.S. colleges and universities (Phelan, 2000). In 1999-2000, 47,706 students transferred from a community college to a California State University (CSU) and 10,827 transferred to a University of California (UC). In addition, community colleges are expected to enroll 528,000 additional students between 2000 and 2010 (CSPEC, 2002). With these increased enrollments the complexion and mission of community colleges are more often being defined in terms of “business models” (Levin, 2001). As Levin explains, community colleges are now adapting to “the business community over the social community” (2001, p.57). The traditional mission of the community college as an institution that educates, trains, and serves as a community resource is more frequently being neglected and/or compromised (Striplin, 2000). It is “oftentimes aligned to catapult community colleges to the center of the federal and state educational policy agendas” (Townsend & Twombly, 2001: p. viii). Also, with this constantly globalizing environment, multiethnic community college students are becoming more inclined to adopt career models that value “business” enterprise over other educational choices (Duh, 1990; Levinston, Foley, & Holland, 1996). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 Supported by the American ideology and theory (Apple, 1995; McLaren, 1997) which promotes the belief that all residents of the United States, including new immigrants, are entitled to equal educational opportunities, fast growing ethnic minorities are becoming more visible on campus, as well as in business and politics (Nakanishi, Lai, & Omatsu, 1999; Paisano, 1993; Saito, 1998; K. Wong, 1994). With this steadily growing diversity of student backgrounds, an enormous pressure is being placed on state and local political, social and educational systems. A tremendous challenge exists for community colleges to fulfill their mission of providing educational opportunities for ‘all students’. The diversity of student backgrounds has imposed upon community colleges a responsibility for ensuring the success of “all” by way of such things as improving campus racial dynamics (Chang, 2000), extending possibilities for all students (Tierney, 1997) and promoting diversity and excellence by launching the Minority Opportunities Through School Transformation (MOST) program (Levine, Rodriguez, Howery, & Latoni-Rodriguez, 2002). A significant number of Asian students enroll in 4-year institutions; however, many of them enroll initially in a community college for reasons such as poverty, transfer options, available language skills classes, and a more comfortable cultural transition. Enrollment in a community college is often much less expensive than other institutions. In the State of California, residents of at least one year are required to pay only $26 per unit while non-residents pay $ 154 and foreigners $164 per unit (LACCD, 2004d). These fees are much lower than those of CSU and UC. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 Among American Asians there are many international students. In the span of 20 years, since 1982/83, the total number of international students studying at American colleges has increased by 74%. As of 2003, Asian students comprised over half (51%) of all international enrollments. Among these Asian students, Chinese overwhelmingly represent the majority. The combined total of students from China (64,757), Taiwan (28,017) and Hong Kong (8,076) represent the greatest number of international students from one ethnic group (Institute of International Education, 2004). California is consistently the leading host state for international students (80,487 in 2003) while Los Angeles hosts the second highest number (29,486) among cities, second only to New York City (36,086). At community colleges, in particular, the number of international students has grown 57.9% from 61,278 in 1993/94 to 96,785 in 2002/03. Among them, Chinese students from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong represent a combined total of 10.5%, second only to Japanese at 16.3% (Institute of International Education, 2004). The Model Minority The “Model Minority” (MM) portrays Asians as “overachievers” who excel in school and usually have no need for remedial education. Many researchers and scholars (Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ogbu, 1993) have adopted this notion which places all Asians into a stereotypical category of ‘Asian success’ which claims that all Asians assimilate faster (Ogbu & Simons, 1998) into the mainstream American society, and excel above other minorities with greater economic success. However, from the vantage point Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 of the Asian scholars (Wong, 1986; Okihiro, 2000; Osajima, 2000), the MM is considered a misleading ‘old’ stereotype under which Asians suffer societal pressure and inequality (Grace, 1997). Although many Asian Americans have achieved a level of success in the U.S., the MM is simply not representative of all Asians (Okihiro, 2000; Osajima, 2000). Many Asian minorities, social groups, and immigrant families have actually suffered poverty (Lee, 1979) and assimilated partially (segmented assimilation) (Zhou, 1997). Moreover, gaps in income, education and poverty levels between the new immigrants and native- born Asians are widening (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). Many of the newcomers find themselves lacking social and cultural capital hindering them from the potential of upward mobility. Hence, though it may be safe to say that most, if not all, Asian families consider education to be a high priority, not all can afford it (Ou, 1999). Poverty among Asians The Los Angeles Community Colleges Institutional Research website defines the poverty level in 1998 as having an income of $8,050 or less for one person, $10,850 or less for two people, $13,650 for three people, and $16,450 for four. These figures are updated each year based on the cost of living. Poverty rates vary over time and move with the general economic conditions. As of the 2000 Census, 17.36% of the U.S. population was living below the poverty level1 . Of those in poverty, 44% were male and 56% female. The ethnic breakdown of 1 The Census 2000 Supplementary Survey universe is limited to the household population and excludes the population living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 those in poverty was: 67% Hispanic, 13% White, 10% African American, 9% Asian/Pacific Islander and less than 1% American Indian (Los Angeles Almanac, 2002b). As of 2003 an estimated 35.9 million U.S. residents were living in poverty. Compared to other states, California’s average poverty rate over the past three years has remained slightly above the national average at 12.9%. Among ethnic groups, poverty has increased for Asian Americans, who are a young population with a median age of 30 years, while remaining steady among Latinos and African Americans (Doyle, 2004). English Proficiency Over the last decade, the number of students studying English as a Second Language (ESL) has grown throughout the United States. In 2003, nearly half of all the students enrolled at schools within the LACCD had little or no English speaking ability (LACCD, 2004d). Without a doubt, English language proficiency accounts for Chinese achievement and affords a certain status not available to those with little or imperfect fluency (Faung & Lee, 1991; Leki, 1999; Zhou, 1997). Further, English language proficiency is absolutely necessary to achieve in school. Since education in the United States is conducted in the English language, full participation in school requires ‘sufficient’ language competence (Baker, 1996; Harklau, Losey, & Sigal, 1999). Unfortunately, many non-native speakers of English (NNSE) students find the English language to be their greatest barrier to academic success as the allotment of time and effort required to gain a sufficient level of proficiency is often quite lengthy even while enrolled in ESL courses full-time. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 0 Preparing Future Occupational Success There are “many Asians here, but few hold office” (Cohen and Ignash, 1993). Considering educational and occupational choices, many first-generation immigrant and international (NNSE) students are more likely to enroll in two- year public and/or less-than-four-year institutions in order to, as quickly as possible, gain occupational and financial independence. This may suggest that the community colleges are playing a very significant role, “on the front-lines” so to speak, in shaping the personal perceptions of NNSE students on their educational and occupational choices (LACCD, 2004a). For example, the great lack of Asians within the teaching profession as well as other “English language intensive” jobs gives some indication as to how significant a role English language proficiency plays while a student in the course-taking stage of life considers career choices for the future. The Yin-Yang principle (Ebrey, 1993; WordiQ, 2004), may be applied when analyzing student course taking behavior and career-path choices. For example, Yin represents social science courses (e.g., English, history, sociology) which require an extensive use of the English language and are necessary for degree choices such as teaching and social work, while Yang represents physical science courses (e.g., mathematics, and some science classes such as physics) which require a less intensive use of the English language and eventually lead to career choices such as high-tech/computer, scientific research, etc. In the best scenario, career choices Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 1 viewed through the Yin-Yang lens represent the balance between student course- taking patterns and their future educational and occupational aspirations. Statement of the Problem Most often, Asian students have been either disregarded or placed in the aggregated pan-ethnic or other-minority descriptor in research. This, unfortunately, eliminates the uniqueness of each of the separate cultures and potentially distorts the participation of subgroups (Teranishi, Dinwiddie, & Tiao, 2003). For example, Chinese are frequently included in research as a subcategory of Pacific Asians. In fact, until 1990, data on student ethnicity grouped all Asians into one category. However, in the Fall of 1990, the Asian category was made more specific by the addition of the following subgroups: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Laotian, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Indian Subcontinent, Pacific Islander, and other Asian. For the purpose of this study Chinese were grouped separately from other Asians as alone they now represent a significant percentage of the total U.S. population. Many researchers and scholars have been drawn into a belief that Asians do better in education than other minorities (Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ogbu, 1993). However, from the perspective of Asian scholars (Okihiro, 2000; Osajima, 2000), the label “model minority” is a mixed blessing because m any A sian parents sacrifice their tim e and resources, suffer poverty and humiliation in order to improve their children’s educational and occupational dreams. Nakanishi (2000) stated that although there are many Asians who fit the ‘model minority’, in 4-year institutions the ‘excellence Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 2 quotas’ are over exaggerated (Nakanishi, 2000) and many Asians enroll at community colleges (LACCD, 2004a). Unquestionably, proficiency in English language accounts for academic and occupational success. Many Chinese students enroll in community colleges to strengthen their language and academic skills and gain academic credit for transfer to a four-year institution of higher education. The community college is a place where these students, who lack in English proficiency and are often ineligible to enter 4-year institutions, can receive help to strengthen their skills and obtain a college education which would otherwise be out of their reach due to poor language and/or academic skills (Adelman, 1996). In addition, the community college is an institution with open enrollment wherein students may enroll with fewer restrictions and lower fees. Chinese students, both national and international, come to community colleges to improve their ESL language skills, enroll in remedial or other courses to boost their academic skills, and obtain transferable credits. Most importantly, they do not feel rejected since in the state of California, community colleges will admit any California resident over the age of 18 who is capable of profiting from the instruction offered. The colleges may also admit nonresidents possessing a high school diploma or the equivalent thereof (Mission Statement, Chancellor’s Office). Looking through the lens of both language and the MM perspective, this research intended to determine factors that would indicate the role which English and English as a Second Language (ESL) play for Chinese students, both native and non-native speakers of English, in influencing their choice of courses Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 and persistence towards intended/aspired career choices (Makuakane-Drechsel, 1999). It is hypothesized that future job trends are bound to the early stages of course taking patterns. For example, student enrollments in non-English intensive courses (mathematics and science) may eventually lead to a ‘crisis’ of insufficient numbers of Chinese people in English-language-intensive professions (Nishimoto, 2004; Chin, 2001). It is important to foresee the potential risks and benefits by exploring this increasingly growing ethnic group in American society in light of the coming ‘Pacific Century’ (Hu-DeHart, 1999). These are the vital factors that prompted the researcher to explore the course taking patterns of Chinese students both native and non-native speakers of English at community colleges. Purpose of the Study Specifically, this study was conducted on Chinese students attending public urban 2-year community colleges in the Spring of 2001 within the LACCD. The Los Angeles Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS, 2001) survey and transcript dataset was utilized. The purpose of this study was fourfold: (1) to identify the particular characteristics of Chinese community college students (CCCS) within the LACCD and make comparisons to those of Hispanics and Whites; (2) to analyze the Chinese students’ course taking behaviors by identifying trends in their course enrollment patterns in specified types of courses and making comparisons between Chinese non-native speakers of English (NNSE) and Hispanic and White NNSE; (3) to identify differences and relationships in course Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 participation ratio (CPR), course completion ratio (CCR), and grade point average (GPA) between Chinese NSE and Chinese NNSE as well as between Chinese NNSE and other NNSE (Hispanics and Whites); (4) to find the best predictors of academic success (in terms of CCR and GPA) of the Chinese students at LACCD. Significance of the Problem Within the context of an increasing number of minority students attending community colleges, the importance of the transfer rates of ethnic minorities to 4- year institutions as an indicator of change and performance have brought socio economic implications for both the individual and society as well as higher education policy makers. The Yin-Yang principle provides a point of view from the perspective of a non-native English-speaking minority. Insight into the possible predictive variables of course-taking patterns, from a language perspective, could allow college policy makers and researchers to make student occupational aspirations more predictable. They could subsequently reduce negative effects by designing more appropriate courses to help language minority students realize their occupational aspirations. Moreover, further research on Chinese student course- taking patterns will simultaneously improve the Chinese student experience at community colleges. Looking at Chinese success through the MM perspective would enrich and contribute to an understanding of the diversity of ethnic groups in light of the educational and cultural heritage of the Chinese minority and their success and/or failure. An ethnic ‘minority’ sample can help educational Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 policy makers and researchers in predicting a more stable future for other language minorities. Thus, it is important to understand the educational and career choices that these students undertake while involved at a community college. This study was an attempt to improve beyond the (de)construction of the “model minority ” myth by extrapolating the example of Chinese student academic success to benefit all students and society at large. Most importantly, in response to the critical need of our society for Asians in education and English intensive professions (including social workers and teachers) this study sought to forge an initial step in recommending an educational policy that would focus on equalizing and encouraging a social dialogue between ethnic minorities in order to preserve the educational balance in academia through more balanced participation in both English intensive courses (Sociology, English Literature, History, etc.) and non-English intensive courses (Mathematics, Science, Computer Technology). It is hypothesized that course taking behavior will exercise its influence on students’ occupational status and help to cure society’s needs (Nishimoto, 2004). Finally, with the overall increase of minority populations seeking higher education, knowing the course-taking patterns can help to determine how these choices influence student projections of their aspirations for future educational and occupational choices. Eventually, knowing some relevant answers to how Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 and why will help policy makers and educators not only understand but also see where to begin more relevant remedial action with regard to language minorities. Research Questions The research questions for the study are as follows: Question 1: A) What are the demographic characteristics of Chinese Community College Students (CCCS) at LACCD? To what extent do Chinese (CCCS) differ from Whites and other minority groups (e.g., Hispanic) by selective students ’ characteristics?? B) What is the distribution o f Chinese students ’ enrollments in the following categories o f courses: Academic Transferable (CSU, UC, IGETC), Occupational, Remedial, English (ESL), Math, and Yin vs. Yang? To what extent do CCCS differ from other minorities (e.g., Hispanics) and Whites in the categories o f courses specified above? C) What are the specific differences/relationships between the enrollment o f Chinese native speakers o f English (CCCS NSE) and Chinese non native speakers o f English (CCCS NNSE) in the categories o f courses specified above? Do the CCCS NNSE enrollments in English and Math differ from other NNSE (e.g., Hispanics and Whites)? Question 2: Is there a relationship o f course-taking patterns between Chinese native speakers o f English (CCCS NSE) and Chinese non-native speakers o f English (CCCS NNSE)? In other words, using the outcomes o f GPA (Grade Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 Point Average), CPR (Course Participation Ratios), and CCR (Course Completion Ratios) is there a significant difference between CCCS NSE and CCCS NNSE in the types o f courses specified above? Do CCCS NNSE differ from other NNSE (e.g., Hispanic minorities and Whites) in the categories o f courses specified above? Question 3: What are the factors that contribute to academic success (in terms o f GPA and CCR) o f Chinese students at LACCD? Hypotheses The hypotheses for the above research questions are as follows: Hypothesis to Question 1: A. It is expected that the majority of Community College Chinese students (CCCS or Chinese) at LACCD will be: younger than 30 years of age, not married, male, non-native speakers of English (NNSE or ESL), the first generation in college, have more education abroad than in the U.S., attend a college in order to transfer, and desire a degree higher than a B.A. college degree. B. It is expected that the majority of Chinese students will be enrolled in transferable (CSU, UC, IGETC), remedial, and English (ESL) courses rather than in occupational and m ath courses. M oreover, Chinese students will take a higher percentage of engineering and math courses (Yang module) rather than social science courses (Yin module). Chinese will also be predominantly enrolled in the Yin-Yang module (consisting Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18 predominantly of tutoring classes, learning assistance sessions, and physical education courses), whereas Hispanics and Whites will be less likely enrolled in the Yin-Yang module. A lower percentage of Chinese students will be enrolled in occupational courses when compared to Hispanic and White populations. C. It is expected that Chinese native speakers of English (CCCS NSE or “Chinese-American” students) will take a higher percentage of transferable courses (UC, CSU, IGETC), English, remedial (English remedial) and Yin courses than Chinese non-native speakers of English (CCCS NNSE or ESL Chinese). CCCS NSE will take a higher percentage of advanced English level courses over NNSE. CCCS NNSE will take a lower percentage of math but a higher percentage of Yang courses. Moreover, CCCS NNSE will take a higher percentage of advanced math and English level courses as opposed to NNSE of Hispanics and Whites. Hypothesis to Question 2: It is expected that Chinese NSE (native speakers of English or American- Chinese) will have: • Better outcomes in GPA and CCR than the Chinese NNSE in courses based mostly on language, e.g., English, advanced English level and the Yin module; • Lower GPA and CCR in math (advanced math level) and Yang courses than CCCS NNSE; Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 • Higher course participation ratios (CPR) than CCCS NNSE; CCCS NNSE will have lower success (in terms of GPA and CCR) in English language (including ESL) courses than Hispanics and Whites. Hypothesis to Question 3: It is hypothesized that age, gender, education abroad, English as a first language, first generation in college, financial status, and employment status will be the crucial factors that contribute to academic success (in terms of GPA and CCR) of Chinese students at LACCD. Assumptions The following assumptions have been employed for this study: 1. The participants responded to the questionnaire to the best of their ability in a quiet and controlled atmosphere. 2. The measures employed are reliable and valid indicators of the constructs to be studied. 3. The data were accurately recorded and analyzed. 4. All relationships among selected variables are linear. 5. Community colleges that participated in the study are representative of community colleges that have Chinese students in the U.S. 6. The subjects who participated in the study are sufficiently representative of C hinese enrolled in urban tw o-year com m unity colleges in California. 7. Given the established validity of the TRUCCS data, it is expected that generalizations may be made to Chinese students of community colleges who are the target populations of this study. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 8. The purposes, processes, and elements of the framework studied have a degree of applicability and generalizability to the similar population enrolled in community colleges throughout the country. 9. The research, data gathering, and conclusions of the study represent "exemplary and useful research." Limitations The limitations of this study are as follows: 1. This study was limited to subjects who agreed to participate voluntarily. 2. This study was limited to the number of Chinese subjects surveyed and the amount of time available to conduct the study. 3. Validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the survey instruments used to collect data and the statistical analysis used to analyze data. Delimitations 1. This study confined itself to surveying students from Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). 2. The data were collected by “Transfer and Retention of Urban Community Colleges” (TRUCCS) project (Hagedom, 2000). 3. This study has been delimited to Chinese and two comparative populations, Hispanics and Whites enrolled in any courses offered at one of the nine community colleges in LACCD during the Spring of 2001. 4. This study focused on the Chinese students’ enrollment and success (course completion and GPA) in courses at LACCD. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 Definition of Terms Important terms utilized in this study are defined as follows: Acculturation - A process of learning the second language/culture. Amalgamation - A process in which an ethnic group integrates/blends into the host society through intermarriage. American Chinese - Chinese who declared themselves as native speakers of English (Q20) or those who were bom in the United States (American Bom Chinese or ABC). Although Chinese bom in other English speaking countries may be included in this category, they will not be called ABC. Assimilation - (1) The social process of interaction through which two or more persons or groups accept and perform one another’s patterns of behavior. We commonly talk about a person, or a minority category, being assimilated into a group or a society; (2) Assimilation is the adoption by a person or group of the culture of another social group to such a complete extent that a person or group no longer has any characteristics identifying him/her or them with the former culture and no longer has any particular loyalties to his/her or their former culture. Or it is a process leading to this adoption (Rose, 1956, pp. 557-8). Chinese students -A collective term that includes all Chinese who have been identified under the Chinese category (Q 301). Community colleges - Two-year federally funded postsecondary institutions whose highest degrees awarded are Associate of Arts or Science Degrees and a variety of vocational certificates. Community colleges also offer a curriculum that includes transfer, general, occupational, and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 remedial/developmental education that provide access to higher education and workforce development. The unique characteristics of the community college include: multi-ethnic policy, open enrollment, low cost tuition, and different types of functions in order to meet students’ needs. Course attempt - The student behavior of enrolling in a course that has been registered on a system. Completion Ratios (CCR) -A quotient of the number of total courses completed successfully divided by the number of all courses attempted. Successful course completion is defined by a grade of A, B, C, or P (Pass). Course Participation or Enrollment Ratios (CPR) - A quotient of the number of total classes (including false attempts) divided by the number of total semesters. The CPR includes courses attempted, completed, and not completed (dropped or withdrawn). Culture - is “ the learned and shared behavior(thoughts, acts, and feelings) of a certain people together with their artifacts - learned in a sense that this behavior is transmitted socially rather than genetically; shared in that it is practiced either by the whole population or some part of it” (Kneller, 1968, p. 4). Developmental education - Education that takes upon a broader mission, and in addition to providing basic skills, addresses the needs of the ‘whole person’ by integrating personal and academic development. Diversity - The rainbow of students and others who populate community colleges. Diversity is measured in the array of people of different ages, ethnic Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 groups, ability/disability status, language, sexual orientation, races, and abilities. Enculturation - The process of learning of first language/culture. English as a Second Language fESLI - A course taught to people whose native language is not English but who live in a society where English is the main language. Ethnicity - A notion related to the origin of birth and culture in which people are bom. It also relates to the ethnic diversity of the community college (see Diversity). First generation in college - If the mother or father went to high school, but did not go to college, the student is considered a 1st generation in college, otherwise 2n d or higher generation would be used. In other words, if the father or mother went to college, a student was not considered a first generation in college. Grade Point Average - A quotient of the sum of grades obtained in the courses divided by the number of courses the student completed (enrolled in). Immigrant student - A student who is not a United States citizen but is enrolled in community college courses and has come to study, live, and work in the U.S. Model Minority (MM) - The ideology of portraying Asian minorities (immigrants) as ‘ overachievers’ who excel in school, and succeed better than other minorities in the United States. They do not only easily adopt and assimilate into the mainstream American culture and its values, but succeed economically and educationally. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 Remedial ('education) - A wide variety of remedial courses that ‘compensate for deficiencies in prior learning; that are offered at the community college, and whose content is generally considered “pre-college.” Success - For the purposes of this study is defined as: (1) Academic achievement demonstrated by the students’ grade point average (GPA) and course completion ratio (CCR); (2) Academic success/failure strongly relates to schooling in a given (American) cultural context that provides an educational growth through a journey of “racing in place.” It is “a metaphorical journey of individual growth” in the United States (Varenne, Goldman, & McDermott, 1997). Transfer - Student flow among institutions and programs. In this study, transfer refers to flow from community college to a four-year institution. Transferable courses - Courses that can be transferred and are recognized by UC and CSU systems. Yin-Yang principle/paradigm - (1) Yin and Yang forces that represent the ancient Chinese (Taoist) understanding of the constant struggle towards balance and harmony in the universe (Ebrey, 1993); (2) In this study, the symbol represents the dualistic division -English intensive (Yin) and less English intensive (Yang) of the “universe” of all courses that are offered at community colleges in LACCD. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 Organization of the Study This study has been organized into five chapters: (1) Introduction and the frame of the study; (2) Review of the literature; (3) Methodology; (4) The results of the study; (5) Discussion, conclusion, and contribution of the study. Chapter 1 frames the parameters of the study: 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 overview of the methodology, the assumptions, limitations, delimitations, the definitions of terms, and the organization of the study. Chapter 2 presents a review of relevant literature for context setting purposes for this study: (i) Short overview of Chinese history in the United States, Chinese assimilation into American society or on becoming American Chinese, American Chinese success/failure, variability in response to schooling in America, and Chinese model minority; (ii) Language theory: language learning, literacy, and proficiency, key factors affecting Chinese language minority (non-native speakers of English) success, and models of language acquisition/learning; (iii) Characteristics of community college: missions and functional roles, divisions of courses offered (transfer, occupational, remedial, IGETC), Asian enrollments at LACCD, enrollment fees and about college transfer; (iv) current theoretical fram ew ork for exam ining course-taking patterns and Yin-Yang principle and classification of community college courses. Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study, including a description of Chinese and two comparative research samples (Hispanics Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26 and Whites) identified for the purposes of this study, the data collection procedures, a description of the instrument development, and the methods of data analysis. Chapter 4 presents the results of the study in relation to the three research questions that define the focus of this study. Specifically, results are presented from statistical tests of variables’ frequencies and differences in means between variables, course enrollment, and course taking patterns. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings and presents the implications of findings and conclusions that may be drawn from interpretation of the findings resulting from this study. Finally, suggestions for future research and applications of the findings in policy development and practice are suggested. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2 27 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Literature on Asian minority students attending community colleges in the United States is minimal. Little research has been conducted in the area of course-taking patterns with regards to Asian ‘minority’ students, and no research has been published specifically on Chinese attending community colleges. Furthermore, none of the research has sought to examine enrollment behavior through a “language lens.” Language perspective is an important element of assimilation/adaptation (Kroskrity, 1993) and success of language is important for minorities in American society. Hence, the steadily growing Chinese minority population calls for more research into the areas of second language schooling at community colleges in the United States. A conceptual framework is necessary to explain the phenomena under investigation. The primary purpose of this literature review is to build the conceptual framework for the study of Chinese student course-taking patterns at community colleges. Thus, the conceptual framework for this study is based upon demographics, second language acquisition and learning, academic success, (de)construction of the Model Minority, and assimilation theories. In addition, the Yin-Yang principle was applied to the division and analysis of course-taking patterns through the language lens of English intensive versus non-English intensive courses. The secondary purpose of this literature review is to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28 indicate how and why it is important to give attention to Asian ‘minorities’ in light of the coming of the “Pacific Century” (Hu-DeHart, 1999). The reviewed literature establishes the context for the framework of this study. The literature topics for this study have been organized and presented in four sections: (i) A short overview of Chinese history in the United States, Chinese assimilation into American society or on becoming American Chinese, American Chinese academic success/failure, variability in response to schooling in America (Ogbu’s theory), and are Chinese really a “model minority” made up solely of high achievers? (ii) English Language and Academic Success: language learning, literacy, and proficiency, key factors affecting Chinese language minority success (non-native speakers of English); Socio-cultural and political factors, language and culture, Chinese and English, individual learner differences, and models of language acquisition and learning, (iii) The characteristics of community college: community college a model for success, Asian enrollments at LACCD, Community college mission and functional roles, low enrollment fees and financial aids, about college transfer (Plan “A”, Plan “B”, and IGETC). (iv) Exploring course-taking, course taking at community college, and the Yin-Yang principle and classification of community college courses. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 L iterature Review Historically, myriad ethnic groups have entered America, the ‘ land of opportunity’ seeking a better life. Many Chinese were among them. Although excluded in the beginning from a “new race of man” numerous Chinese helped to construct the California railroad that connected East to West (Okihiro, 2000). After the 1965 Immigration Act, Asia became a major source of immigration (Ong & Liu, 2000). In the last two decades, due to the rapid political restructuring of the Pacific Rim and global linkage, the influx of Asian immigration to the U.S. has increased dramatically. Many Asian immigrants and students came to the U.S. and began to learn English and succeed. However, for many immigrants it is a process of constant struggle to ‘download’ all of the cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1977, 1986) needed to succeed academically and occupationally in America. Nevertheless, American society has become increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-cultural wherein American Chinese are playing a more significant role in terms of population growth, education, business and other socio-political arenas. Short Overview of Chinese History in the United States Chinese were among the first Asians to arrive in large numbers. By the 1830s they were selling goods in New York City and toiling in Hawaiian sugarcane fields. The first Chinese overseas student (Yung Wing) arrived in New York in 1847 to study. Upon returning to China in 1854 with a diploma from Yale, Yung spearheaded the first wave of Chinese youth to venture to America to study (Tung, 2000). The second wave of Chinese pioneers to arrive in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 America, especially California, began after gold was discovered in 1848. During the 1860s, thousands of Chinese were recruited for the construction of the Central Pacific Railroad because they provided cheap labor (Okihiro, 2000; Tung, 2000). Thus, there were some 50,000 Chinese in California by 1897, most of them manual laborers. The number of Chinese increased after the conclusion of the Burlingame Treaty with China in 1868, which guaranteed the right of Chinese immigration, however, it did not grant the right of naturalization. The number of Chinese swelled to over 100, 000 in 1880. Overwhelmed by the influx of Chinese and fearing competition, some cities passed anti-Chinese laws. Riots erupted in California (Chico and San Francisco) in 1877 and Wyoming (Rock Springs) in 1885. As a result, Congress passed a bill to ban Chinese immigration in 1879, followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 that banned immigration of Chinese laborers for “ 10 years” (Johnson, 2002; Kitano & Daniels, 1988; McKenzie, Miller, & Sung, 2002; Tung, 2000). Chinese Americans repeatedly challenged the country’s exclusion laws in the courts to gain admission for their family members in the 1920s. The exclusion continued until the law setting an annual immigration quota and extending citizenship privileges to Chinese was signed in 1943. The 1945 War Brides Act allowed the admission of alien dependents of World War II veterans without quota limits. The Chinese Alien Wives of American Citizens Act, enacted in August 1946, granted permission outside the quota to Chinese wives of American citizens. With these legislative reforms, the door opened to a broader echelon of Chinese immigrants (Zhao, 2002). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 Free-flowing Chinese immigration emerged after WWII when the United States became a clear political and economic leader in the Asian Pacific. By playing a major role in ending the Japanese occupation of China, Korea and Taiwan and by assisting in the economic rebuilding of the Pacific region, these areas eventually served as a pool of potential immigrants to the U.S. It was only after 1965 that Asia became a major source of immigration to the U.S. (Ong & Liu, 2000). Chinese Assimilation into American Society or On Becoming American Chinese Historically, Chinese assimilation into American society has been a complex process and must be viewed over the broad scope of Chinese presence in the United States. The assimilation process stretches well beyond the first generation of immigrants and takes place naturally and most rapidly where social contacts between individuals and groups are primary - “in which contact is personal, informal, intimate, and usually face-to-face, and which involve the entire personality, not just a segmentalized part of it” (Gordon, 1964, p. 31). Comparatively, secondary contacts facilitate accommodations, but generally do not promote assimilation (Gordon, 1964). With frequent contacts cultural assimilation (or acculturation) is simply the first to occur. The cultural assimilation signifies “a change of cultural patterns to those of the host society” and structural assimilation is marked by a “large-scale entrance into cliques, clubs, and institutions of the host society, on a primary group level” (Gordon, 1964; p.71). On the other hand, “once structural assimilation has occurred, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 either simultaneously or subsequent to acculturation, all of the other types of assimilation will naturally follow” (Gordon, 1964; p. 81). Historically, Chinese have adapted well to American society, but have not gone through the full assimilation process. Cultural (behavioral) assimilation or acculturation has occurred increasingly among Chinese. An examination of the history of Chinese in the United States indicates that in the beginning immigrants from the Orient met with prejudice and discrimination from the ‘core society.’ Most Chinese Americans were part of the largely unacculturated “bachelor society” that dominated the Chinatowns of America until World War II (Zhao, 2002). For example, in 1880, of the 3,868 Chinese recorded by the census; there were 26.8 males for every female (Kitano & Daniels, 1988, p. 24). Obviously, the government policies and anti-Chinese demonstrations affected the assimilation of Chinese (in numbers and in behavior). The Exclusion Act of 1882, the Reed Johnson Act of 1924, and other discrimination practices served as ‘hard’ examples of Chinese assimilation in the United States (Kitano & Daniels, 1988). Despite surrounding difficulties, Chinese reached some degree of assimilation because they were a ‘voluntary’ minority (Ogbu & Simons, 1998) whose members considered that “assimilation is a path not to whiteness, but to power” (Mok, 2002). Most of the early Chinese did not easily acculturate or participate in American society because the majority consisted of single males whose families were left behind in China. It was only with changes in their demographic structure and changes in the American society that they began to break away from a segregated existence (Kitano & Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 Daniels, 1988). Had Chinese not met with such difficulties in the past, the results of their assimilation process would have taken a completely different trajectory. As for the new immigrants, although parents may never become full participants, it is their expectation and ‘free will’ that their children become citizens with access to economic, political, and social opportunities. Nevertheless, acculturation has worked most rapidly for the young, for those who have learned the language and had an opportunity to go through the American school system and for those with the expectation of participating in the mainstream (Tse, 1997). Language assimilation is contained in cultural assimilation. Cultural assimilation into American society comes in a great degree through learning the English language. Since language is an expression of identity (Apte, 1979; Castells, 1997; Edwards, 1985; Kroskrity, 1993; Tse, 2000), a lack of the heritage language (e.g., Chinese) is considered a barrier to asserting ethnic identity (Frank, 2000), while a lack of the dominant language (English) is a barrier to the assimilation process. Chinese assimilation into American society has been expressed by a positive attitude towards learning English well. A study of American Asians by Tse (1997) revealed that some informants expressed a lack of interest in the ‘Chinese language’, while others recounted active rejection and placed more or full emphasis on acquiring and perfecting proficiency in the dominant language - English. In another study, Lee (1979) indicated that in addition to getting a certain status not available to those with little or imperfect fluency, speaking English was a very important determinant in being accepted by American Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 students. On the contrary to their parents’ wishes, a new generation of Chinese have a desire to be part of the dominant culture which translates into negative feelings toward their heritage language and promotes positive attitudes towards the English language (Tse, 1997). According to Brown (1994a), such assimilative motivation is characteristic of persons who (perhaps at a young age) learn a second language/culture in order to identify almost exclusively with that culture: the stronger the motivation, the greater the success. Although Chinese consider spoken ability in a Chinese language (Mandarin or Cantonese) as desirable for business contacts, English is desired even more for education and broader social relationships (Tse, 1997), which translates into structural assimilation. Social and spatial assimilation are important for the ‘structural’ assimilation process. In many cases assimilation into American society comes, for Chinese, with residential status. Park and Burgess (1970) attached paramount importance to residence in the process of assimilation. In addition, Burgess (1967) developed a hypothesis of concentric circles whereby incoming ethnic populations would settle in older, less desirable housing near the city core and naturally disperse outward as they could afford it. Traditionally, the key factors predicting whether immigrants (Europeans) would move out of central-city enclaves have included length of time in the United States, ability to speak English and socioeconomic status (Guest & Weed, 1976). Burgess’ hypothesis (1967) still holds for Chinese. Since the 20th century, Chinese Americans have been primarily an urban-centered ethnic group as 71% of Chinese Americans have lived in cities and experienced extreme Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 residential segregation in Chinatowns throughout the United States (Zhao, 2002, p. 2). Even now, many new Chinese immigrants who come to California settle first in ‘old’ centers such as Monterey Park and Alhambra until they can afford to move out to Hacienda Heights, Roland Heights, Walnut, and other exclusive areas. However, Hirschman (1983) and Kitano (1976) claimed that the model of residential dispersion may not work well for Asians because Asians historically represented a “middleman minority” (Kitano, 1976). They faced unusually widespread discrimination because of race or religion, and since greater income did not necessarily bring greater social acceptance, kinship ties remained strong. These ties bound many immigrants to the ethnic enclave; otherwise, they might have been expected to move because of their better socioeconomic status. However, with Asian population growth, new Asian enclaves have been forming since the 1970s across the country (Massey & Denton, 1987) and not just in the central-city neighborhoods. For example, in major ports of entry like Los Angeles, white suburbs have attracted immigrant Asians of high socioeconomic status (Chen & Yang, 1996). Marital assimilation through interracial marriage or amalgamation has typically been identified as the ultimate outcome of assimilation by an acceptance of members outside the social group into the most intimate and primary relationship of family (Gordon, 1964; Hirschman, 1983). Although both native- born American Chinese men and women still prefer to marry someone within their ethnic group, the trend from 1980 to 1990 has veered from strict endogamy. Despite the increase in the native-born population during this period, native- Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 born members marked a decrease in endogamous marriage from 74.8% to 67.7% for men, and from 71.4% to 62.9% for women (Sohoni, 2000). Additionally, education among Asians has maximized Chinese chances of marriage outside their race (Aquirre, Saenz, & Hwang, 2002). To summarize, assimilation into American society has been a slow and complex process for the Chinese people. Nevertheless, the models of assimilation have proven that subsequent generations of Chinese have trodden a steady path of positive adaptation, acculturation, and assimilation into the mainstream American society, while at the same time preserving their Chinese American ‘cultural identity.’ Without a doubt, the American Chinese community has recognized the importance of mastering the English language and using the educational system to improve their lives. Although it is unknown whether the assimilation models will be fully realized for Chinese minorities in the future, with the global emergence of China in both political and economic arenas, there is a strong potential for America and its American Chinese to build a bridge with Asia in the context of an increasing globalized economic relationship (Frammolino, 2004; Iritani & Dickerson, 2002). Indeed, successful Chinese Americans see an enormous opportunity in bridging the West with the East. Yet, the true picture of assimilation is a “two-way street” that involves travelers on both sides, American Chinese and mainstream society. American Chinese Academic Success/Failure In discussions reaffirming fundamental truths, the people of the United States tell each other that education is about individuals and that educational Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 practice is legitimate only to the extent it fosters individual development.... Education is a metaphorical journey, a pilgrim’s progress. This discourse of individual growth and development (is) evident in the everyday political life of schools as institutions.... From Horace Mann to John Dewey, prophets have passionately argued that it is proper to develop special institutions to nurture children as they journey and grow into contributing citizens in a liberal democracy (Varenne et al., 1997; p. 136). Academic success/failure strongly relates to schooling in a given cultural context. As immigrants and minorities step onto ‘a metaphorical journey of individual growth’ in the United States, they emerge into a given cultural context that provides an educational growth through a journey of ‘racing in place’ with relative ordering of individuals along a continuum of success and failure. However, success/failure does not simply happen to individuals in a given cultural setting, rather; it is defined by a given socio-cultural context in which the ‘full’ meaning of individual growth and development is contained. “It is an achievement, a collective achievement with major consequences, for both those deemed successful and for the rest” (Varenne et al., 1997; p. 137). In order to succeed in a given American cultural context, all persons in the social network (within family, school, and society) must be involved (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) in the continuity and discontinuity process of the individual’s ‘success’ and/or ‘failure’ since everyone’s work impacts everyone else’s and success/failure is a historical construction rather than a reflection of the attributes of a person (Varenne et al., 1997). Thus, it is important to consider Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 those identified as successful as well as those identified as failures in the given cultural framework. Research has indicated how cultural and structural barriers impede academic progress (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Heyns, 1974; Loveless, 1998; McQuillan, 1998; Nakanishi, 2000; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ogbu, 1978; Ogbu, 1983; Rosenbaum, 1976; Shafer & Olexa, 1971; Stanton-Salazar, 2001; Willis, 1977; Wolcott, 1997). It is not merely that the students’ ‘hard work’ gets properly rewarded but rather that their social network (Stanton-Salazar, 2001) within the ‘given’ social system makes their own success while at the same time causes someone else’s failure (Willis, 1977). Consequently, success/failure does not happen automatically, but it is rather at least initiated and/or transmitted through social reproduction and cultural transmission (Bourdieu, 1977; Giroux, 1983). Moreover, these markers are socially constructed to lead to low expectations, over-reliance on testing, and a lack of academic preparation which create attitudinal postures that lead to academic neglect and/or construct a curricular discourse that has function to reproduce educational and social inequalities by silencing linguistic and cultural differences (Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Foley, 1999). Academic success/failure moves along the continuum that can be defined at four levels: access, persistence, achievement, and educational outcomes. All of these are contained in the model of educational equality: Equality o f access, Equality o f survival, Equality of output, and Equality of outcome (Coleman, 1975; Farrel, 1992). In terms of equality of access, the proponents of the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 minority model (MM) express that Asian students are doing well. For example, Hong (1998) reported that one in four undergraduates at Stanford and Wesley are Asian Americans; other major universities such as Harvard, New York, and Northwestern report that about 20% of their undergraduates are of Asian descent. Within the University of California system, the figures are most impressive: Asian Americans represent 40% at Berkeley and 58% on the Los Angeles campus. Even though Biology and Electrical Engineering remain the most popular majors, other major such as Business, English, and History are becoming more visible. Oponents of the MM model (Nakanishi, 2000; Osajima, 2000; Tang & Dunkelblau, 1998; Tung, 2000) question the quota of American Asians’ excellence. They see the Asian language minority as needy because they recognize in Asians the lack of social and cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1977; Levinston et al., 1996; Ou, 1999) which obstructs the Asian minority from getting equality of survival and equality of outcome in school. Both cultural capital, embodied in the set of linguistic and cultural competencies of the dominant class (Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) and social capital, embodied in access to institutional resources, social relationships, and quality and quantity of those resources (Portes, 1998, 2000), are additional, if not the most important, obstructions to success. Many researchers have noted the influence of ethnic differences in socio cultural values, particularly those related to the valuation of educational success (Musial, 1999; Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Ogbu, 1987; Ou, 1999; Sue & Okazaki, 1990), class (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977), socio-economic status R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40 (Ogbu, 1983), and ability (Steinberg, Dornbush, & Brown, 1992). Most of these studies acknowledged that the influence of ethnic differences on students’ academic success would vary both across and within ethnic groups as a function of social class standing (Cooper, 1990; Haveman & Wolfe, 1994). Nevertheless, the success of Asian immigrants may vary widely depending on many factors: social, cultural, and family backgrounds, academic and linguistic preparation, and individual styles and strategies (Brown, 1994a), which affect educational and occupational outcomes. Some scholars (McDonough, 1997) point out that equality of outcomes requires suitable curriculum for each minority group, whereas in practice there are two kinds of curriculum, the real and hidden curricula. Academic achievement is a multidimensional phenomenon that is oftentimes influenced by a hidden curricula — “covert, tacit or implicit cultural patterns that affect behavior and communication particularly in face-to-face interactions, and that are largely outside of the consciousness of the actor”(Spindler, 1997, p. 61) that allows stereotyping. Equality of outcomes is not guaranteed for all language minorities because school “causes” differential educational outcomes or school failure (McQuillan, 1998; Wolcott, 1997). Variability in Response to Schooling in America It has been conventional to compare the minority children’s cultural adjustment in school and their academic achievement with that of the majority or dominant-group (DeVos, 1983; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). The cross-cultural studies on minority education in modern urban industrial societies provide R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 evidence explaining the lower academic achievement of the minorities in terms of cultural discontinuities - abrupt cultural changes that cause the minority children not to do well in school due to the differences in cultural content, and teaching and learning styles, but also due to differences in values, communication, and social interaction and relations (Brake, 1980; Coleman et al., 1966; Ogbu, 1978; Rohlen, 1983). Ogbu (1987) found that immigrant or voluntary minorities (VM) and involuntary or caste-like minorities (IM) differ significantly in minority response to schooling. Ogbu suggested that lower academic achievement of the minorities was disproportionate and persistent only among some minority groups, while it was transitory among others and almost nonexistent among still other minority groups (Ogbu, 1987, p. 256). For example, Asian American students were doing better than black American students. Japanese Buraku outcasts performed poorly in Japan, but did at least as well as their Japanese counterparts in American schools. The academic performance of Finish children in Sweden was reportedly very low, but they did very well in Australia. Koreans did not do well in Japan, but in the United States did as well as other Asian American students (DeVos (1983), cited in Ogbu (1987)). According to Ogbu (1987), the VM are people who have moved more or less voluntarily to the U.S. (or other societies) because they desired a better life, a higher economic well-being, better educational opportunities, and/or political freedom. These minorities usually experience initial problems in school due to cultural and language differences, however, their expectations continue to R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 influence the way they perceive and respond to the dominant culture (American), language, and schooling. On the other hand, the IM are people who were originally brought into the United States against their will, for example, through slavery (Black Americans), conquest (Mexican Americans), and/or colonization or forced labor (Native Hawaiians). These minorities oppose schooling, which they consciously or unconsciously resist, as they consider it a way towards acculturation or assimilation into the dominant group (Ogbu, 1987). The examples of these two groups are Black Americans and Chinese Americans. In relation to Ogbu’s theory (1987), Chinese are a voluntary minority, which is a decisive factor for their school success. For them, education is believed to be a channel for both individual and group success. Thus, Chinese as voluntary minorities have responded to schooling positively. They not only work ‘hard’ and ‘adapt’ to school culture easily, but see education as a tool for success in America. To protect their identity, Chinese view schooling, learning English, and other aspects of the dominant group culture from their ‘dual frame of reference’ or so called alternation model of behavior which permits them to behave one way in the school setting and another when they are at home or in their community. On the contrary, Blacks do not see what Chinese consider to be a success or successful behavior the same way, so they have greater difficulties than Chinese in crossing cultural boundaries at school to learn. Even though the voluntary or involuntary migration took place several generations ago, the same attitudes and mentality are passed along culturally (whether consciously or R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 unconsciously) in the families. Thus, many Black students actively or passively resist a school system that they may perceive (consciously or unconsciously) as ultimately irrelevant to their future adult opportunities when referring to white culture. For them ‘additive accommodation’ is not seen as an option to the maintenance of collective identity, but rather as a disadvantage that is interpreted as a multigenerational product of historical and structural forces of exclusion, subordination, and exploitation by the dominant group, as well as the vehicle of resistance and maintenance of “oppositional identity” (Ogbu, 1987). Consequently those who try to behave like the dominant group or who try to cross cultural boundaries may encounter opposition from other members, especially peers. Their ‘forced’ choices tend to be perceived as acting white or being disloyal to the group, with self-fulfilling and counterproductive consequences. Are Chinese really a “model minority” made up solely of high achievers? American Asians represent a significant group of students who enroll at institutions of higher education. Many of them are poor and non-native speakers of English. Lots of them enroll at community colleges and subsequently transfer into four-year institutions. However, Asian students are not always regarded as ‘needy’ (academically, socially, and financially) because of the widely prevailed “model minority” ideology. A “Model Minority” (MM) was first applied to Japanese Americans in 1966 by sociologist William Petersen. In 1982, the American media noticed the great success of many Asian Americans when Newsweek headlined a R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 favorable story: “Asian-Americans: A ‘Model Minority’” (Kitano & Daniels, 1988, p. 48), that has become the new stereotype. It seems apparent that some American Chinese have been successful in constructing the MM image as seen by mainstream America. However, the problem of adaptation still remains because some Asians succeed and assimilate easily and quickly while others take much longer, and new ones are constantly arriving. The Chinese also work hard in order to succeed, but do not always do or say anything about it. For example, in the 1960s, a chairman of Chinatown calling for federal assistance for the needy in their communities stood before the U.S. Senate committee saying that “Chinese are a “silent minority” that had not previously protested much because of their problems with English, ‘a lack of familiarity with the American governmental system,’ ‘fear of government,’ a lack of political influence, and a philosophical and cultural reluctance to engage in political activity” (Kitano & Daniels, 1988, p. 49). Another instance of “silent” Chinese, showed that in San Francisco’s inner-city Chinatown unemployment was almost double the citywide average, and two-thirds of the housing stock was substandard (Kitano & Daniels, 1988, p. 49). How is it possible that poverty and depravation exist among “model minorities”? It’s possible because there is more than one “Chinese America.” There are American-born Chinese (ABCs) and immigrant Chinese (FOBs - fresh-off-the-boat or plane) from many places. The former tend to be college educated, have middle-class occupations, and live outside of the inner city Chinatowns. The FOBs are poorly educated and deficient in English, and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 ply the low-wage service trades or manufacturing jobs (Kitano & Daniels, 1988). Although large numbers of recent Chinese immigrants are poor, there are many who have brought a good deal of capital with them and are both middle class and well educated. For example, in the 1970s, although about a quarter of FOB Chinese adults were college graduates; another quarter had never completed elementary school (Kitano & Daniels, 1988). In her study of the model minority, Bryan (1978) called for serious questioning of the notion of the Chinese ‘MM’. She found that some Chinese equaled or surpassed whites in occupational achievements, but it was quite clear that many Chinese achieved less than their white counterparts. Besides, Lowe (2000) asserted that with the almost three million Chinese in the U.S. (Paisano, 1993), they are a diverse community whose differences are probably increasing more than they are decreasing. With that being the case, although overrepresented in many areas of achievement in American life, they are also overrepresented among the poor in American society. The label “model minority” is a mixed blessing. While the “model minority” descriptor has a positive image, it reduces Asians to a neatly conceived image that bears little resemblance to their real lives, because not all Asians are good in mathematics, become doctors, or are in the highest socio-economic group (Flune & Chan, 1997). On the one hand it commands respect, but on the other it conceals existing problems such as underachievement, unrealistic expectations, and insufficient attention and help given to those who are not the “cream of the crop” (Tang & Dunkelblau, 1998; Tung, 2000). Besides, “such a label can easily create an expectation that causes any departure to be greeted with suspicion R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 and rejection because some Asian-Americans belong to the ‘elite,’ but none of them was born with a silver spoon” (Tung, 2000, p.85). American Chinese have always regarded education as a key for success (academic, social, and occupational) and a better life in the United States (Ou, 1999). Through painstaking efforts and sacrifices on their part as well as that of their parents,’ Chinese have achieved this thus far. Once they move into the U.S. they strive for their children to be well educated. Faung & Lee (1991) and Sanchirico (1991) cited Chinese American experiences indicating that most of the Chinese parents are hardworking, frugal people who invest all of their capital and effort in the formal education of their children. “After all, the children’s achievement is the reason why these parents came to this country in the first place” (Tung, 2000, p. 30). Many of these families suffered from poverty in China and upon arrival in the United States they continuously strive for a better life. Asian minorities desire education for upward social mobility and for improving their social and/or economic status. Education is believed among Chinese to be a channel for individual self-improvement and the main means to success in the US as in China (Ou, 1999). However, the premise of success points to the ‘family influence hypothesis’ emphasizing that the children must succeed in order to support their aging and retiring parents (Ogbu & Matute-Bianchi, 1986). Some would claim that educational success comes first; however, Greeley (1985) stated that many ethnics in America have first achieved financial rather than educational success. Further, he asserted that the third and sometimes R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 later generations have achieved higher occupational success in the American mainstream. Besides, historically Chinese were often clustered at low-skill occupations which were physically difficult, low paying, and had low-prestige, and low-payment (Faung & Lee, 1991; Kitano & Daniels, 1988; Zhao, 2002). However, their high-skills have improved in the 1990s due to education, constant struggle, and family support (Cheng & Yang, 2000). Moreover, Chinese families involved in small businesses transmit high aspirations to the next generation, thereby promoting their offsprings’ educational achievement (Sanchirico, 1991). The new generation of Chinese Americans is better educated, with a wider social exposure, and thus have more opportunities (social capital), and self- awareness than their immigrant parents. Consequently the coming of the age of assimilation for second-generation Chinese Americans is much more evident than a decade before (Lee, 1996). An increasing number of achievements contributed greatly to the aspirations and comfort levels of young Asian and Chinese Americans in general. They are becoming more aware of their potential and have their Chinese names and faces attached to them (Tung, 2000). The MM points to Asian students doing well, but many of them do not obtain access to higher education as often as others. American Asians confront the “MM” image constructed by the ‘majority culture’ which portrays them as a homogeneous group of aggressively driven overachievers (Cheng & Yang, 2000; Lowe, 2000; Osajima, 2000). According to Lowe (2000) “the model minority myth and the informal quotas discriminating against Asians in university admissions policies are contemporary versions of this homogenization of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 Asians” (p. 681). Cheng & Yang (2000) and Tung (2000) indicated that the MM is an ideological distortion of a true reality because it constructs false identity that does not show the true picture of Asian minorities, but rather mirrors the ideological construction of a binary model of “Whiteness” and “Blackness,” neglecting the importance of “otherness”. Thus, to capture the true nature of research with regard to the American Asians, society has to see the "Model Minority" in a broader perspective than the lens of ‘White’ and “Black.” From the view of Asian scholars, the MM distorts the real gains, as well as the impediments, of Asian immigrants by leveling and homogenizing all Asian groups (Okihiro, 2000; Osajima, 2000). This homogenizing relies upon two strategies common in the subordinating construction of racial (as knowable, familiar “like us” (Omi & Vinant, 1994) and incomprehensible, threatening - “unlike us”) or ethnic otherness. This model suggests both that Asians are overachievers and “unlike us,” as Robert Luis Stevenson looking upon the Chinese with “wonder and respect" saw them as creatures from “the other” world: “They walk the earth with us, but it seems they must be of different clay” (Okihiro, 2000, p. 143), and that they are ‘voluntarily’ immigrants according to Ogbu & Simons (1998) so they are considered to assimilate well, thus, they are “like us.” The homogenizing erases different rates of assimilation and the variety of class identities among various Asian immigrant groups. However, from the perspectives of Asian Americans the view looks quite different: We are perhaps even more different, more diverse, among ourselves: being men and women at different distances and generations from our ‘original’ Asian cultures—cultures as different as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Indian, and Vietnamese—Asian Americans are born in the United States and born in Asia; of exclusively Asian R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 parents and of mixed race; .. .fluent in English and non-speaking; educated and working class.... The Asian immigrant collectivity is unstable and changeable, with ... different extents of assimilation to and distinction from ‘majority culture’ in the United States (Lowe, 2000, p. 680). Asians are stereotypically imputed to have important desirable cultural characteristics and abilities. On the basis of this perception, people make reflexive judgments about them that enhance their educational, occupational, and social advancement and setting them up as a “Model Minority” (Wong, 1986; Hosokawa, 1978). The common stereotype of Chinese students is that of a highly successful group of “model minority kids” (Osajima, 2000). Oftentimes it is assumed that these “kids” come from families who are caring and supportive and regard education as a key for success (Grimes & David, 1999). Contrary to these myths, Chinese lack in unified social capital. A unified social capital construct integrates the separate, refined notions of cultural and human capital and provides a radically new vision regarding the proper focus of schooling and success (Musial, 1999). Among Chinese immigrants who come to the United States, there are significant differences in terms of socio-economic, political and educational backgrounds, parental expectations and support, learning styles and strategies, and school performance. First of all, there are many Chinese groups whose majority comes from China, but others come from all over the world. Secondly, although connected by a common writing system based on Mandarin Chinese, they speak different Chinese dialects (Cantonese, Fukienese, Taiwanese and others). Thus, their language may be, in most cases, not comprehensible among R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 other Chinese except for writing (Tang, 1998). Thirdly, not all students get the same parental support as they did in their home country. Most of the award- winners are from middle class families or families with parents who are highly educated professionals. However, there are many others with a low socio economic status and limited English proficiency who had to give up their original professions to work in garment factories or restaurants or take other low-income jobs where they were compelled to work long hours. Furthermore, as a group, Chinese students may appear quite successful academically. The idea is that many Chinese students do work very hard and still achieve high scores on tests such as the Scholastic Achievement Test, however there are indeed some who fail their classes (Tang & Dunkelblau, 1998, p. 27). Additionally, though having a highly esteemed value for education, it is not a guarantee that all students have the same preparation before coming to the United States. Generally, their language background includes advanced literacy skills in Chinese that can be transferred across cultures, however many immigrants and international students from China differ considerably from each other in their academic preparation depending on which part of the country they come from, whether large cities or rural areas. In summary, the MM ‘success stories’ abound through selective use of scholarly research and popular press images (Osajima, 2000). Beginning in the 1980s the discourse on American Asian success, particularly in higher education has pointed to 'a drive to excel' in the growing number of Asian students in universities. However, the popular images minimize the impact of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 contradictory information, e.g., economic success stories of the ‘Asian economic tigers,’ white students’ resentment towards Asians, setting ceilings for Asians’ admissions, political and ideological ‘concerns,’ and the large numbers of American Asians in poverty. When constructing or deconstructing the true image of the MM, it is important to take a more critical view of all the factors combined. The MM image has been exaggerated and inflated because Asians are still a minority that lags in human capital behind the U.S. born whites (Cheng & Yang, 2000). A study on Asian Pacific Americans in Hawaii has identified the lack of APAs’ pursuing educational career choices due to their ethnic and cultural barriers (Penny, 2001). Also, Gordon (2000) indicated that although there is a need for broader minority participation, few American Asians choose teaching in K -12 as a career. The most frequently cited reasons for not choosing teaching as a career include low pay, parents, language, diversity, high expectations, responsibility, Chinese culture, loss of face, and discrimination (Gordon, 2000). The truth is that many Asians are found among a varied degree of poverty. Although education is of high esteem for them (Grimes & David, 1999), it is not always affordable due to their intense lack of social, cultural, and financial capital. Consequently, they are not always ready for full enrollment in studies at the four-year institutions. Many of them require remedial action to improve their language and academic skills, and even more often, urgent action when it comes to an improvement of ESL skills at community college. When it comes to the academic and financial demands of higher institutions, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 community colleges are an excellent context for Asian students to begin the fulfillment of their educational and occupational dreams. English Language and Academic Success Background English is a big problem for non-native English speaking minorities. With such a diverse ethnic base it is not surprising that there are a variety of languages spoken in the homes of the people living in the County of Los Angeles. The 2000 Census revealed that 45.9% of the households speak English only, 37.9% speak Spanish, 10% speak Asian and Pacific Island languages, and 5.2% speak other Indo-European languages (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). The ESL population at community colleges has reached high numbers. In 1999, the student population within the Los Angeles Community College District consisted of 80% language minority students including Asian, American/Pacific Islanders, African American, and Hispanic; 40% of whom were non-native English speakers, about 19.8% of all students had limited or no English speaking ability, and 38.3% were foreign born (LACCD, 2004c). Language is a crucial factor for the educational and occupational success of language minority students (immigrants, migrants, and internationals) in America. Language not only serves as a tool for communication within its original cultural context, but also serves as “a system of representation for perception and thinking” (Stewart & Bennett, 1991, p.45). In this view, language is part of the core values of ethnic identity (Kroskrity, 1993; McCormick & Wurm, 1979; Morris, 1996), “the language is more than a medium of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 communication, it is a symbol of ethnic identity and a defining value which is a prerequisite for ‘authentic’ group membership” (Chiro & Smolicz, cited in Crystal, 1992, p. 114). Language Learning Generally, language is internalized in the process of language learning and acquisition, whether first language (LI) (Chomsky, 1965; Scovel, 1988) or second language (L2) (Cummins, 1980; Krashen, 1981, 1982; Schumann, 1976), which depends on various individual, linguistic, psychological, and socio-cultural and political factors. Language learning/acquisition includes either learning a mother tongue (native language, LI or heritage language) or a foreign language (L2 or non native language). Within linguistic and psychological domains, learning involves active, conscious focus on and acting upon events outside and/or inside the organism, and involves some form of practice that brings about a change in behavior and memory (Brown, 1994a, 1994b). Moreover, learning/acquisition can be in addition to formal that occurs in schools, incidental which occurs as people live, work and engage in social action; informal in which people teach and learn from each other naturally and socially in workplaces, families, community organizations and social action; and non-formal which is structured and systematic and occurs in a range of social settings (Foley, 1999, p. 7). Thus, learning a second language (L2) is a process of continuous struggle that comes with great challenges. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 Language Literacy and Proficiency If non-native speakers of English want to succeed academically they have to learn the English language well and reach high levels of English literacy and proficiency. Generally, language(s) is learned and/or acquired within family, at school, and in society. Family is the primary provider of our (LI) language- learning environment and is best suited for the cognitive and emotional development in which children acquire verbal and non-verbal behaviors. The amount of emotional and financial support from family and community in L2 learning, including conditions of poverty and realistic and supportive parental expectations, help in this process of continuous struggle which comes with great challenges. School is an institutionalized place where individuals receive formal education and acquire consequential levels of language and literacy—that enable children to progress at school, attain positive educational outcomes and succeed in society. Helot (1988) and Hoffman (1985) found that when school experience and peer relationships developed, English became dominant for children when they needed sufficient language competence to operate in the increasingly abstract nature of the school curriculum. However, Coleman (1975) stressed that providing equality of opportunity gives language minority students a better chance of success. As Krashen (1996) puts it, when we give children quality education, we give them two things: knowledge, both general knowledge of the world and subject matter that results in more English acquisition, and literacy (Krashen, 1996). For example, a study by Gersten (1985) indicated that the structured immersion program was effective for Asian students entering a R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 California school when most of the lesson was conducted in English at a limited English proficiency (LEP) level. For many language minority children and their families, the relationship between school and parents is limited and often non-existent. Delgado-Gaitan (1990) found that if language minority parents are unable to speak the dominant language of teachers in school, there might be an increased sense of helplessness and isolation as such parents may be reluctant or unable to discuss their children’s progress with the teacher. However, parental attitudes toward school changed when they were taught to be more conscious of their own interactions with their children and when the teacher organized the parent committee and involved them in decision-making. As a result, incorporating the students’ culture into the curriculum helped to produce a culturally and educationally congruent educational experience between the home and school. Society provides the extended social, cultural and political backgrounds for the development of English literacy through language interactions within societal and institutional contexts among peers, friends, co-workers and other people at large. For example, Li Wi, Milroy and Ching (1992) found that Chinese speakers who were employed outside the Chinese community were more likely to chose to speak English with other Chinese speakers. English literacy, preferably biliteracy, is desirable for language minorities’ educational and occupational success in the United States. English basic literacy or functional literacy is “required for effective functioning in his group and whose attainments in reading, writing and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 arithmetic make it possible for him to continue to use those skills towards his own and the community’s developments” (Oxenham, (1980) cited in Baker and Jones, (1998, p. 87)). English literacy is essential for the language minority’s day-to-day survival and performance of basic functions within society, (e.g. reading road signs, food labels, filling out forms, listening to safety and health precautions, e. t. c.). In society, literacy is desirable for both individual and group empowerment, including participating in local/regional governance, reading newspapers or political pamphlets, personal contact (e.g., reading and writing messages and letters), and creativity and pleasure (e.g., reading magazines and books). Without a doubt, literacy in English is highly essential not only for education but also for citizenship (e.g., in order to know the rights and obligations of U.S. citizens) and many kinds of higher status and higher paid employment opportunities. Most importantly, literacy is needed to empower the mind and heart that prompt us for action in various contexts of social interactions (Stromquist, 1997). In this context, English literacy “seen as a mode of thinking, as a means of reasoning, reflecting an interacting with oneself.... and having a public voice” (Baker & Jones, 1998, p. 599) is crucial for minority success. Lack of English proficiency hinders the process of adaptation and can be translated into failure to achieve any academic and occupational status. Consequently, in most learning circumstances the construction of real cultural meaning is difficult because literacy is not a separate cultural event, but mirrors (in its form and function) general socialization, cultural meanings and practices. It is obvious that R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 those who want to succeed academically and occupationally have to learn far advanced language and literacy skills, including reading and writing. Parental influence is essential in building language and literacy skills. The study done by Heath indicated that a certain form of literacy use is established among American Chinese families when parents tend towards parent-controlled conversations with their children (Heath, 1986). The parents asked children questions, evaluated their language and gave verbal correction and elaboration. As a result, they complemented the literacy learned in school. In contrast, Mexican American parents rarely asked questions to assess their children’s knowledge, understanding or attitudes, and frequently expected the extended family to share their responsibilities. Although little conversation was directed at them, young Chinese children were exposed to a large and rich language environment due to the constant flow of language between adults and other children. Thus, they learned general socialization practices preparing them for English school literacy (Heath, 1986). However, not all students get the same parental support as they did in their home country because their parents’ limited ability or lack of English prevents them from giving substantial help and from attending parent-teacher conferences or maintaining regular contact with teachers (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990). Commonly, parents also have little time to sit down and help their children with schoolwork. Frequently it is children who serve as interpreters for their parents, even though they themselves need translation service at school (Tang & R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 Dunkelblau, 1998). ESL teachers are often an immigrant students’ first contact in their new country. English Language Proficiency Since education in the United States is based on the English language, involvement in school requires having ‘sufficient’ or conventional academic language competence in English. Hansegard described ‘sufficient’ or conventional competence in terms of six language competencies: size of vocabulary, correctness of language, unconscious processing of language (automatism), language creation (neologization), mastery of the functions of language (e.g. emotive, cognitive) and meanings and imagery (Baker, 1996, p. 9). American colleges accept students based on their language examinations, placement and proficiency tests. Most students are admitted to degree programs at American educational institutions on the basis of passing the English tests (EP, TOEFL, GRE) or on the condition that they take the International Student English Examinations upon arrival at the educational institution. Besides, institutions of higher education require academic English proficiency, especially in college composition (Harklau et al., 1999). On the other hand, when applying for employment many companies ask for oral and written proficiency in English. Success in mainstream American society most certainly requires oral and written English proficiency. Thus, knowing the English language is of the utmost importance for academic and occupational success. Obviously, a lack of fluency in the English language obstructs the road to success. Consequently, language minority students entering school face the pressure of communicating well R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 in English. For example, Faung & Lee (1991) found that English proficiency afforded a certain status for Asian students who spoke English well, which was not available to those with little or imperfect fluency. Similarly, Lee (1979) and Leki (1999) indicated that speaking English well was a very important determinant in being accepted by American students: “the U.S. students in the school, who he repeatedly described as uninterested in anyone who did not speak perfect English” (Leki, 1999, p. 23). Besides, the desire of Chinese students to succeed in school translated into positive attitudes towards learning the English language well (Tse, 1997). Language barriers cause difficulties for L2 students who do not have the same mother tongue when attempting to communicate with others who do not have the same mother tongue. Notwithstanding, many minority and immigrant students have a family’s support. However, English language proficiency is still a great barrier to their educational and occupational achievement due to many circumstances (Cummins, 1980). Mastery of English language skills is one of the challenges posed by these circumstances for many immigrants and can even include American born individuals in terms of academic achievement and occupational aspiration. Key Factors Affecting Minority Students L2 Success Schooling Chinese students from a second language perspective provides an example in case. There are various factors that influence the academic and occupational success of language minority students schooled in a L2. These eclectic key factors have emerged for the researcher through an integrated R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 understanding of the process on how people learn or fail to learn a L2. The three main categories of key learning factors include: socio-cultural and political, individual learner differences, and models of language acquisition. Socio-cultural and Political Factors Through enculturation (the process of learning the first language/culture) learners acquire the linguistic and cultural forms of the host country which equip them with natural knowledge and skills that are essential for skillful communication, survival, peaceful coexistence with others, and eventually lead to educational and occupational success in society. Language adaptation/assimilation expressed in identity with the dominant language community is established by a long and stable residence and strong social adaptation (Apte, 1979; Castells, 1997; Edwards, 1985; Frank, 2000; Kroskrity, 1993; Morris, 1996; Tse, 1997; Tse, 2000). Low ethnic LI language boundaries with no ethnic enclave and small numbers of speakers well dispersed as well as settlement/workplace in the city or periphery that require use of the dominant language, strengthens the emphasis and acceptance of the dominant language in face-to-face interactions. In addition, culture and religious activity in the dominant language help in cultural and language adjustments. The availability of high levels of occupations providing social and economic mobility provides more exposure and mastery of L2. Favorable institutional and governmental policy on bilingualism, including more stress on L2, may be desired to develop literacy or biliteracy (Baker, 1996; Baker & Jones, 1998) or foreign languages. For example, in R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 China, language has been used as “a tool for social control and stratification and fluency in foreign languages has been perceived as both a political liability and a valued economic commodity” (Ross, 1993, p. 5). A supportive school culture provides empowerment and pedagogical opportunities in the classroom (Delpit, 1998) as well as teacher and school personnel friendly expectations. A study by Wolcott (1997) found that teachers are important transmitters of cultural and social norms who may become key advocates of a student’s socialization and academic achievement. Wolcott indicated that a teacher’s personal non-biased involvement could help to break the ice and encourage a minority student’s success. Otherwise, the students may see “the teacher as an enemy” (Wolcott, 1997). Most importantly, Brown (1994) indicated that teaching cannot be defined apart from learning because “teaching is guiding and facilitating learning, enabling learners to learn, setting the conditions for learning” (Brown, 1994b, p. 7). Language and Culture There is an inextricable bond between language and culture because Teaming a language is learning a culture’ (Wajnryb, 1992). Thus, learning the English language plays an important role in adapting to American culture. Teaching and learning involve both the teacher’s and learner’s awareness in the construction of meaning in a number of cultural areas. Thus, it is understood that while learning a language learners are also learning (about) a culture. Fanselow (1990) states that an awareness of cultural perceptions helps individuals (both R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 teacher and learner alike) to see ‘more clearly’ the cultural dimension that touches culture-specific expectations in teaching and learning. In order to succeed in the learning of the English language, learners must succeed in constructing meaning through an interactive approach in real language situations (Brown, 1994b). Because the meaning that individuals bring into the process of learning “depends on their culture, personal experiences and histories, personal understandings of the themes and tone of text, and the particular social context” (Baker & Jones, 1998, p. 600), the meaning in L2 has to be decoded, negotiated and (re)constructed. This construction of meaning is very important for language minority learners because without relevant background knowledge they may fail to construct any meaning at all. Besides, the construction of meaning takes place through a learner’s current knowledge, family background, social and economic lifestyle, and political orientation. Thus, the transition from the LI and literacy practiced at home to L2 at school can be difficult because of the differences between language minorities, as well as between such minorities and the language majority, which affect the acquisition of literacy in school. Of course, in the process of learning the L2 minority language learners are exposed to rights and wrongs, authoritative knowledge and culturally inappropriate responses and behavior because a frequent mismatch may occur between patterns of English language (L2) and literacy in the minority’s native language (LI). However, success in learning English (L2) and culture does not come easily because learning is affected by various social, economic, emotional, intellectual and physical conditions, as well as teaching and learning R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. methods and styles (Brown, 1994a, 1994b). Due to the complexity of factors involved in the process of L2 learning, adaptation or ‘acculturation’ into a new culture may take some years and even never be fully accomplished. Learning a (L2) language is more than getting to know the ‘mere’ words: it is about construction of cultural meaning. Although L2 learners can master the ‘denotation’ (the ‘dictionary meaning’ of the word), and grammatical and linguistic structures rather fast, learning the ‘connotation’ (the personal or emotional associations which are suggested by words and which form a part of their meaning) for individual speakers has to be experienced through the process of living in and through the L2 culture. Therefore, the educational outcomes in construction of meaning, including English language learning, improvement in pro-social skills, self-image, perception of others, and cognitive/affective skills that prompt minorities’ orientation towards or away from society affect the way in which second language learners construct meaning and prepare for their academic and occupational success. Depending on their cultural background knowledge, different minority students will develop different meanings when exposed to the text, social context, and culture. Further, living the L2 culture provides learners with more desired communicative and cultural competence — “A person’s unconscious knowledge of the rules governing the appropriate use of language in social situations” - as opposed to linguistic competence - “the person’s unconscious knowledge of the formal patterning of language” (Crystal, 1992, p. 74). This shared experience of communicative and cultural competence in L2 is crucial for an individual’s R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 academic and/or occupational success. Conversely, a lack of communicative competence in L2 may certainly hinder the individual’s achievement. Chinese and English Students speaking other languages may encounter difficulties in learning, understanding, and adjusting to English (Lin & Yi, 1997; Mori, 2000). Although there are many Chinese groups connected by a common writing system based on Mandarin Chinese, they speak different Chinese dialects. The majority of Chinese students come from China; others come from all over the world such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines and even from Latin American countries. Generally, their language background includes advanced literacy skills in Mandarin, but in many cases Chinese students may speak a variety of Chinese dialects, such as Cantonese, Fukienese, and Taiwanese. Because of Chinese language differences (ideographic, monosyllabic and non-inflectional) students encounter certain difficulties when learning English, however, similarities to English in phonology, morphology and syntax mean that knowing Chinese is not a hindrance to the acquisition of English (Tang & Dunkelblau, 1998) and literacy skills can be transferred across cultures. Individual Learner Differences The following psychological/individual factors have been found to help in learning: low affective filter, optimal anxiety, balance between challenge and support, high self-esteem with high self-expectations, low anxiety and readiness to get involved in risk-taking, and high motivation. In addition, it is R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 understood that a student has no learning disability and does not suffer from consistent health or medical problems (Brown, 1994a, 1994b). A student’s positive attitude toward the language, teachers, and school is a favorable factor in learning that language and culture (Brown, 1994a). Since language plays a crucial role in adapting to culture, learning L2 is of crucial importance to the assimilation process. A good assimilative attitude toward English language learning helps in adapting to the mainstream society. Thus, learning and success in English depend on the learner’s assimilative or integrative motivation (Brown, 1994a). Similarly, a learner’s attitude (intrinsic or extrinsic) and feelings toward their own and target language and its people may play a positive or negative role in his or her achievement. For example, some may particularly value a foreign language (L2) because of its literary history, or they may think that a language is especially difficult to learn. A learner’s (extrinsic) motivation toward the language learning is an important factor for its successful learning (Brown, 1994b). When they acquire the target language as a means for attaining goals, an instrumental motivation is employed. An integrative motivation is engaged when learners wish to integrate and be part of the L2 culture. Finally, assimilative motivation is a characteristic of persons who (perhaps at a young age) learn a L2 and culture in order to identify almost exclusively with that culture. Moreover, the degree to which learners are ‘intrinsically’ or ‘extrinsically’ motivated to succeed in learning is essential. Thus, the stronger the motivation, the greater is the learning success (Brown, 1994a). In summary, learners’ attitudes towards language learning enhance R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 6 the interpersonal and intercultural communication among teachers, learners, teaching and learning in the L2 classroom. Another key area concerns cultural differences in risk-taking between Chinese and the Western world. Framolino (2004) interviewed an experienced Chinese personality psychologist, Wang, who gave an example of a Chinese person who takes risks. “In Western personality theory he would be considered an extrovert, which is a positive thing. But the Chinese would see that person as driven by intense emotion, which is not a good thing. ‘The Chinese think: this is not a careful man’” (p. A13). Besides, according to another psychologist, Tung (2000), the Chinese language does not primarily use verbal communication of feelings as the primary way of expressing oneself: “Unlike in American English, Chinese language does not have a separate, rich, and pure ‘category’ of words to communicate emotions. Consistent with interdependent boundary and monolithic worldview, Chinese affective expressions are mostly included in body idioms, nature metaphors, concrete actions, ethical codes, and societal expectations” (p. 75). Chinese Americans express cultural differences in attitudes and behavior differently than Whites. For example, in Chinese coping styles, a person’s emotional awareness, is usually directed away from the person’s subjective, personal, inner meanings and reactions. To do otherwise is considered selfish (Tung, 2000). In summary, language is a tool for communication that is acquired/learned in the process of continuous learning/acquisition (LI or L2) within family, at school, and in society. In school, individuals gain subsequent steps of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 literacy (cultural literacy) and English language proficiency. However, educational success (both individual and minority group) is determined by the wide variety of interrelated socio-cultural, political, psychological/individual factors including human learning and language acquisition theories. Moreover, mastery of English is essential for educational success. There is an inextricable bond between language and culture. Thus, not only the mastery of the English language, but also the mastery of cultural elements are necessary for an individual’s success. Consequently, cultural competence, in addition to linguistic and communicative competence is essential for minority academic success in the mainstream of American society. Nevertheless, it is only within a broad theoretical and practical framework that all of the pieces of the successful minority L2 learning puzzle can fit together. All of the categories presented above together attempt to explain the complex phenomena of how people (children and adults) learn/acquire LI and L2. To understand this process fully, we must focus attention on all of the crucial socio-cultural, personality and linguistic variables that are spun together to affect both the learner’s success in acquiring a L2 and the teacher’s capacity to enable the learner to achieve that acquisition, which translates into the success in a second language. Lifelong learning calls for a continuous commitment and determination to progress towards success throughout the whole life. Community colleges serve adults of all ages meeting the needs of a society where "lifelong learning" is the rule and multiple careers with continual retraining are the norm. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68 Models o f language Acquisition Most discussions on LI and L2 acquisition differences center on the question of whether there is a “critical period” for language acquisition. Second language researchers extrapolated many of the first language theories to a second language context. The most important in the context of L2 acquisition/learning are summarized below. The critical period hypothesis claims that there is a biologically determined period of life when language can be acquired more easily and beyond which time language is increasingly difficult to acquire. The “classic” argument is that this period occurs around puberty, beyond which people seem to be relatively incapable of acquiring a native-like accent of the second language (Bickerton, 1981; Lenneberg, 1967). However, second language researchers extrapolated the critical period hypothesis to second language context (Cummins, 1980; Thompson, 1991). Such an assumption must be viewed in the light of what it really means to be “successful” in learning a L2, and particularly the role of “accent” as a component of success. Walsh and Diller (1981) concluded that different aspects of second language (e.g., higher-order language functions such as semantic relations - which may explain why college students can learn many times the amount of grammar and vocabulary than elementary students in a given period of time) are learned optimally at different ages. Language ego refers to the identity a person develops in reference to the language he or she speaks. This is a process of sending up messages and having them “bounced” back so that the learner’s self-identity, bound up with R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 language and ego development, is shaped, reshaped, and confirmed. Guiora, Brannon, & Dull, 1972) suggested that language ego may account for difficulties that adults have in learning a L2. Further, a child’s ego is dynamic, growing and flexible through the age of puberty. The acquisition of a new language ego is an enormous undertaking not only for adolescents but also for adults who have grown comfortable and secure in their own identity and possess inhibitions that serve as a wall of defensive protection around the ego. However, it is possible that an adult learner can bridge this affective gap. Ellis’ Framework (1985) suggests that there are four interrelated factors that govern the acquisition and L2 output. Situational, linguistic input, and individual learner differences influence learner processes and then the L2 linguistic output. John Schumann’s Acculturation Model of Second Language Learning (1978) points to the degree of acculturation into a group. The basic premise of the model is “the degree to which a learner acculturates to the target language group will control the degree to which he acquires the second language” (p. 34). Stephen Krashen’ Monitor Model (Krashen. 1977, 1981, 1982, 1985, 1996) developed five central hypotheses considering second language (L2) acquisition theory of comprehensible input. The essence of acquisition can be contained in the following five hypotheses: • The Acquisition Learning Hypothesis - Acquisition is a subconscious process that results from informal, natural communication between R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 people where language is a means and not a focus nor an end in itself. Learning is a conscious process that occurs in a more formal situation. It enables the learner to ‘know about’ the second language. • The Natural Order Hypothesis - states that grammatical structures are acquired in a predictable natural order (irrespective of the language being learned) when learners (both children or adults) are engaged in natural communication. • The Monitor Hypothesis - The monitor of learned knowledge is an editing device that may be activated and modify utterances before language performance takes place. Such editing may occur before the natural output of speech, and it may occur after the output via a correcting device. For example, knowing the correct tense to use, when to use the third person, and rules about plurals (Krashen, 1977). • The Input Hypothesis - the ability to communicate in a L2 ‘emerges’ rather is directly taught. Language acquisition occurs when learners are exposed to grammatical features a little beyond their current level. ‘Acquisition’ is the result of comprehensible language input and not of language production. Input is made comprehensible because of the help provided by the context, thus language structures are naturally acquired (Krashen, 1985). • The Affective Filter Hypothesis - (comprised of attitudes to language motivation, self-confidence and anxiety) determines how much a person learns in a formal or informal language setting. The learners who R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 have low anxiety, thus ‘a low filter,’ are more efficient language learners. Conversely, unfavorable attitudes and/or high anxiety have ‘high filters’ and so the input of L2 learning may be blocked or impeded. Characteristics of Community College Community College a Model fo r Success The community colleges have long served as the port of entry for minority students into the hierarchy of higher education. Throughout the country, community colleges continue to serve the needs of multiethnic and non- traditional student populations. With population growth, more and more minority students have accessed higher education in pursuit of social and economic mobility (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Sustained population growth and still increasing immigration have presented a set of new problems for public schools in that one person in seven over the age of five is now growing up speaking a language other than English in the home (Keller, 2001). LACCD Mission and Functions “Los Angeles Community College affirms the principle that individuals should have opportunities to develop to their full potential. To that end, our main responsibility is to students and to the provision of education which benefits students and enables them to contribute to society” (LACCD, 2004b). The mission of the Los Angeles Community Colleges is to provide comprehensive lower-division general education, occupational education, transfer education, transitional education, counseling and guidance, community services, and continuing education programs which are appropriate to the communities R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 served and which meet the changing needs of students for academic and occupational preparation, citizenship, and cultural understanding. The functions of the community college are multidimensional. For years community colleges have provided support services to assist participants in completing their educational programs, complying with state work participation requirements, and acquiring employment as well as continued training and education, which lead to increased income. Within the LACCD, colleges offer a variety of academic, preparatory, and recreational programs to fulfdl the needs of students and their needs and demands for transfer, occupational adjustment, general, transitional, counseling and guidance, continuing education, community services, and other joint business programs (LACCD, 2004e). A college transfer program enables the students to complete two years of study and continue upper-division (third year) work at accredited four-year colleges and universities through careful and continuous articulation with accredited collegiate institutions and high schools. An occupational education program offers the student basic business, technical, and professional curricula to develop skills, which can lead to employment, job advancement, certification, or the associate degree. General education offers associate degree programs such as General Equivalency Diploma (GED) and other planned experiences which develop knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary for the student to be effective as a person, a family member, a worker and a citizen, thereby enhancing the quality of life for the individual and for the society at large. Transitional or specialized education offers remedial and basic skills education for students R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 needing preparation for community college level courses and programs. It also includes English as a Second Language (ESL), Adult Basic Education (ABE), and English as a Second Language instruction for immigrants, foreign students and other students with limited English proficiency. Counseling and guidance incorporating academic, career, and personal counseling and assistance offer help in matters of admissions, financial aid, job placement and student activities thereby assisting students in the establishment of educational goals and in the selection and pursuit of a life work compatible with his/her interests, aptitudes, and abilities. A program of continuing education, comprised of credit and non credit classes, provides opportunities for personal and occupational competence, which supplement formal full-time college attendance. A program of services meets the needs of the community for vocational and recreational courses, community and cultural events, and civic functions. On and off-campus work- study allows students the opportunity to meet their financial needs and obtain valuable work experience while attending a community college. On-campus tutoring, computer labs with specialized software, and referrals to community resources provide a valuable asset. Joint programs with business, industry, labor, education, government and other institutions, which are of mutual benefit to sponsoring institutions, enhance the educational opportunities of program participants and advance the mission and functions of the LACCD (LACCD, 2004e). Drawn by a vast range of opportunities offered at community college, students enroll in a variety of courses to pave their way to language, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 academic, and vocational success. In LACCD, many students come to community college to fulfill their educational goals: 38% vocational, 27.2% transfer, 9.7% general education, 6.2% transitional, and 8.9% undecided/unknown, while others come for both remedial and developmental or recreational education provided in a non-threatening environment, preparing students for access to higher education and the job market (LACCD, 2004a). Low Enrollment Fees and Financial Aides In addition to academic, vocational, and developmental programs, a financial motive prompts students to enroll in local community colleges because they offer year-round enrollment with lower fees for credit and non-credit courses and the possibility of financial aid. As the percentage of students living in poverty within the LACCD ranges from 8.9% at Los Angeles Pierce Community College to 32.4% at Los Angeles Trade-Tech Community College (LACCD, 2004c), cheaper tuition in a community college enhances higher student enrollment. Community college offers services for low and/or no fees. For example, Californian residents pay only $26 per unit. That is $78 for one 3-unit class. U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have lived in California for less than one year are required to pay a nonresident tuition fee of $ 154 per unit plus an enrollment fee of $26 for a total of $180 per unit. Residents of a foreign country (students with visas) are required to pay a non-resident fee of $164 per unit plus an enrollment fee of $26 per unit. Students on F-l Visa also pay a $25 per semester International student processing fee. These fees are much less than those of the CSU and UC systems. The R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 average tuition based on two semesters for LACCD is $468, whereas for CSU it is $2,566 and UCLA is $5,537 (LACCD, 2004f). In addition to lower fees, students can receive no-cost tutoring in the Center for Academic Success and the Learning Center. Students can also qualify for financial aid to continue their educational goals after meeting the minimum requirements. For example, a regular non-citizen resident who has documentation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service verifying that his/her stay in the U.S. is for other than a temporary purpose can also apply for financial support (ELAC, 2004a). About College Transfer Transfer from a community college to a 4-year institution is the goal of many students. In order to transfer, students must take an adequate number of transfer courses. It is the institution that determines a student’s readiness for transfer — “transfer ready by institution,”-- however it is entirely up to the student to make a move and transfer (Hagedorn, 2003). In order to be “transfer ready,” students have to pass through modules of predetermined transfer level courses accepted by four-year universities and colleges. By taking transfer courses the students have to fulfill the graduation requirements of the “Transfer Program” or so-called “Plan A” or Plan B” - “General Graduation depending on the number of units in their major. “Plan A” has been designed for students who plan to transfer to either the California State University (CSU) system or the University of California (UC) system. Transfer students, who wish to obtain an Associate Degree, are advised to follow Plan A and the college/university transfer requirements. “Plan B” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76 has been designed for students interested in career programs who take the “General Graduation” or Occupational/Vocational path and who plan a career in engineering or another profession of their choice. Both plans “A” and “B” include major and general graduation and/or transfer requirements stated accordingly by the LACCD Board of Trustees and the specific community college (ELAC, 2004b). Both programs, Plan A and Plan B include courses that are classified by the LACCD student information systems (SIS). Because not all of the courses required by the UC General Education parallel the CSU General Education, the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) offers another and more balanced alternative at community college. IGETC In 1988, California passed assembly Bill 1725 (Chapter 973, Statutes of 1988) that required governing boards and academic senates from the California public postsecondary segments (University of California, California State University, and the Community Colleges) to mutually develop, maintain, and disseminate a common core curriculum in general education for the purpose of transfer. The result was a statewide agreement for articulation between the California Community Colleges and the public four-year universities titled the “Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum” (IGETC) (Board of Governors California Community Colleges, 1991). The state has identified six (required by the CSU system) to seven (UC) distinct areas, each consisting of several courses, that when passed with a grade of “C” or better generally satisfy the lower division education requirements of the public university system. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 All coursework applicable to the IGETC must be completed and certified prior to transfer in order for it to be accepted by the UC and CSU system. For example, certification for CSU must include completion of the oral communication requirement (Speech 101) and for UC certification, the foreign language requirement must be satisfied (ELAC, 2004a). Using the IGETC as a general education program, community college transfer students can fulfill lower-division general education requirements for either the UC or CSU system. However, it is not necessary for all transfer students to follow the IGETC in order to transfer because there is no connection between completion of the IGETC and eligibility for admission to the UC or CSU system. If the IGETC is not completed prior to transfer, students will be subject to the lower-division general education requirements of the campus to which they transfer. Although the IGETC represents a statewide articulation agreement between the UC and CSU schools, these requirements vary from campus to campus (UC or CSU) because each college has its own graduation requirements. The IGETC agreement contains a complete description of the course- requirements within seven distinct areas of general education that fulfill the community college graduation and transfer requirements within the California educational system. There are six modules for transfer to the CSU System: English, Mathematics, Arts and Humanities, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Physical and Biological Sciences, and History, Constitution, and American Ideals. The University of California System (UC) requires a seventh module - Language Other Than English (equivalent to two years of high school R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 foreign language). A detailed description of each area according to the IGETC plan is provided in Appendix J. The IGETC will probably be most useful for students who wish to keep their options open before deciding to transfer to either a UC or CSU campus. Consequently, some students may be better served by taking courses which fulfill the CSU General Education - breadth requirements, or the general education pattern of the specific UC campus to which they plan to transfer. However, students pursuing majors that require extensive lower-division major preparation such as Engineering or Business (UC Berkeley) may not find the IGETC option to be advantageous. Exploring Course-Taking Patterns Within the last three decades, researchers have explored enrollment trends by tracking student course taking behaviors in academic courses and programs. The course-taking research has focused on exploring course enrollment trends at the secondary level (Bush, 2003; Decoteau, 1988; Downer-Assaf, 1997; Kaufman, 1990; Kramer, 2002; Mendoza, 2003; Shilds, 1995; Turner, 2003; West et al., 1985) and transition to post-secondary, community college and higher education (Anton, 1980; Milner, 2002; Morris, 1990). The majority of research studies have concentrated on the exploration of enrollment and course taking relationships of English and Mathematics skills in relation to students’ achievement. For example, Shilds (1995) looked at course taking patterns based on ability grouping of high school students. Mendoza (2003) studied Mathematics course taking and the SAT score gap, Kramer R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 (2002) investigated high school algebra achievement and mathematics course taking, and Leow (2002) compared the course-taking and achievement in mathematics and science of three nations (United States, Australia, and Israel). Other course taking studies dealt with the effectiveness of the high school curriculum (advanced academic, academic, and nonacademic coursework) on student achievement in relation to admissions to college through student performance on college admission tests (Bush, 2003; Morris, 1990), qualifying for the scholarship (Turner, 2003); and the impact of graduation requirements on course taking behaviors (Downer-Assaf, 1997). Another line of research focused on the evaluation of student attitudes and academic experiences. For example, Taghavi (2001) evaluated college student attitudes toward computer technology before and after taking a computer literacy course and Minger (1990) explored the lived experiences of self-reported science-anxious students taking an interdisciplinary undergraduate science course. Course-taking at Community College In order to improve the delivery of services to its students, community colleges must examine the curricular experiences of their graduates. Studies of course-taking behaviors at community college have been traditionally centered on the analysis of courses offered by community college, including transfer, remedial, occupational, English and Mathematics. For example, Hagedorn (2002) in a longitudinal study explored transfer and retention of students (N = 5000) through a TRUCCS (Transfer and Retention of Community College Students) project at LACCD (Hagedorn, 2000; Hagedorn, Maxwell, & Hampton, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 2001; Hagedorn, Moon, Cypers, Maxwell, & Lester, 2003). Lester (2003) analyzed transfer path course-taking patterns of Latina (female Hispanic) students at LACCD, and Rendon (1993) concentrated on qualitative indicators of Hispanic student transfer. Stegall (1985) analyzed vocational enrollment patterns in required general education courses by technical-occupational students in an urban community college, then Horn and Carroll (1989) compared enrollment, completion, attrition, and vocational course-taking patterns in the postsecondary education of 1972 and 1980 high school graduates entering two-year institutions. Sheldon (1981) in a longitudinal study at LACCD analyzed broadly the three main functions of community college: transfer, vocational, and special interest {remedial) by following a group of 6,500 community college students. Community colleges are being called upon to demonstrate that students are enrolled in well-defined curricula with explicitly stated learning outcomes. Following this line, Obetz (1998) examined the course-taking experiences of graduates from the Community College of Philadelphia obtaining an Associate in General Studies (A.G.S.) degree for which the requirements tend to be less demanding and less rigorous than the requirements for other degrees. He examined the course-taking patterns of the eighteen clusters to determine if they represent some sort of informal curricular structure. Maxwell, Hagedorn et al. (2003) explored general course taking among entering students at LACCD. Studies involving English and/or Mathematics have been a frequent basis for the exploration of course-taking patterns. For example, Ripps (1985) studied the enrollment of 589 students in Mathematics ranging from introductory R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 Mathematics to upper level Algebra and Calculus at a two-year public community college in Nassau County, New York. Bohn (1994) compared achievement of the Southeast College of Houston Community College System students taking a developmental mathematics course using computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and students taking the course in the traditional classroom setting. Yet, Robinson (2004) took another qualitative approach to study the remediation process faced by the students enrolled specifically in English courses within the LACCD. This study explored the factors that contributed to a frequency of repeating certain courses before reaching transfer-level English completion. Some studies developed a more systematic approach by concentrating on enrollment in English and Mathematics and its influence on transfer and success. For example, Mattice (1983) examined longitudinal transcript data of students (N = 8746) enrolled in the nine colleges comprising the LACCD in the Fall of 1979. This study examined the English Composition and Mathematics course-taking behavior of students who did and did not enroll in remedial or developmental courses in LACCD. Mattice compared English Composition and Mathematics course-taking behavior, and examined the academic progress of students in six occupational and six transfer programs, as well as considering factors contributing to success in advanced courses in English Composition and Mathematics. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 Asians and Course-taking Patterns Course-taking studies related specifically to Asian ethnic minorities are extremely rare. Most of the research concerned with course enrollment or course taking behaviors has been related to the general student population (Cohen & Ignash, 1993; Striplin, 2000). In the last 10 years, with a growing population and new ethnic categories being added into the Census categories (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000), the research has concentrated on language minority populations at community colleges and trends either locally (Striplin, 2000) or nationally (Phillippe & Patton, 2000). A study done by Nishimoto (2004) is the only available study that deals specifically with course taking patterns of Asian minorities. The study examined retention, persistence, and course-taking patterns of Asian Pacific Americans (APAs) in an urban community college in Hawaii. The study identified factors that influence APAs' choices of pursuing academic careers, specifically administration or teaching in higher education. Chinese comprised 26.8% of the respondents. In this context, Chinese are of interest to see the whole picture of academic enrollment and future projections of career choices. With the growing number of American Chinese and immigrant Chinese the need for such study is even more compelling. The Yin-Yang Principle and Classification of Community College Courses A New Perspective Community college course-taking patterns have been traditionally treated in research through analysis of courses clustered in transfer, remedial, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83 Mathematics, English, and ESL categories. Looking at the whole universe of courses offered by community college through the Yin-Yang principle offers a new holistic perspective on the division and analysis of course-taking patterns. The whole universe of courses can be classified under one Yin-Yang category. The Yin-Yang philosophy has been widely adopted in traditional Chinese medicine to keep the Yin (negative) and Yang (positive) energy of the body in balance, and its traditional treatment modalities have been increasingly subjected to scientific study. For example, the Yin-Yang principle was applied to medical research in quantitative evaluation of Yin and Yang scores in human subjects (Rogers, 2004). Others used the Yin-Yang philosophy to capture the dualistic division between social and physical sciences, and to capture the necessary balance between theory and practice in doing academic research (Trochim, 2001). Although there are many examples in which the Yin-Yang symbol has been used in herbal medicine, acupuncture, occult, clinical research, and Chinese philosophy (Gerhard & Postneek, 1992; Rogers, 2004), the most important for review in this study, however, is to apply the Yin-Yang dual perspective to capture a harmony between theory and practice, between course-taking and language. Specifically to the Yin-Yang dualistic view divides the universe of courses offered by a community college into English intensive and non-intensive courses; then the study seeks to see how the course taking patterns reflect the dual reality of native and non-native speakers of English. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 The Meaning o f Yin-Yang The Yin-Yang symbol reflects the inescapably intertwined duality of all things in nature, a common theme in the ancient Chinese (Taoist) understanding of how things work in the universe. The principle of Yin-Yang is the foundation of the entire universe. The outer circle encompasses "the universe" while the black and white shapes within the circle represent the interaction of two forces, called "Yin" (black) and "Yang" (white), which cause everything to happen as the Yin-Yang principle is the root and source of life and death. These forces are not completely black or white, just as things in life are not completely black or white. No quality is independent of its opposite, nor so pure that it does not contain its opposite in a diminished form. These concepts are depicted by the vague division between black and white, the flowing boundary between the two, and the smaller circles within the large regions (Figure 1). The Yin-Yang forces exist with each other in harmony, however, the struggle of the Yin-Yang actually gives a sense of the continual movement of these two energies, Yin to Yang and Yang to Yin, causing everything to happen: just as things expand and contract, and temperature changes from hot to cold (Ebrey, 1993; WordiQ, 2004). Yin-Yang Division o f Courses Yin-Yang symbol can be applied to a division of the whole “universe” of courses offered at community college. The universe of courses can be divided into Yin-Yang categories represented by courses classified into Yin and Yang areas (modules). Consequently, the courses that primarily require knowledge and the use of English language skills in order to pass a course can be classified R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 as Yin. Conversely, the courses that primarily require mathematic and science skills can be classified as Yang. In addition, according to the Yin-Yang principle, all courses offered by a community college are contained within the circle. Within the circle, two opposite energies, Yin and Yang, struggle. However, since the Yin-Yang are not entirely pure within themselves -there is always some Yin contained in the Yang, and some Yang contained in the Yin (Figure 1) which indicates that not all courses will be totally based on English language skills and/or all totally based on mathematic skills. The combined Yin-Yang category represents a category of neutral courses such as tutoring, learning instruction or assisted learning, and Physical Education. Figure 1: Yin-Yang Principle and Classification of Academic Courses YIN A cadem ic Courses Classified into Social Sciences (Require Primarily English Language Skills) YANG Academic Courses Physical Sciences, (Require Primarily Math/Science, Engineering Skills) Applied to the division of courses, the Yin-Yang principle points to a ‘necessary’ balance between Social Sciences and Physical Sciences as well as between student Yin-Yang course-taking behaviors (Figure 1). Therefore, it represents a balance between courses that require an extensive use of English language skills (Yin) and courses that require extensive use of math, engineering and/or other science skills (Yang). It is hypothesized that ‘language based’ R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 course-taking patterns and community college enrollment strongly influence student opportunities to transfer to four-year institutions (Prather, 1998), as well as determine students’ future ‘predestined’ career choices. Yin-Yang Academic and Occupational Career Choices Among Asian Students In pursuing academic careers, specifically administration or teaching in higher education, Asians are strongly influenced by culture, acculturation, and cultural barriers (Nishimoto, 2004). “In choosing a profession, Chinese Americans tend to go into non-people-oriented careers even though the horizon is broadening gradually today”. For example, in 1997, the 105-year-old American Psychological Association elected its first Asian American, a Chinese American, as the association president. Out of 100,000 members only about 1,000 are Asian Americans. This choice is narrowed due to a lack of exposure (Tung, 2000, p. 34). In a study of Asian Pacific Americans (APAs) in Hawaii, Chin (2001) examined the factors that affect education vs. non-education career choices of Asian Pacific Americans in higher education. The APAs' choice of pursuing academic careers was in a great measure determined by their ethnic background and transition into American culture (Penny, 2001). It is obvious then that Asians still lag behind in human capital compared to U. S. born whites. Much of human capital influence is due to English language skills. Additionally, the influence of course taking of college students and graduates puts pressure on their future career choices. It is then desirable to see how strong a relationship there is R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 between course involvement and future careers, as well as what prompts APA students to pick such careers. Career choices can also be seen through the Yin-Yang lens. Yin represents English, History, Sociology (Social Sciences) that require extensive use of English language skills which are necessary for career choices such as teaching, social work, and other social services. Yang, on the other hand, represents Mathematics, Physics, Biology, Chemistry (Physical Sciences) that require extensive use of mathematic and science skills, involving a less-intensive use of English, and eventually lead to non-social oriented career choices. In the best scenario, the distribution of student course choices should be seen through the Yin-Yang lens to preserve a necessary balance between students’ choice of courses and their aspirations toward future educational and/or occupational careers. This is a necessary (in relation to the working of the Yin-Yang principle) balance related to society’s needs for certain careers in a social ‘universe.’ Capturing and sustaining this necessary balance in the social universe of careers may avoid a future imbalance in academic/occupational job aspirations. Given the growing lack of Asians in language intensive social jobs and the increasing growth of a diverse population, these phenomena of course-taking behaviors based on language occupational choices should be further investigated. Conclusion Asian demographic growth in the U.S. population and growing enrollment at American educational institutions provides a compelling argument for more research on this fast expanding minority. On the one hand, looking from the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88 Western scholars’ point of view, the research literature suggests that the model minority is widely cited in the United States. On the other hand, the literature review from the Asian scholars’ point of view also suggests that the MM is a mixed blessing because it does not apply to all Asians. Deconstruction of the MM clearly indicates that there are as many poor and needy (intellectually, psychologically, and linguistically) among Chinese as there are among other minorities. With growing Asian educational and political salience (Iritani & Dickerson, 2002) the portrayal of the MM cannot be seen anymore as one sided ‘policy’ on Asians at institutions of higher education. Asians need to be seen through the expanding needy ‘minority’ and language lenses in order not to get near sighted myopia in the coming “Pacific Century” (Hu-DeHart, 1999). Exploration of the enrollment and course-taking patterns at community college is important to foresee the up-and-coming future of the ‘new America’ in the 21st century. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3 89 METHODOLOGY Introduction This study was conducted on Chinese students attending public urban two- year community colleges in the Spring of 2001 within the LACCD. The Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS, 2001) survey and transcript dataset were utilized. The purpose of this study is fourfold: (1) to identify the particular characteristics of Chinese community college students (CCCS) within the LACCD and make comparisons to those of Hispanics and Whites; (2) to analyze the Chinese students’ course-taking behaviors by identifying trends in their course-enrollment patterns in specified types of courses and making comparisons between Chinese non-native speakers of English (NNSE) and Hispanic and White NNSE; (3) to identify differences and relationships in course participation ratio (CPR), course-completion ratio (CCR), and grade point average (GPA) between Chinese NSE and Chinese NNSE as well as between Chinese NNSE and other NNSE (Hispanics and Whites); (4) to find the best predictors of academic success (in terms of CCR and GPA) of the Chinese students at LACCD. Included in the Chinese student population are native and non-native English speaking students who self-identified as NSE or NNSE on Q u estion 20, “Is English your native language?” course-taking behaviors are analyzed through course enrollment and course participation ratio (CPR) and course-completion ratio (CCR). The success variable is determined by use of grade point average R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90 (GPA) and course completion ratio (CCR) used as dependent variables. Independent variables used as predictors of students’ success included the student characteristics listed in the categories of variables as personal, language, schooling, financial, and college factors. Research Questions The research questions for the study are as follows: Question 1: A) What are the demographic characteristics of Chinese Community College Students (CCCS) at LACCD? To what extent do Chinese (CCCS) differ from Whites and other minority groups (e.g., Hispanic) by selective students ’ characteristics? B) What is the distribution of Chinese students ’ enrollments in the following categories o f courses: Academic Transferable (CSU, UC, IGETC), Occupational, Remedial, English (ESL), Math, and Yin vs. Yang? To what extent do the CCCS differ from Whites and minorities (e.g., Hispanics) in the categories o f courses specified above? C) What are the specific differences/relationships between enrollment o f Chinese native speakers of English (CCCS NSE) and Chinese non native speakers o f English (CCCS NNSE) in the categories o f courses specified above? Do the CCCS NNSE enrollments in English and Math differ from other NNSE (e.g., Hispanics and Whites)? R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 Question 2: Is there a difference in course-taking patterns between Chinese native speakers o f English (CCCS NSE) and Chinese non-native speakers o f English (CCCS NNSE)? In other words, using the outcomes o f GPA (Grade Point Average), CPR (Course Participation Ratios) and CCR (Course Completion Ratios) is there a significant difference between CCCS NSE and CCCS NNSE in the types o f courses specified above? Do CCCS NNSE differ from other NNSE (e.g., Hispanic minorities and Whites) in the categories o f courses specified above? Question 3: What are the factors that contribute to the academic success (in terms o f GPA and CCR) o f Chinese students at LACCD? Methodology Research Populations and Sample This study primarily focused on a population of CCCS who attended classes the Spring of 2001 within the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). The Chinese research sample was isolated from the general TRUCCS sample (Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students). The general sample for this study consisted of 5,000 students who enrolled in classes at nine campuses within the LACCD. Participants who responded to the TRUCCS research instrument were enrolled in classrooms selected in a stratified random fashion. (See the detailed explanation of data collection and the research instrument design further in this chapter). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 El Chinese ■ Other Asian □ Hispanic □ Native Am ■ African Am ■ Caucasian/White ■ Other Ethnic Diversity at Note: *The percentage indicates the number of subjects who marked “All that apply” in ethnic categories (Q.30). Other Asians included: Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Laotian, Cambodian, Vietnamese, South Asian, and Arab. Hispanic category included: Mexican, Mexican Am./Chicano, South American, Central American or Other Latino/Hispanic. Native Americans: Alaskan Native, American Indian, and Pacific Islander. Figure 2: Diversity o f Populations at LACCD, by percent* Participants in the survey represented the diversity of ethnicities spread throughout the nine1 LACCD campuses (Figure 2), therefore, in addition to the CCCS sample other research samples, including Hispanics and Whites, were used in this study for comparison purposes (Figure 3). In this study, Chinese subjects represented all Chinese students who marked the “Chinese” category in question 30 in the TRUCCS questionnaire. Hispanics represented all students who marked items related to Mexican, Mexican-American, South American, Central American or other Latino/Hispanic (Q 3012 through Q 3016). Whites represented all subjects who marked Caucasian/White (Q30 21). The Hispanic population was created as a compound group for comparison purposes only, not for defining their ethnic identity. 1 Los Angeles City College, East Los Angeles College, Los Angeles Harbor College, Los Angeles Mission College, Los Angeles Pierce College, Los Angeles Southwest College, Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, Los Angeles Valley College, West Los Angeles College 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 For the purpose of this study, the Hispanic population was chosen because the Hispanic sample was the most populated group, while the White population was close to an Asian group at the LACCD (Figure 2). Table 1 represents the breakdown of research populations by number of subjects, gender, English as a native language, and percent of the TRUCCS sample. Subjects within each research population represented a mixture of ethnicities because they marked “all that apply” (more than one category) in ethnic categories (Q30_01 through Q30 22). In order for the CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites samples to be mutually exclusive, the participants for each research ethnic population were isolated from the general TRUCCS sample by using an appropriate syntax (Appendix C). These three research samples were applied for comparisons (Figure 3). Table 1 Research Populations (CCCS, Hispanics, Whites), by number and percent of cases Number % of Native Speakers of Population of TRUCCS Male Female English subjects sample YES NO Chinese* 204 4.1% 48% 52% 11.4% 88.6% (030 01) (82) (119) (21) (1 6 4 ) CCCS** 196 3.9% 40.9% (79) 49.1% (114) 11.2% (20) 88.8% (1 5 8 ) White** 541 10.9% 46.8% 53.2% 71.5% 28.5% (249) (283) (3 6 9 ) (1 4 7 ) H isp a n ic* * 2513 50.6% 39.5% (976) 60.5% (1497) 28.9% (6 8 6 ) 71.1% (1 6 9 1 ) TRUCCS 46 9 7 100% 39.1% 60.9% 42.6% 57.4% (1883) (2927) (1 9 7 3 ) (2 6 5 8 ) Note: * Chinese population according to the survey. ** CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites -isolated and mutually exclusive research populations used for the analysis. Missing values/cases were excluded from the all analysis. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 Chinese Ethnicity and CCCS Research Population There were 204 Chinese subjects who marked the “Chinese” category (Q30_01) in the questionnaire (Table 1). However, after excluding the mixture of Chinese with other ethnic/racial research groups (e.g., Hispanics and Whites) by running the appropriate syntax (Appendix C), 196 of CCCS subjects were identified. Other comparative samples included Hispanics (N = 2513) and Whites and (N = 541) (Table 1 and Figure 3). In this study, the CCCS research sample included all Chinese subjects who marked the “Chinese” category item, but excluded all subjects who also marked the Hispanic (Q30_12 through Q30_16) and/or White (Q30_21) items. As a result, in addition to 158 of ‘pure’ Chinese, there were 26 of Chinese-Asians, 6 of Chinese-African-American, and 6 of Chinese mixed with ‘Other’ ethnicities, but not with ‘Hispanic’ or ‘White’ category (Figure 4). 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 □ CCCS □ Hispanic White Figure 3: CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites Research Populations, by number o f cases R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 CCCS Research Population □ Chinese (only) B Chinese/Other Asians □ Chinese/African Am □ Chinese/Other Note: * Chinese mixed with Latinos and Whites were not included in the research sample. Figure 4: CCCS Research Population, by number o f cases Research Design In the past, studies of course-taking patterns have concentrated mainly on analysis of student participation in mathematics, science and general education (Mattice 1983; West, Miller et al. 1985; Horn and Carroll 1989; Peng 1990). In this study, to capture the whole picture of CCCS course-taking patterns, in addition to an analysis of mathematics, English, and general education courses, the researcher concentrated on the whole ‘universe’ of courses offered by a community college. The whole ‘universe’ of courses was analyzed in the context of transfer, occupation, and remediation. Therefore, in order to capture the full picture of CCCS course-taking behaviors, the correlational research design included the analysis of academic transfer module (UC/CSU, and IGETC), vocational/occupational, remedial, and the Yin and Yang modules, in addition to English and math modules. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 Typology o f Analyzed Courses (1) Academic Transfer Module (ATM). Three categories of the transferable courses were considered in the analyses: UC/CSU Transferable and/or IGETC. a. University of California (UC) transferable. A course was defined as UC transferable if it was termed by the student information systems (SIS) directory as accepted by the University of California system for credit toward a baccalaureate degree. Examples of UC transferable course titles are provided in Table 2. b. California State University (CSU) transferable. A course was defined as CSU transferable if it was termed by the student information systems (SIS) directory as acceptable to the California State University for credit toward a baccalaureate degree. While many CSU transferable courses are also UC transferable, others are not. Examples of CSU transferable course titles are provided in Table 2. c. IGETC (Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum). A course was defined as an IGETC course if it fulfilled the course- requirements within one of the seven distinct areas: English, Mathematics, Arts and Humanities, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Physical and Biological Sciences, Language Other than English, and History, Constitution, and American Ideals (Table 2, Appendix A). (2) Vocational/Occupational. A course was defined as occupational if it was termed by the LACCD student information systems (SIS) directory as occupational. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 (3) Remedial Courses. A course was defined as remedial if it was termed by the LACCD student information systems (SIS) directory as compensatory and developmental - pre-collegiate, adult elementary and secondary basic skills, or basic skills (Table 2). (4) Mathematics Courses. A course was defined as a math course if it used math as its subject area. Examples of levels and course titles with Math as its subject area are provided in Table 2. (5) English Courses. A course was defined as an English course if it had English as its subject area. English courses include those at basic, remedial, intermediate, advanced and transfer levels. The English course category also includes courses designed for an ESL classroom. ESL courses include ESL Levels 0 through 5 (Table 2). (6) Yin - Yang Module. In addition to the traditional division and analysis of English and Math courses, the researcher looked at students’ course-taking behaviors through a Yin-Yang paradigm (see Chapter 2) as it relates to a division of courses based in social sciences as opposed to physical sciences as well as on the usage of the English language or math/science skills to pass the course (Figure 4). Using the Yin-Yang module, the researcher examined whether the course taking-behaviors at community colleges were balanced with regards to choices based on English or math skills. In other words, “Did students take more Yin or Yang courses?” Through the analysis of Yin-Yang courses, the researcher attempted to identify a statistical balance (equality of means) between the Yin and Yang course-taking R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98 behaviors at LACCD. In order to reach this goal, the courses were classified according to the Yin-Yang principle. Following the Yin-Yang principle, the whole universe of courses offered at a community college was divided into Yin and Yang modules. Thus, the courses that primarily required knowledge and use of English language skills to pass the course have been classified as Yin. Conversely, the courses that primarily required Math and Science skills have been classified as Yang (Table 2). YIN Academic Courses Classified into Social Sciences (Require English Language Skills) YANG Academic Courses Classified by Physical Sciences, (Require Math and/or Science Skills) Figure 5: Yin-Yang Classification o f Academic Courses The Yin-Yang division points to a balance of courses and course-taking patterns in the whole ‘universe’ of courses offered by a community college. In addition, looking from a two-point perspective, NSE and NNSE, the Yin-Yang paradigm (Figure 5) offers a balance between Yin (based on the English language skills and social sciences) and Yang (based on math/engineering skills and physical sciences) oriented course-taking behaviors (Table 2). According to the Yin-Yang principle, all courses offered by a community college are contained within the circle. Within the circle, two opposite energies Yin (English) and Yang (Math) struggle. However, since the Yin-Yang are not entirely pure within themselves -there is always some Yin contained in the Yang, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 and some Yang contained in the Yin (Figure 5) which indicates that not all courses will be totally based on either English language skills or math skills. Within the division of courses, math and English skills acted then as filters into the Yin-Yang paradigm. The Ying-Yang module also included all other courses that were under one heading but depending on the department of a particular major they could be classified differently. Thus, in addition to Yin and Yang, the Yin-Yang (mixed and neutral) category was added into the division of courses. For example, since there were no distinguishing skills to discriminate, tutoring and learning assistance were classified in a neutral category (Table 2). Table 2 Classification of Courses Module Category/Level Examples o f Courses Academic Transfer University o f California (UC) College Reading and Composition 1 (English 101), Fundamentals o f Chemistry 1 (Chemistry 51), Government o f the US (Political Science 1), and General Psychology I (Psychology 1). Note that many courses are both UC and CSU transferable and have thus been included in both calculations independently. California State University (CSU*) Trigonometry with Vectors (Math 241), Early Childhood: Principles and Practices (Child Development 2), Investments (Finance 2), and Math for Programmers (Computer Science 104) IGETC Courses within seven distinct areas: English, Mathematics, Arts and Humanities, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Physical and Biological Sciences, Language Other than English, and History, Constitution, and American Ideals (Appendix A) Occupational Vocational Construction o f Yarns and Fabrics (Fashion Design 114), Early Childhood: Principles and Practices (Child Development 2), Computer Keyboarding 1 (Office Administration 1), and Business Computation (Business 38) Remedial Remedial Beginning College Reading/Writing (English 73), Arithmetic for College Students (Math 105), Survey o f Health Occupations A (Health Occupation 1), and Grammar Applied to Writing (Developmental Composition 37) Basic ( Level=0) Arithmetic (Math 105), Pre-Algebra (Math 112) Mathematics Remedial, (Level =1) Elementary Algebra (Math 115) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 Table 2. Classification o f Courses (continued) Intermediate (Level =2) Intermediate Algebra (Math 125) Mathematics Advanced (Level =v College Algebra (Math 125), Statistics (Math 127), Trigonometry with Vectors (Math 241), Calculus III (Math 263) Total Math Included all math courses: basic, remedial, and advanced. Basic (Level =C ) Developmental Communications: Fundamentals o f Reading and Writing 20 (English 20), English Fundamentals (English 21) Remedial (Level =1) Introduction to Reading/Composition: Basic Skills 64, Beginning College Reading and Writing (English 73), Intermediate Reading/Composition: Fiction (English 65) English** Intermediate (Level =2) Introduction to Reading and Composition (English 28), Composition and Critical Reading (English 31) Advanced (Level =3) Afro-American Literature (English 34), College Reading and Composition (English 1, English 101, Communication and Critical Thinking (English 103), Cooperative Education/English (English 941) Total English Included all English levels: basic, remedial, intermediate, advanced, and ESL. ESL ESL Levels 0 through 5: Learning Skills - ESL 33; College ESL 86. YIN Social Sciences English Fundamentals, Literature, Language and arts, Philosophy, History (African American History), Citizenship, Culture (Chinese civilization, Comparative Culture o f Asia and America), Education, Language (Spanish, Japanese, German, Chinese), Learning skills, Journalism (Collecting and writing news), Broadcasting (Fundamentals o f Radio and Television), Law (Paralegal Introduction to Legal Assistant), Travel, Principles o f Public Relations. YANG Physical Sciences Physics, Chemistry, Technology, Machinery, Mechanics, Electrics, Computer courses (Computer and Programming Concepts, Introduction to Computers, Computer Technology, Internet Research Methods), Engineering, Work skills courses (Culinary Arts), Designs (Graphic Arts, Tailoring and Design), Multimedia, Medical courses (Nursing, Nutrition, Health), Physiology (Introduction to Human Physiology), Health Occupation (Respiratory Therapy, Radiology, Physical Science, Data Processing, Work Skills (Welding, Tailoring), Biology (Marine Biology), Office Machines, Geology (Physical Geology). YIN-YANG Neutral category Physical Education and Tutoring (Supervised Learning Assistance, non-credit classes). Note: * CSU category included “all” courses deemed transferable to CSU regardless of their transferable status to the UC system. ** A course was defined as an English course if it had English as its subject area. Although this designation may include a variety of content, each course is a part of the English department. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures Data for this research was gathered via twofold instrumentation: (1) the TRUCCS (Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students) questionnaire and (2) Educational Transcripts that were acquired from the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) for all students who signed the requisite consent forms (96 per cent of the sample) during the data collection period in Spring 2001 (TRUCCS 2001). (1) The TRUCCS questionnaire was used as the basis for the collection of baseline demographic information. In the Fall of 1999, the TRUCCS research team developed a survey purposely designed for urban multi-ethnic community college campuses in LACCD. The LACCD campuses are characterized by diverse student enrollments and also by a large number of students for whom English is not a first language. Survey administration for the first year of the TRUCCS study began in the Spring 2001 semester. The surveys were administered from March 5, 2001 to April 28, 2001 at each of the nine LACCCD campuses in a total of 241 classrooms. Approximately 35 survey administrators were trained on specific procedures and provided a script to help ensure consistent administration in each of the classrooms. A total of 5,010 surveys were collected (TRUCCS 2001). A 47-item survey produced a total of 238 possible questions that students could choose to answer. In this study, a number of relevant items to the current study were utilized in describing the study sample, for example, items pertaining to students and parental background, but most importantly the item regarding “English as native language” on which a crucial distinction between NSE and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 NNSE could be made. Other items were used to answer the posed research questions in this study. A number of relevant items used in this study are presented in Figure 6. The subjects of the final research samples in this study (Table 1) came from all nine colleges within the LACCD (Figure 2) that participated in the TRUCCS survey and for whom transcript data could be accessed. For purposes of this study, three samples: CCCS (N = 196), Hispanics (N =2513), and Whites (N = 512) were isolated from the TRUCCS upon which comparisons between NSE and NNSE have been developed. (2) Educational Transcripts were used for the analyses of course-taking patterns. Transcript data were acquired from the LACCD office for all students who signed the requisite consent forms (96% of the sample) during the administration of the TRUCCS project (Appendix B). Students’ Characteristics - Variables Used in the Study The studies by Hoachlander & Choy (1986) and West et al. (1985) have confirmed that the level and intensity of a student’s experience in coursework appears to vary systematically according to race, sex, socioeconomic status, and other personal and school characteristics. In this study, variations in course-taking patterns and student success were examined with respect to a number of student characteristics that are believed to influence their academic success and course completion ratios. The student characteristics are the variables, which have been included selectively in the examination of courses and the CCCS success at LACCD. Table 3 presents the selective student characteristics used in this study. These characteristics fall into R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 the five categories: Personal, Language, Schooling, Financial/Situational, and College. Table 3 Student Characteristics (Variables used in the study). Variables Description of Item Comprising Scale Scale Item # in TRUCCS PERSONAL AGE Represented by 3 categories: Traditional, College, and Adults 1 - < 2 0 2 - A ge 21-29 3 - Age 30 and above Q29 (Recoded): Q29 1-Q29 5 Q29 6-Q29 7 Q29 8-Q29 10 GENDER Dummy-coded dichotomous variable 1 - Males 2 - Females Q28 MARITAL STATUS “Are you currently married?” 1-Yes 2 -No Q31 CHW ETHNICITY: - CCCS (CHINESE) - HISPANICS - WHITES 1 - Chinese or CCCS 2 - Hispanics 3 - Whites Q301 -Q 3122 (Recoded using Syntax in Appendix B) PARENTAL EDUCATION Indicates the highest level o f formal education obtained by parents either in the U.S. or in another country 1 - 6t h grade or less 2 - Junior /Middle HS 3 - Some High School 4 - Finished HS or GED 5 - Some Com. College 6 - Completed CC 7 - Some 4-year College S - Completed 4-year 9 - Some graduate degree 10 - Graduate Degree 11-1 don’t know Q41 1 Mother & Q41_2 Father LANGUAGE NSE / NNSE “Is English your native language?” 1 -Yes (NSE) 0 - No (NNSE) Q20 UNDERSTEND- ING ENGLISH Problem with Understanding the English Language at this College 1 - Not a Problem 2 - Small Problem 3 - Medium Problem 4 - Large Problem 5 - Very Large Problem Q1 67 (Recoded) SPEAKING ENGLISH English Language Usage: Speaking English with: Parents Friends Teachers 1 - Never 2 - Occasionally 3 - Half of the Time 4 - Most of the Time 5 - A ll of the Time Q 17_l Parents Q17 2 Friends Q173 Teachers (Recoded) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 Table 3. (Continued) Variables Description of Item Comprising Scale Scale Item # in TRUCCS LEARNING ENGLISH FOR WORK Im portance o f Learning English fo r Work 1 - Very Unimportant 2 - Unimportant 3 - Slightly Unimportant 4 - Not Sure 5 - Slightly Important 6 - Important 7 - Strongly Important Q1_18 (Recoded) Reading (receptive skills): - “I am able to read”, - “Read a college textbook” Four- point scale: 1 - Not at all 2 - With difficulty 3 - Fairly well 4 - Very well Q19 (Recoded) Read: Q19 1& Q19 4 SRELA (Self-reported English Language Ability) Writing (productive skills): - “I am able to write” - ’’Write a term paper” - ’’Write an essay exam” Write: Q19 2 & Q19 6 & Q9 5 Communication (productive): “Understand a ecture”, “Participate in class discussion” & ‘Communicate with nstructors”. Communicate'. Q19 3 Q19 7 Q19 8 SCHOOLING - EDUCATION WHERE EDUCATED? “Where did you attend y o u r... school?” U.S. and/or Abroad 1 = Elementary (4-11) 2 =Junior HS (12-14) 3 = HS (Ages 15-18) 4 = College (Ages >19) Q5_usa Q5_abroad (Recoded) HIGH SCHOOL GRADE (HS GPA) Self-Reported High School Grade 1 -D s 2 - Cs (C+ C C-) 3 -B s (B+ B B-) 4 -As (A A-) Q24 (Recoded) SITUATIONAL - FINANCIAL ACADEMIC STATUS Student Academic Status: “How do you primarily think o f yourself?” 1 - Student 2 - Employed student 3 - Employee 4 - Parent Q36 (Recoded) EMPLOYMENT STATUS Student Employment Status 1 - Full-time 2 - Part-time 3 - Not employed Q35 (Recoded) AFFORDABILITY “This college is affordable ” “This college is close to my home ’’ 1 - Very Unimportant 2 - Unimportant 3 - Slightly Unimportant 4 - Not Sure 5 - Slightly Important 6 - Important 7 - Strongly Important Q107 Q1 09 Q1 (Factored) EMPLOYMENT STATUS Student Employment Status 1 - Full-time 2 - Part-time 3 - Not employed Q35 (Recoded) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 Table 3. (Continued) Variables Description of Item Comprising Scale Scale Item # in TRUCCS PROBLEM WITH PAYING FOR COLLEGE College Financial Affordability 1 - Not a Problem 2 - Small Problem 3 - Medium Problem 4 - Large Problem 5 - Very Large Problem Q165 (Recoded) LOAN and/or SCHOLARSHIP Received Type o f financial Assistance 1 - Loan; 2 - Scholarship or grand 3 - Loan and Scholarship Q39 (Recoded) COLLEGE FIRST GENERATION IN COLLEGE First Generation in College (Neither mother nor father went to college) 1 - 6lh grade or less 2 - Junior HS 3 - Some HS school 4 - Finish HS /GED Q 41_l Mother Q41 2 Father (Recoded) TRANSFER I Will Transfer to a 4-year college or university 1 - Definitely Not 2 - Probably Not 3 - Maybe 4 - Probably 5 - Definitely Q10_08 (Recoded) ENCOURAGE MENT “My parents wanted me to come here” “My spouse, partner or other family member wanted me to come here“ 1 - Very Unimportant 2 - Unimportant 3 - Slightly Unimportant 4 - Not Sure 5 - Slightly Important 6 - Important 7 - Strongly Important Q1 01 Q l_02 Q1 (Factored) COLLEGE DEGREE EARNED Indicates all college degrees earned Associate (AA) = 1 Certificate = 2 Bachelor (BA, BS) =3 Graduate (MA ~ PhD)= 4 Q1 l_usa Q 11 abroad (Recoded) ACADEMIC DETERMINA TION I keep trying even when I am frustrated by a task 1 -Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Slightly Disagree 4 -Not Sure 5 - Slightly Agree 6 - Agree 7 - Strongly Agree Q37 (Factored) Q37 8 I always complete homework assignments Q 377 I expect to do well and earn good grades Q375 I am very determined to reach my goals Q3713 Understanding what is taught is important to me Q37 6 It is important fo r me to finish the course Q37_10 I feel most satisfied when I work hard to achieve Q3715 Success in school is largely due to effort Q37_17 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 Table 3. (Continued) Variables Description of Item Comprising Scale Scale Item # in TRUCCS COLLEGE OPPORTUNITY “'This college's graduates get good jobs”; ’’’This college’s students transfer to good 4-year schools” 1 - Very Unimportant 2 - Unimportant 3 - Slightly Unimportant 4 - Not Sure 5 - Slightly Important 6 - Important 7 - Strongly Important Q1 10 Q1 11 Q 117 Q1 (Factored) DESIRE TO GET A COLLEGE DEGREE “I want to get a college degree” 1 - Very Unimportant 2 - Unimportant 3 - Slightly Unimportant 4 - Not Sure 5 - Slightly Important 6 - Important 7 — Strongly Important Ql_18 HIGHEST ACADEMIC DEGREE DESIRED “What is the highest academic degree you would like to attain...?” 1 - No degree/Class only 2 - Associate (AA) 3 - Certificate 4 -Bachelor (BA.,BS) 5 - > Bachelor (BA., BS) 6 - Master (MA, MS) 7 - Doctoral/Medical (PhD, EdD, JD, MD) Q12 (Recoded) COLLEGE BELONGING “I Feel I belong at this college” 1 -Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Slightly Disagree 4 - Not Sure 5 - Slightly Agree 6 - Agree 7 - Strongly Agree Q3718 (Recoded) Construct Validity and Reliability The database used in this study has been validated and refined through data analysis processes using a sampling design that maximized variations in the independent variables (IVs) throughout the entire sample to allow researchers to make internally valid comparisons of subgroups. Construct validity of the independent variables (questionnaire items) came from the Community College Model for Student Life and Retention and Course Completion which was established as valid and reliable based on prior research conducted by Hagedorn et al (2002). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 In terms of reliability and validity of the research instrument, it is believed that the subjects provided voluntarily responses to all the questions they intended to answer during the individually administered questionnaire in a controlled and structured classroom setting while provided with the same directions at a specific time at a particular community college located in the LACCD district. The internal consistency of the survey was assessed using Cronbach’s reliability procedures. The reliability item analyses tests for internal consistency of the selected IVs are presented in Table 4. The reliability item analysis yielded Cronbach’s Alpha between (.608 < a < .867). Reliability was tested through a factor analysis using principal component analysis as the extract method and a Varimax with Kaiser normalization as the rotation method. Kaiser levels are identified as follows: > .9 is marvelous, > .8 is meritorious, > .6 is middling, > .5 is miserable, and < .5 is unacceptable. Table 4 Construction Validity and Reliability o f Selected Independent Variables V ariables N am e Scale/Item s C om prising Scale* C ron bach ’s A lpha PARENTAL EDUCATION Highest formal education o f parents (Q411 Mother & 041 2 Father). .797 SRELA (Self-Reported English Language Abilities) Four- point scale: Not at all ~ Very well Read Items: (Q19 1)&(Q19 4) .818 Write Items: Q19 2, Q19_6, & Q19_5 .787 Communicate Items: Q19_3, Q19_7, & Q19_8 .830 SPEAKING ENGLISH 5-point Scale: Never ~ All o f the time. Items: Using English with Parents, Friends, and Teachers at this college. .609 ACADEMIC DETERMINATION 7-point Scale: From SA to SD. Factors: Q37_5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15 & 17. .873 AFFORDABILITY 7-point Scale: From SA to SD. Items: Q 1_07& Q 1_09. .702 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 Table 4. (Continued) Variables Name Scale/Items Comprising Scale* Cronbach’s Alpha ENCOURAGEMENT 7-point Scale: From SA to SD. Items: Q 1_01 & Q l_02. .701 WHERE EDUCATED? 4-point Scale: Elementary, Junior High School, High School, and College. Items: Educated in the U.S. and/or educated Abroad (Q1 l_usa, Q1 1 abroad). USA (.838) Abroad (.866) COLLEGE OPPORTUNITY 7-point Scale: From Strongly Unimportant to Strongly Important. Items: Q l_10, Q 1 J 1, & Q l_17 .646 Note: *See for description of items comprising scale in Table 3. Data Analysis This study followed a quantitative approach, based on a correlational research design. Thus, the study sought to explore and determine statistically significant relationships between the dependent (DV) and independent (IV) variables through the use of correlational statistics (Gall, Borg et al. 1996). Consequently, this study used both descriptive and inferential statistics to investigate the existence and extent of relationships among course-taking patterns. Descriptive statistics including frequencies, means, and standard deviations for the DVs and IVs are examined where appropriate. Using a quasi-experimental design based on comparison design, this study describes the characteristics of students who took different types of courses, and examines the course-taking patterns, academic success, and relationships between CCCS (American and ESL Chinese) and other population groups (Hispanic and Whites). Further, the study seeks to explore the course-taking behaviors of CCCS based on the language perspective as described in the research design. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 Analysis o f Course-Taking Patterns The analysis of course-taking patterns included the examination of relationships between student course participation ratios (CPR), course completion ratios (CCR) and grade point average (GPA) at various LACCD campuses. The analysis of the relationship between reported variables in this study used data from the TRUCCS questionnaire (TRUCCS 2001) and combined it with information from student transcripts. Statistical analyses of the research problem implemented quantitative (Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS, version 12.0)) methods of explaining the social phenomena under investigation. The results of all statistical procedures are presented in Chapter IV. Additionally, both the statistical descriptions and analyses include figures and tables. The t-test, ANOVA, multiple regression and correlation tables were utilized for comparison purposes where appropriate. Course-talcing patterns were defined by the number of credits students earned after enrolling in various types and levels of courses based on the subject areas of interest. It is understood that, a course-taking pattern is measured on the continuum of enrollment, ranging from attempted enrollment (enrolled, withdrawn or dropped) to completed enrollment (passed course within the specified subject area). All modules were analyzed with relation to enrollment, completion and success ratios in specific courses. Thus, the course-taking patterns included the analyses of student course participation ratios (CPR) and success in courses as expressed through course-completion ratios (CCR) and grade point average R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 (GPA). Following the division of courses used in this study, six types/modules of courses were analyzed: 1) Academic Transfer Module, 2) Occupational, 3) Remedial, 4) English, 5) Math, and 6) Yin - Yang. Each module has been analyzed with respect to the enrollment continuum: (1) CPR, (2) CCR, and (3) GPA success. The work by Hagedorn (2002) has indicated that the use of shorter-term measures of course completion provide a more accurate measure of success. Thus, the success ratios were used to determine how successful community college students (CCCS, Hispanics and Whites) were in taking and completing their courses in respective areas/modules at LACCD. The following procedures have been used in analyses for calculating the CPR, CCR, and GPA. Course Participation or Enrollment Ratios (CPR). The CPR for each type of course was calculated according to the appropriate step-by-step procedures and syntax (Appendix C). First, a total number of semesters were calculated in an enrollment file by running the syntax: If (litho = Lag (litho) & semester = Lag (semester) semtotal = 1, then, an aggregate file of total number of semesters and total number of courses was created. Finally, participation ratio was computed using the formula: “Total participation ratios = total number of classes divided by total number of semesters.” Therefore, CPR is a quotient of the number of total classes divided by the number of total semesters. All of these steps have been repeated for each type of course in each module that has been included in the analyses. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I l l Success ratios in courses have been defined in terms of academic achievement demonstrated by student grade point averages (GPA) and course completion ratios (CCR). GPA was calculated as the quotient of the sum of grades obtained in the courses divided by the number of courses taken. The letter grades were assigned the corresponding numerical values, e.g., A=4, B=3, C=2, D=l, and F=0. To calculate the GPA, first, letter grades were recoded into numerical values: A=4, B=3, C=2, D=l, F=0 and a ‘Grade’ variable was created in an enrollment file. All cases in which the grade was undetermined ~ because units could not be calculated into GPA (e.g., Pass, No Pass, Withdrawal, or In Progress) — were filtered off by selecting only determined grades (Grade >= 0). Next, a number of units were multiplied by the numerical value of grade (grade x units). Then, through the aggregation the sum of this product was obtained. To get the GPA, the total number of units multiplied by grade (grade x units) was divided by the number of units. Finally, running frequencies on a new GPA variable confirmed the outcome of calculated GPA. The obtained values ranged from 0 to 4. Procedures for the calculating GPA are provided in Appendix D. Course completion ratios (CCR) were calculated as the quotient of the number of courses attempted divided by the number of courses successfully completed with an academic grade of C or above. The success ratio in the calculation included only those courses in which students obtained a letter grade: A (Excellent), B (Good), C Average), D (Poor), F (fail), W (withdrawal), and P (pass). Unlike the calculation of the CPR, in CCR courses dropped without a grade were dropped from the CCR analysis. For example, if a student attempted a R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 course and dropped it after the first day of class, there was no grade mark assigned. This phenomenon of attempting and dropping the course without a grade was identified by TRUCCS as “course shopping” (TRUCCS 2001). The highest CCR value of 1 indicates that “as many courses were passed as many courses were attempted”. In other words, all the attempted courses were passed successfully (100%). The value of .5 indicates that only a half of the number, thus 50% of courses attempted were passed successfully. However, the intensity is not taken into consideration because the ratio for a student who took 4 courses and passed two of them is the same as for the student who took ten and passed 5 of them. Course Completion Ratios (CCR) were calculated using the following procedures. First, an ‘Attempt’ variable indicating a 'courses attempted total history’ was created in an enrollment file by recoding the letter grades: A (Excellent), B (Good), C (Average), D (Poor), F (Failing). Then, ‘Pass’ variable including 'courses passed total history’ with letter grades: A, B, C, P was created by recoding passing grade (A, B, C, P) values into 1 and ‘not passing’ grades (D, F, I, N, W), I (Incomplete), N (No credit), W (Withdrawn), P (Pass with credit) into a numerical number of 1: A =l, B=l, C=l, D=l, F=l, 1=1, N =l, W =l, and P = 1. Then both variables: (1) ‘Attempt’ (courses attempted total history) and (2) ‘Pass’ (courses successfully completed total history) were aggregated by litho (research number) to get the “Sum of passes” (SUM of pass) and the sum of “Attempts” (SUM of attempt). Finally, a new CCR variable was calculated according to the formula: R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 CCR equals a quotient of the number of courses completed with a passing grade (C or above or courses indicated as “Pass”) divided by the number of courses attempted. The Analyses o f Transfer Modules (UC/CSU and IGETC) The following procedures were utilized in the analysis of IGETC and UC/CSU transfer modules. Transcripts of all students who indicated an intention to transfer (66% of the total TRUCCS sample; N=3,318) were coded in accordance with the IGETC Curriculum requirements (Appendix A). In other words, courses or groups of courses fulfilling the specific modules were isolated and tagged such that a grade of “C” or better would indicate completion of the requirement. Using the IGETC paradigm, students advanced by completing any of the seven IGETC areas. Appendix A contains a list of the kinds of courses triggering module completion. In some cases the courses were proscribed, in others the students chose from a list of courses fulfilling the requirement. All data were coded in accordance with all possible permutations of courses fulfilling the IGETC requirement at the specific campus. The results of data analysis of the successfully passed (completed the IGETC curriculum requirements) are provided in Chapter 4. Yin - Yang Module The analysis of Yin and Yang course-taking behaviors included the examination of course-taking patterns based on the division of courses according to the principles underlined by the Yin-Yang paradigm (Chapter 2). The Yin- Yang course-taking patterns represent the relations of the intensive English R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 language and less English intensive or mathematic skills required to pass a course. Chapter IV provides the results of the data analysis in relation to the posed research questions along with significant research findings. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DATA ANALYSIS Introduction Presented in this chapter are questionnaire results and transcripts data analyses of the Community College Chinese Students (CCCS). Results are discussed in relation to research questions found in Chapters I and III. The data analyses contained in this chapter include descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate (multiple regression) correlational statistics. Table 5 displays research questions and the statistical analysis performed with source data. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 12.0, 2003. Demographic information was provided by descriptive analyses on selective items for CCCS, Hispanic, and Whites at the LACCD. Bivariate analysis of the transcript data files (course enrollment files) provided for the comparisons between/among research populations in specific types of courses. Further analyses of the transcripts lead to the determination of the course-taking patterns in relation to course participation ratios (CPR), course completion ratios (CCR) and grade point average (GPA). Finally, the multivariate analysis provided the list of variables that contributed to success of the CCCS at LACCD. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 Table 5 Data Source and Statistical Analyses Performed in the Study RESEARCH QUESTIONS (HYPOTHESIS) SOURCE OF DATA STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED Question 1A Questionnaire (Selective Items) Descriptive Statistics (Frequencies); Pearson Chi-Square Analysis Question IB Transcripts - Enrollment file Questionnaire (Selective Items) Descriptive (Frequencies); Pearson Chi-Square Analysis Question 1C Descriptive (Frequencies); Pearson Chi-Square Analysis; One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Question 2 One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Question 3 Multiple Regression Chapter Overview This chapter has been divided into six sections. Section 1 begins with the description of the CCCS sample. Section 2 presents the description of findings by research questions. The descriptive statistics of the CCCS’ characteristics compared to Hispanics and Whites are presented in relation to research question number 1A. Section 3 presents the results of the distribution of courses/types of courses from the transcript data analysis in relation to research question number IB. The relationships between the course-taking patterns of CCCS, Hispanic and White populations are presented. Section 4 begins an analytical section in which the results of inferential statistics on course enrollment relationships between Chinese native speakers of English (CCCS NSE) and Chinese non-native speakers of English (CCCS NNSE) R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 are presented in relation to research question number 1C: What are the specific differences/relationships between enrollment of Chinese native speakers o f English (CCCS NSE) and Chinese non-native speakers o f English (CCCS NNSE) in the categories o f courses specified above? Do the CCCS NNSE enrollments in English and Math differ from other NNSE (e.g., Hispanics and Whites)? Section 5 provides the results of analyses of CCCS NSE and NNSE course-taking patterns in relation to: Grade Point Average (GPA), Course Participation Ratios (CPR), and Course-Completion Ratios (CCR) with research question number 2. The differences/relationships between NNSE (CCCS, Hispanics and Whites) are considered. Finally, Section 6 presents the results of two multiple regressions in which the CCCS academic success is analyzed in terms of GPA and CCR. The variables (blocks of variables) entered into the statistical model are examined to provide the answer to research question number 3: What are the factors that contribute to the academic success (in terms o f GPA and CCR) o f Chinese students at LACCD? SECTION 1 Description o f Research Population As mentioned in Chapter III, the main population under investigation is community college Chinese students (CCCS). The CCCS research sample (N = 196) was isolated from the TRUCCS sample (Table 1, Chapter III). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118 Since participants in the survey represent but one of the ethnicities spread around the nine campuses in LACCD (Figure 2, Chapter III), in addition to the CCCS sample, other research samples, including Whites (N = 541) and Hispanics (N = 2,513) were isolated from the general TRUCCS sample by using the appropriate syntax (Appendix D). Together, all three samples constituted a comparative research population (N = 3,250), in which CCCS represented 6% of the population, Whites represented approximately three times an average number of the CCCS participants (N = 541, 16.6%), and Hispanics, the majority (N = 2,513; 77.3%), represented the highest number of participants (12 times the number of CCCS). The CCCS sample was the primary focus of this study, however, Hispanic and White samples were used, where appropriate, for comparison purposes in relation to each research question. Place o f Enrollment - School Campus Interestingly, the overwhelming majority (N = 140, 58.3%) of CCCS were enrolled on Campus 2 as the remaining Chinese subjects were spread in small percentages (ranging from .5% to 9.3%) throughout the other eight LACCD campuses (Figure 6). However, CCCS constituted only 17.7% of the total population at Campus 2 and figured second to the Hispanic population (80.2%). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CCCS at LACCD Campuses ■ Campus 1 ■ Campus 2 □ Campus 3 □ Campus 4 ■ Campus 5 ■ Campus 6 ■ Campus 7 □ Campus 8 ■ Campus 9 Figure 6: CCCS Choice o f College/School Campus at LACCD-, by percent Native and Non-Native Speakers o f English For this study, subjects in each research sample were divided into native speakers of English (NSE or ‘American’) and non-native speakers of English (NNSE or ESL learners). The numbers of NSE and NNSE in each research sample were determined using the questionnaire item (Q20) regarding native language: “Is English your native language?” Out of 196 Chinese in the CCCS research sample 178 students answered the native language question (Table 6). As a result, 20 (11.2%) subjects were identified as Chinese native speakers of English (CCCS NSE or American Chinese) and 158 (88.8%) as Chinese non-native speakers of English (CCCS NNSE or ESL Chinese). Seemingly, 28.9% of Hispanics and 71.5% of Whites were classified as NSE (or American) and 71.1% of Hispanics, and 28.9% of Whites were classified as NNSE or ESL students (Table 6). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 Table 6 CCCS Hispanics, Whites Native and Non-Native Speakers o f English Population Number of subjects* Native Speakers of English YES NO CCCS 178 11.2% 88.8% (20) (158) White 516 71.5% (369) 28.5% (147) Hispanic 2377 28.9% (686) 71.1% (1691) Note. *Subjects who marked the questionnaire item Q.20, “Is English your native language?” Findings by Research Questions SECTION 2 Research Question No. 1 Characteristics o f Chinese Students (CCCS) In this section the characteristics on research subject background are presented in relation to research question number 1A: What are the demographic characteristics o f Chinese Community College Students (CCCS) at LACCD? To what extent do Chinese (CCCS) differ from Whites and other minority groups (e.g., Hispanic) by selective students ’ characteristics ? To answer research question number 1 A, the selective student characteristics (questionnaire items) were assimilated into the following six categories: (1) Personal (age, gender, marital status, and parental education) (2) Language (Native or non-native Speakers of English (NSE, NNSE), Self-reported English language abilities (SRELA) —reading, writing, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 and communication, Problem with understanding the English language, English language usage, and Learning English for work) (3) Schooling/Education (Where Educated? -Abroad and/or in the U.S.A, Self-reported high school grades) (4) Situational/Financial (Self-determined Academic Status, Current employment status, Primary wage earner, College financial assistance -Loan and/or Scholarship, and Problem with Paying for College, Affordability, Proximity) (5) College (First generation in college, College belonging, Academic determination, Transfer to a 4-year college or university, Desire to get a college degree, Highest academic degree desired, and Highest academic degree earned, Encouragement (Parental Influence, Other Family Member Influence), Desire to Get a College Degree. (1) Personal Age. Respondents provided their age as of December 31, 2000 (Q29). The respondents’ age was divided into three categories: Traditional (age 20 or younger), College (Ages 21 - 29), and Adults (above 30). The frequency distribution of age is presented in Table 7 and Figure 7. The highest percentage of CCCS (51.5%, N =102) was clustered in the college age category. There were 11.9% more Hispanics than CCCS in the traditional school age (20 or younger). There were 4.3% more CCCS than Hispanics in the adult category; however, there were 11.9% more Whites than CCCS in the adult category (Table 7). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 Table 7 Distribution o f Three Age Categories Among Populations, by number and percent AGE Population Groups Chi-Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) 20 or younger Count Column % 43 21.9% 849 33.8% 155 28.7 % 21-29 Count 101 1104 178 Column % 51.5% 44% 32.9% Above 30 Count Column % 52 26.5% 558 22.2% 208 38.4% TOTAL Count 196 2511 541 129.292 Column % 100 % 100 % 100 % (6)** Note: Missing values/cases were excluded from all analyses. ** Significant at p < .OOllevel. 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% h CCCS a Hispanic □ White Figure 7: Distribution o f AGE Categories, by Populations and percent Gender. Females constituted a higher percentage of students than males at LACCD (Table 8 and Figure 8). There were approximately 40% males and 60% females among CCCS and Hispanic populations. The gender gap between females and males reached 18.4% for CCCS, 21% for Hispanics, and only 6.7% Age 20 21-29 30 and Above R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 for Whites. Interestingly, the White population was more gender balanced than CCCS or Hispanic (Figure 8). Table 8 Distribution o f GENDER, by CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites GENDER Population G roups Chi-Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(dfl Male Count Column % 80 40.8% 1000 39.8% 251 46.5 % Female Count Column % 116 59.2 % 1.511 60.2 % 289 53.5 % TOTAL Count Column % 196 100 % 2511 100 % 540 100 % 18.228 Note: Significant at p < .OOllevel. Male Female □ CCCS ■HISPANIC □WHITES Figure 8: GENDER, Populations (CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites), by percent Marital Status — “Are you currently married? ” Approximately the same percentage of CCCS (19.4%) and Hispanics (19.1%) and slightly more Whites (26%) were married (Table 9). There were more married females than males in each sample. Almost twice as many CCCS females (24.6%) than males (12.5%) and 2.5 times White females (36%) than males (14.5%) were married (Table 9). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 Table 9 “ Are You Currently Married? ” (By population, by number and percent) Currently Married Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS (N = 196) Hispanics (N = 2513) Whites (N = 541)) X(df) Male Count 10 153 36 % 12.5% 15.4% 14.5% Female Count % 28 24.6% 324 21.5 % 104 36% TOTAL Count 38 477 140 169.332 % (19.4%)** (19.1%)** (26%)** (3)** Note: * Significant at p < .OOllevel. ** Denotes % o f all married subjects within the sample. Parental Education pertains to Mother’s (Q41_l) and/or Father’s (Q 412) education levels. Table 10 shows the complete parent education level beginning with 6th grade through graduate degree for all populations. More CCCS mothers and fathers completed high school (17.9% and 16.1%) than Hispanics (12.3% andl2.4%) (Figure 9), but fewer than Whites (25.2% and 22.4%) (Figure 10). A lower percentage of CCCS mothers and fathers (6% and 7.5%) held graduate degrees than Whites (12.5% and 18.6%) (Figure 10). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 40% 35% 30% 25% 4 20% 4 I 15% -• 10% 5% 0 % -L •Hisp. Father CCCS Father Hisp. Mother CCCS Mother Note: 1 - 6th grade, 2 - Junior, 3 -some HS, 4 -HS/GED, 5 - Some CC, 6 - CC, 7 - Some 4-year, 8 - 4-year Degree, 9 - Some Grad, 10 - Grad Degree. Figure 9: CCCS and Hispanic Parental Level o f Formal Education, by percent 30% • - 25% 20% — 15% 10% 5 % -... 0 % ! ---------- Whites Mother —X— Whites Father CCCS Mother CCCS Father Note: 1 - 6t h grade, 2 - Junior, 3 -some HS, 4 -HS/GED, 5 - Some CC, 6 - CC, 7 - Some 4-year, 8 - 4-year Degree, 9 - Some Grad, 10 - Grad Degree. Figure 10: CCCS and Whites Parental Level o f Formal Education, by percent Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126 Table 10 Populations by Parental Education: Mother (Q41_l) and Father (Q41_2). Hiehest Level of Formal Education Population Groups Chi-Square Obtained by Parents CCCS Hispanics W hites X(df) . . Count 26 M other „ . ,,, . , Column% 14.1% 882 1 0 36.5% 1.9% 1 6 grade or less Counl 17 r Column% 9.3% 754 18 32.3% 3.4% M , Count 17 7 T. I l i o h n r M ir lr l lr I I - " Column% 9.2% 332 30 13.8% 5.7% 2 Jr High or Middle HS ^ 16 Father Column% 8.6% 284 20 12.2% 3.8% M , Count 17 7 V n .n n I l i o l . S V l.n n l Column% 9.2% 250 43 10,4% 8.1% 3 Some High School C oun( 1 8 Father Column% 9.7% 275 35 11.8% 6.7% M , Count 33 A I I - rVrrl P F n Column% 17.9% 297 133 12.3% 25.2% IIS Grad/GED C oun( 3 Q Father Colum no /0 1 6 l o /0 289 117 12.4% 22.4% M , Count 17 5 Some Community M otner colum n% 9.2% 176 6 8 7.3% 12.9% C° ,,ege Father ^om it 0/ 1° Column% 5.4% 129 54 5.5% 10.3% . . , Count 8 6 Completed 0 er Column% 4.3% 72 41 3% 7.8% Community College Count 18 Column% 9.7% 45 37 1.9% 7.1% . . . . Count 8 Column% 4;3% 39 42 1 .6 % 8 % 7 Some 4-year Col. C ount v Father colunm % 3,8% 61 33 2.6% 6.3% M . Count 23 8 Completed 4-year M other Coll]mno /0 1 2 .5 o / 0 54 64 2 .2 % 12.1% College F t h Count 24 Column% 12.9% 85 71 3.6% 13.6% M . Count 2 0 r , u l,n fr - r h n n l Column% 1.1% 14 13 .6% 2.5% 9 som e i .raciuate scnooi . „ _ Count 8 Father C o]l]m n% 4 3 o /o 18 8 .8% 1.5% 4 l Count 11 m ri-ulnnt. ° er C olum n% 6% 72 6 6 3% 12.5% Giaduate Degicc C ount 14 Father Column% 7.5% 94 97 4% 18.6% . . . Count 22 . . ■ 1 . . . Column% 12% 226 18 9.4% 3.4% 11 I don t know ^ 4 l Count 24 Father Column% 12.9% 303 32 13% 6.1% . . . Count 184 T r .T . , M other Column% 100% 2414 528 100% 100% 1168.348 (30)*** T O T A L ............Count ".......186 ......... Fatner Column% 100% 2337 522 100% 100% 1012.211 (30)*** Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 (2) Language English as a Native or Non-Native Language - NSE or NNSE. Out of 196 subjects, 178 in the CCCS sample answered the item: “Is English your native language?” Of those who answered, 158 (88.6%) were NNSE or ESL Chinese and 20 (11.2%) were NSE or American Chinese. The NSE constituted 11.2% among CCCS, 28.9% among Hispanics, and 71.5% among Whites (Table 11). The overwhelming majority of CCCS (88.8%) and Hispanic (71.1%) students were NNSE as opposed to 28.5% among Whites (Figure 11). Table 11 Is English Your Native Language? (by number and percent) Is English Your Native Population Groups Chi-Square Language? CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) YES Count 20 686 369 (NSE)* Column% 11.2% 28.9% 71.5% NO Count 158 1691 147 (NNSE)** Column% 88.8% 71.1% 28.5% TOTAL Count 178 2377 516 574.363 Column% 100'% 100% 100% ^ 3)*** Note: Note: * NSE - Native Speakers o f English; **NNSE - Non-native Speakers of English. *** Significant at p < .OOllevel. CCCS Whites Hispanics 13 NSE HNNSE Figure 11: Populations by Native and Non-Native Speakers o f English, by percent Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 Self-reported English Language Abilities (SRELA). Table 12 and Figure 12 represent self-confidence in English language receptive (reading) and productive (writing and communication) skills in ‘Very well’ and ‘Fairly well’ categories. CCCS reported to have less self-confidence than Hispanics and Whites in each of the three SRELA categories. The CCCS SRELA abilities ranged from 60% to below 90%, whereas Hispanic and Whites stayed well above 90% (Figure 12). Among all groups, the lowest ability category was writing in which CCCS lagged 21% behind Hispanics and 24% behind Whites. Although each population claimed to perform well in communication, the gap between populations in productive skills (writing and communication) within each sample reached 17.9% for CCCS, and was practically non-existent for Hispanics (.6%) and Whites (1%) (Figurel2). Chi-square analyses revealed the differences in reading, writing, and communication as significant (p <. 05). Table 12 Self-Reported English Language Abilities, Populations by number and percent Self-reported English Language Abilities Population G roups Chi- Square (SRELA) CCCS Hispanics Whites X (<!f) Reading Fairly & Very Well Count Column % 164 83.7% 2410 95.9% 518 95.7% 81.571 ^ * * * Writing Fairly & Very Well Count Column % 137 69.9% 2285 90.9% 508 93.9% 111.243 Communication Fairly & Very Well Count Column % 172 87.8% 2424 96.5% 523 96.7% 78.615 Note: Missing cases were not included in the table. *** Significant at p < .OOllevel. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Reading______________ Writing___________ Communication ■ CCCS ■ Hispanics □ Whites Figure 12: English Language Abilities, Populations by percent ‘Understanding the English Language while getting an education at this college’ is perceived to be a large problem. Table 13 indicates that 17.9% CCCS expected to have Targe and very large’ problems, as opposed to 3% of Hispanics and 2.3% of Whites. Approximately one-third (34.7%) of the CCCS expected ‘not to have a problem with understanding the English language’ as opposed to three-fourths (75%) of Hispanics and 85.4% of Whites (Table 13and Figure 13). Table 13 Problem with Understanding the English Language, Populations by percent Problem with Understanding the Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) NOT a problem Count Column% 66 34.7% 1841 75% 451 85.4% SMALL and Count 90 539 65 MEDIUM Column% 47.4% 22% 12.3% LARGE AND Count 34 74 12 VERY LARGE Column% 17.9% 3% 2.3% TOTAL Count 190 2454 528 261.074 Column% 100% 100% 100% (12)* Note: * Significant at p < . 001 level. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Small/medium Large/Very large Not a Problem ■ CCCS ■ Hispanics □ Whites Figure 13: Problem with understanding the English language, by percent English Language Usage pertains to speaking in English with parents, friends, and teachers at this college (Table 14 and Figures 14 and 15). More than half (61.4%) of the CCCS reported ‘never’ using the English language with their parents as compared to 35.8% Hispanics and 16.6% Whites. Only 12.2% of CCCS but approximately twice as many Hispanics (22.9%) and the majority of Whites (85.2%) spoke English ‘most and all of the time’ with their parents (Figure 16). Similarly, only a minority of CCCS (35.6%) spoke English with their friends ‘most and all of the time’ compared to the majority of Hispanics (77.3%) and Whites (85.2%), (Figure 15). Although 89.1% CCCS used English with teachers ‘most and all of the time,’ they spoke with teachers 7.3% less than Hispanics and 6.8% less than Whites. Chi-square analyses revealed these differences significant (p <. 05) (Table 14). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131 Table 14 English Language Usage with Parents, Friends, and Teachers, by percent „ . T _ Population G roups English Language Usage with... Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) Count 116 Column% 61.4% 872 87 35.8% 16.6% 1073.689 (12)*** Parents Occasionally < 6 Count 50 Half of the time Column% 26.5% 1007 61 41.3% 11.7% Most & Count 23 All of the time Column% 12.2% 559 375 22.9% 71.7% . . Count 2 er Column% 1% 29 9 1.2% 1.7% 553.179 (12)*** F . , Occasionally & Count 121 rien s Half of the time Column% 63.4% 533 70 21.5% 13.1% Most & Count 68 All of the time Column% 35.6% 1912 455 77.3% 85.2% Count 2 eVer Column% 1% 12 2 .5% .4% 43.703 (12)*** Teachers/ Occasionally & Count 19 . ™ ess°rs Half of the time Column% 9.8% 76 13 3.1% 2.4% Most& Count 172 All of the time Column% 89.1% 2388 519 96.4% 95.9% Note: *** Significant at p < .OOllevel. Never Half of the time Most of the time ■ CCCS B Hispanics □ Whites Figure 14: Using English with Parents R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132 Half of the time Most of the time Never □ Whites ■ Hispanics Figure 15: Using English with Friends (3) Education or Schooling Education Abroad and/or in the USA (Where did you attend school?) included attending Elementary, Junior High, High School, and College abroad and/or in the USA (Table 15). CCCS received more education abroad (in non- English languages) than Hispanics and Whites (Figure 16). Consequently, CCCS received much less elementary (21.9%) and junior high (28.1%) education than Hispanics (71.7% and 78.4%) and Whites (74.3% and 74.7%) in the USA (Figure 17). Chi-square analyses presented in Table 15 revealed the differences in education abroad and in the USA among all groups significant (p <. 05). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133 Table 15 CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites Populations by Education Abroad and/or in U.S.A Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(dJ) USA Count 43 1802 402 233.400 Elementary Column% 21.9% 71.7% 74.3% (Ages 4-11) Abroad Count 134 677 97 187.500 Column% 68.4% 26.9% 17.9% USA Count 55 1970 404 273.647 Junior High Column% 28.1% 78.4% 74.7% (3)*** (Ages 12-14) Abroad Count Column% 121 61.7% 433 17.2% 88 16.3% 241.522 (3)*** USA Count 82 2186 430 323.132 High School Column% 41.8% 87.0% 79.5% (Ages 15-18) Abroad Count Column% 101 51.5% 270 10.7% 90 16.6% 289.315 (3)*** USA Count 147 2222 433 68.666 College Column% 75% 88.4% 80.0% (3)*** Abroad Count 42 92 47 122.315 Column% 21.4% 3.7% 8.7% (3)*** Note: * The numbers represent only those subjects who answered the questionnaire items. *** Significant a tp < . 001 level. 80% 70% 60% - 50% - 40% 30% - 20% - 10% - 0% - Elementary Junior high High School College ♦ - C C C S Hispanics A Whites Figure 16: Research populations by Levels of Education Abroad, by percent R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134 100% - 90% - 80% ---------- t l W ......... 70% fin% ■ —■ ~ r— ~ it.— " *^0% 40% QfW J 90% 10% 0% - Elementary Junior high High School College —•— CCCS -Hi— Hispanics — it— Whites Figure 17: Research populations by Levels o f Education in the U.S., by percent Figure 18 indicates that the CCCS reached the equilibrium of schooling in English (USA) and in their native language (Chinese) in high school. However, 41.8% of CCCS received less high school education in the USA than Hispanics (87%) and Whites (79.5%) (Table 17 and Figure 18). Despite the fact that CCCS college attendance in the USA was at least 50% higher than their college attendance abroad (in their respective countries) (Figure 18), their college education in the USA was still 13.4% lower than Hispanics and 5% lower than Whites (Figure 17). 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Junior high High School College Elementary ■ ♦ —Abroad — m — U.S. Figure 18: CCCS Levels o f Formal Education Abroad and in the USA, by percent R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135 Self-Reported Grade in High School. CCCS reported having better grades in high school than Hispanics or Whites. The majority of CCCS reported achieving As and Bs, while Hispanics and Whites reported Bs and Cs (Table 16). Table 16 CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites Populations by Self-reported High School Grade Self-reported Grade in High Population Groups Chi-Square School CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) As (A- A) Count Column% 58 27% 265 10.5% 102 19.9% Bs (B- B B+) Count Column% 105 53.6% 1307 52% 271 50.1% Cs (C- C C+) Count Column% 31 15.8% 849 33.8% 146 27% D or lower Count Column% 5 2.6% 92 3.7% 22 4.1% Total Count 196 2513 541 1 Column% 100% 100% 100% *** Significant at p < .OOllevel. (4) College First Generation in College. If the mother or father went to high school but did not go to college, the student was considered the 1st generation in college. Likewise, if either of the parents had attended college then the student was considered 2n d generation. Approximately one quarter of Hispanics (25.5%), half of CCCS (52%), and two-thirds of Whites (67.8%) were first-generation students in college (Table 17). R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136 Table 17 Populations by First Generation in College, by number and percent Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) , st „ Count 95 1 Generation Column% 48.5% 642 367 25.5% 67.8% _nd . . . Count 101 2 or higher Column% 51.5% 1871 174 74.5% 32.2% T AT * I Count 196 Column% 100% 2513 541 100% 100% 600.649 *** Significant a tp < . 001 level. College Belonging and Transfer to a 4-year College or University. Only one half of CCCS (50.8%), but two thirds of Hispanics (66.5%) and 60.8% of Whites felt that “I belong at this college” (Table 18). However, more CCCS (62.6%) than Hispanics (55.5%) or Whites (47.7%) wanted ‘definitely’ to transfer to a 4-year college or university (Table 19). Table 18 College Belonging - “ I feel I belong to this college ” (Q3 7_18). Population G roups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) . Count 95 gree Column% 50.8% 1598 312 66.5% 60.8% * Count 92 Disagree* Column% 492% 805 201 33.5% 39.2% T O T AT Count 187 Cohmm% (100%) 2403 513 (100%) (100%) 22.571 NOTE: * Scale: Slightly through Strongly Agree or Disagree. Significant at: *** p < .001. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137 Table 19 Transfer to a 4-year College or university, by number and percent Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS N = 190 Hispanics N = 2420 Whites N = 509 X(‘(f) Probably YES Count Column% 26 13.7% 473 19.5% 107 21.0% Definitely YES Count Column% 119 62.6% 1342 55.5% 243 47.7% TOTAL Count Column% 145 76.3% 1815 75% 350 68.7% 36.768 (12)*** *** Significant a tp < .001 level. Desire to Get a College Degree - “I want to get a Bachelor degree. ” About three-fourths of CCCS (74.1%) and slightly fewer Hispanics (67.8%) and Whites (65.3%) definitely wanted to get a Bachelor degree (Table 20). Table 20 Populations by “ I Want to Get a Bachelor Degree ” Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(<W „ . . , Count 38 Probably YES Column% 25.9% 563 123 32.2% 34.7% Definitely YES g u n t ^ ^ 1186 231 67.8% 65.3% TOTAL (Yes) ^ m % ^ 1749 354 100% 100% 55.549 (12)*** *** Significant at p < .001 level; ( )a indicates % o f all subjects who responded to this item in a group. Highest Academic Degree indicates the possibility of obtaining the highest degree if there were ‘no obstacles.’ Table 21 and Figure 19 indicate that all students wanted to obtain some kind of academic degree. Visual representation in Figure 19 indicates that slightly more CCCS (12.4%, 12.4%, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138 and 30.9%) than Hispanics (7.7%, 9.9%, and 29.4%) or Whites (6.5%, 9.9%, and 28.5%) would like to obtain A.A., B.A. and M.A. degrees respectively. However, slightly more Hispanics (26.7%) and Whites (24.7%) than CCCS (17.1%) would like to get doctoral and medical degrees. Table 21 CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites Populations by Highest Academic Degree Desired Highest Academic Degree Desired Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) Take class/no degree Column0 / 2 33 13 1% 1.3% 2.4% Voc. Certificate S°!'lnt 0/ Column /o 1 54 11 .5% 2.2% 2.1% . , Count Associate ^ , 0/ Column% 24 191 35 12.4% 7.7% 6.6% _ Count Bachel0r Column% 24 246 53 12.4% 9.9% 9.9% Maybe more than Bachelor Column1 / 50 565 138 25.8% 22.8% 25.8% ^ Count Master „ , 0/ Column% 60 728 152 30.9% 29.4% 28.5% Doctoral/Medical ^°^nt .. Column% 33 660 132 17% 26.6% 24.7% TnTA I Count TOTAL /- » i o/ Column% 194 2477 534 100% 100% 100% 44.635 (18)*** *** Significant at p < . 001 level. 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% -*— C C C S —■ — H ispanics a W hites Figure 19: Highest Academic Degree Desired, Populations by percent R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139 Academic Determination indicates student attitudes towards learning (Table 22). Although student attitudes were close to each other among all three populations CCCS came out stronger than the other two populations in ‘getting good grades’ - “I expect to do well and earn good grades” (58.6%), ‘finishing course’ - “It is important to me to finish the course” (61.7%), and ‘effort to succeed’ - “Success in school is largely due to effort” (57.6%). Hispanics came out stronger than others in: ‘perseverance’ - “I keep trying even if I am frustrated by a task” (43.9%), ‘goal determination’ - “I am very determined to finish the course” (65.7%), and ‘satisfaction’ - “I feel most satisfied when I work hard to achieve” (59.9%). Although Whites had no leading characteristics, they came close to Hispanics in ‘perseverance’ (43.2%). All three populations were very close in ‘understanding’ - “Understanding what is taught is important to me” (Table 22). Table 22 Academic Determination, Populations by number and percent A cadem ic D eterm ination -A ttitudes Population Groups Chi- Square (Scale: ‘Agree to Strongly Agree ) CCCS Hispanics W hites X(df) I keep trying even when I am frustrated by a task. 43 35.8% 821 43.9% 169 43.2% 11.443 (3)* I expect to do well and earn good grades. 92 58.6% 1088 51.0% 223 49.8% 13.797 (3)** I am very determined to reach my goals. 78 55.3% 1374 65.7% 260 61.0% 13.568 (3)** Understanding what is taught is important to me. 96 59.6% 1329 59.7% 272 58.0% 9.284 (3)* It is important for me to finish the course. 100 61.7% 1335 61.0% 256 55.2% 8.237 (3)* I feel most satisfied when I work hard to achieve. 79 56.8% 1295 59.9% 201 48.1% 29.145 Success in school is largely due to effort. 80 57.6% 1144 55.3% 202 48.1% 23.861 NOTE: Significant at: ***p < .001; **p< .01; *p<. 05. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. College Degree Earned. Community college students come from different national and international academic backgrounds. Table 23 and Figure 18 introduce the diversity of academic degrees obtained in the USA and abroad. Interestingly, of those students who hold academic degrees within each group, CCCS obtained a higher percent of degrees both in the USA (48.4%) and abroad (46.4%) than Hispanic (22% and 8.8%) and White (25.3% and 15.3%) populations (Table 23). Figure 18 indicates that CCCS earned most of their Associate (15.8%) and Bachelor (10.7%) degrees abroad, but more Certificates (16.8%) and Graduate (9.7%) degrees in the USA. On the contrary, Hispanics (6.8% and 12.6%) and Whites (7% and 13.3%) earned most of their Associate Degrees and Certificates, respectively, in the USA; but most of their Bachelor degrees abroad: Hispanic (2.1%) and Whites (3.1%) (Table 23). Abroad -♦— CCCS — ■— Hispanics —*r— Whites Figure 20: College Degree Earned in Another Country and in the U.S. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141 Table 23 CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites Populations by College Degree Earned in US/Abroad Population Groups Chi- Square uouege u egiee ihauieu CCCS Hispanics Whites X (dJ) USA Count 23 Associate (A.A.) Column% 11.7% 172 38 6.8% 7% 14.996 (3)** Or equivalent Count 31 Abroad Column% 15.8% 59 28 2.3% 5.2% 94.439 USA Count 33 Column% 16.8% 316 72 12.6% 13.3% 11.875 (3)** Certmcate ......... ■ . Count 31 Abroad Column% 15.8% 89 26 3.5% 4.8% 63.201 USA C° Unt 20 Bachelor’s Column% 10.2% 37 15 1.5% 2.8% 60.916 (3)*** (B.A., B.S., etc.) Count 21 Abroad Column„ /o 107% 53 17 2.1% 3.1% 50.134 (3)*** Count 19 Graduate lJSA Column% 9.7% 28 12 1.1% 2.2% 76.685 (3)*** (M.A., M.b., Ph.D., Ed.D.) Abroad 4 1 * 22 12 .9% 2.2% 18.605 Count 95 Column% 48.4% 553 137 22% 25.3% .. . Count 91 roa Column% 46.4% 223 83 8.8% 15.3% *** Significant a tp < .001 level. (5) Situational or Financial The Community college environment is flexible enough that students are able to work (part-time or full time) while taking classes. Academic Status indicates, “ How do you primarily think o f yourself? ” This regards student status in relation to school, parenthood, and/or work. Approximately every third CCCS (34%), every fourth White (24.8%) and every fifth Hispanic (20.3%) considered himself/herself to be “solely a student”. Approximately one-third of each population respectively (CCCS-31.9%, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142 Hispanics-36.8% and Whites-36.1%) considered themselves as a “student who is employed.” These percentages were slightly higher than those who considered themselves as an employee first and also a student. Finally, there were twice as many Hispanics (14.9%) and Whites (15.4%) than CCCS (7.3%) who considered themselves primarily as ‘a parent who is going to college.’ Table 24 Self-determined Academic Status: How do You Primarily Think o f Yourself? Populations by number and percent. How do You Primarily Think of Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) Student (only) S 0™1 0, v J Column% 34% 497 132 20.3% 24.8% t h ,ox j x Count 51 Employee/Student Column% 26.7% 688 126 28% 23.7% ox J x/o 1 J Count 61 Student/Employed Column% 31.9% 903 192 36.8% 36.1% n , .ox j x Count 14 Parent/Student „ , 0/ „ - n/ Column% 7.3% 366 82 14.9% 15.4% T O T AT C ° UIlt 191 Column% 100% 2454 532 100% 100% 52.292 *** Significant a tp < . 001 level. Current Employment Status. Table 25 displays the current employment status. More CCCS (42.8%) than Hispanics (25.9%) and Whites (30.2%) were not employed. O f those who were employed, 26.8% CCCS, and 36.9% Hispanics, and 28.5% were employed full-time. On the whole, more Hispanics (74.1%) and Whites (69.7%) than CCCS (57.2%) were employed either part-time or full-time. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 143 Table 25 Current Employment Status, Populations by number and percent Current Employment Status Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X M Not employed/looking Count Column% 83 42.8% 639 25.9% 162 30.2% Employed part-time Count Column% 59 30.4% 920 37.2% 221 41.2% Employed full-time Count Column% 52 26.8% 912 36.9% 153 28.5% TOTAL Count Column% 194 100% 2471 100% 536 100% 74.759 *** Significant at p < .001 level. Financial Assistance and Problems with Paying fo r College. Slightly more CCCS (34.2%) than Hispanics (29.7%) and Whites (25.9%) received a scholarship/grant or loan (Table 26). Despite financial help, slightly more CCCS (25.3%), than Hispanics (24.3%) and Whites (17.3%) expected to have Targe and very large’ problems with paying for college. However, more CCCS (40%) and Whites (44.1%) than Hispanics (29.8%) expected not to have any problems with paying for college (Table 27). Table 26 Recipients o f Financial Assistance -Scholarship and/or Loan, Populations by percent Recipient of Financial Assistance Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df Scholarship or Grant Count Column% 55 28.1% 654 26% 111 20.5% 19.784 Loan Count Column% 12 6.1% 94 3.7% 29 5.4% 12.243 (3)** TOTAL Count Column% 67 34.2% 748 29.7% 140 25.9% *** Significant at p < .001 level. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 144 Table 28 below indicates the student characteristics regarding important and very important “reasons for attending this college”: Academic - “I want to get a college degree” was an important/very important reason stated by the majority of CCCS (71.4%), Hispanics (88.5%), and Whites (81.9%). Also, the image of this college - “This College’s graduates transfer to good 4-year schools” and “This college’s graduates get good jobs” were other important reasons. Job - “I want to get a better job” was an important/very important reason for 68.6% of CCCS, 78.2% of Hispanics, and 68% of Whites. Affordability - “This college is affordable” was important and very important for 55.4% of CCCS, 74% of Hispanics, and 68.2% of Whites. Table 27 Problem with Paying for College (Population by number and percent) How large a problem do you expect Population Groups Chi- Square T f 1 1 1 1 A U TU IA 1 U 1 W 1 1 V & V • CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) ivt * ui Count 76 Not a problem Column% 40% 731 230 29.8% 44.1% Small and Count 66 Medium problem Column% 34.7% 1124 201 45.9% 38.6% Large and Count 48 Very large problem Column% 25.3% 594 90 24.3% 17.3% T O T AT C 0U llt 190 Column% 100% 2449 521 100% 100% 66.728 (6)*** *** Significant a tp < .001 level. College proximity (“This college is close to my home”) was important for more than 60% of the respondents in each group. Influence offamily and friends (My parents..., My spouse encouraged me to come here,” “My friends are attending here.” The parental and friends’ influence on coming to this college was more ‘important and very important’ for CCCS (30.55% and 15.8%) than for R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145 Hispanic (28.1% and 9.5%) and Whites (17% and 10.3%). Finally, learning English for work was approximately twice as ‘important and very important’ for CCCS (59.4%) than for Hispanics (28.2%) and three times for CCCS than for Whites (19.2%). Chi-square analyses of each reason presented in Table 28 revealed these differences significant (p <. 05). Table 28 Reasons for Attending This College, Populations by number and percent Important and Very Important P opu lation G rou ps Chi- Square Reasons for Attending this College CCCS Hispanics Whites 7t(dJ) My parents wanted me to come here. 57 30.5% 706 29.7% 86 17.0% 34.742 M y spouse, partner or other family 42 588 76 22.990 member wanted me to come here. 22.8% 24.9% 15.0% M y friends are attending here. 29 15.8% 222 9.5% 51 10.3% 8.847 (3)* This college is close to my home. 113 60.4% 1603 66.4% 330 64.2% 7.763 (3)* This college is affordable. 103 55.4% 1746 74.0% 350 68.2% 47.651 This college graduates transfer to good 119 1452 276 9.739 4-year schools. 63.6% 60.6% 54.2% (3)* I want to get a college degree. 132 71.4% 2122 88.5% 420 81.9% 81.571 I want to get a better job. 127 68.6% 1864 78.2% 346 68% 45.340 (3)*** To learn English for work. 111 59.4% 708 28.2% 96 19.2% 202.981 (18)*** This college graduates get good jobs. 79 42.9% 832 35.4% 143 28.5% 14.685 (3)** *** Significant at p < .001 level. In what follows, Section 3 explanation to research question number IB. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146 SECTION 3 Research Question Number 1(B) Distribution o f Courses Among CCCS, Hispanics and Whites - Transcript Data Analysis The relationships between types o f courses in which the CCCS and other comparative populations (Hispanics and W hites) ‘enrolled’ at the LACCD campuses are presented in this section through the analysis o f transcript data. The results o f data analyses are presented in relation to research question number IB: What is the distribution o f Chinese student enrollments in the following categories o f courses: Academic Transferable (CSU, UC, IGETC), Occupational, Remedial, English (ESL), Math, and Yin-Yang? To what extent do the CCCS differ from Whites and other minorities (e.g., Hispanics) in the above categories? To answer research question number IB, the transcript data were analyzed for the following modules o f courses: Academic Transferable: UC/CSU and IGETC, Occupational, English (ESL), Math, and Yin-Yang. Findings on the distribution o f enrollment and comparisons o f CCCS to Hispanics and W hites are presented in Tables 29 through Table 34 and Appendix F. Chi-square analyses revealed all differences significant (p <. 05). 1) Academic Transferable Courses: UC/CSU and IGETC Module. The majority o f all students were enrolled in CSU and UC modules. However, among all three populations CCCS took a higher percentage o f UC/CSU and IGETC (62.6%, 72.8%, and 44.6%) transferable courses than Hispanics (54%, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147 65.5%, and 37.9%) and W hites (58.6%, 72.2%, and 40.2%). The Hispanic enrollment in transferable courses was the lowest in each module. Chi-square analyses presented in Table 29 revealed these differences significant (p <. 05). Table 29 Enrollment in Academic Transferable Courses Across Population Groups, by number and percent Tvnpfi nf Trtm«fprahlp Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(dJ) UC Transferable Count Column % 4445 62.6% 45513 54% 9202 58.6% 288.987 (3)** CSU Transferable Count Column % 5168 72.8% 55230 65.5% 11331 72.2% 381.682 (3)** IGETC Count Column % 3166 44.6% 31938 37.9% 6309 40.2% 169.332 (3)** Note: *Most transferable courses are interchangeable between UC and CSU systems and/or IGETC module, (e.g. “Introduction to Human Anatomy” and “College Reading and Composition”). ** Significant at p < .001 level. 2) Vocational and Remedial Table 30 indicates that CCCS (22.7%) enrolled in a lower percentage o f occupational courses, than Hispanics (27.1%) and W hites (28.3%). However, CCCS took a slightly higher percentage o f remedial (18.5%) courses than Hispanics (18.2%) and W hites (14.3%). Vocational and remedial courses comprised 41.2%, 45.3% and 42.6% o f the total courses taken by CCCS, Hispanics, and W hites respectively. Chi-square analyses presented in Table 30 revealed these differences significant (p <. 05). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148 Table 30 Enrollment in Occupational and Remedial Course Across Population Groups, by number and percent Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) Occupational Count Column % 1610 22.7% 22834 27.1% 4445 28.3% 94.585 Remedial Count Column % 1311 18.5% 15335 18.2% 2246 14.3% 153.138 TOTAL Count Column % 2921 (41.2%)a 38189 (45.3%)a 6691 (42.6%)a Note: ( )a indicates % o f all courses taken by the population. *** Significant at p < .001 levels. 3) English and ESL Tables 32 and 33 show enrollment in English and ESL. Table 32 shows the enrollment in English (including ESL) distinguished by course level: Remedial, Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced. Table 31 indicates that CCCS (17.2%) enrollment in English (English total, including ESL) courses was slightly (.2%) higher than that o f Hispanics (17%), and 3.2% higher than that o f W hites (14.4%). Surprisingly, despite a high percent o f NNSE among CCCS (88.8%) and Hispanics (71.1 %) (Table 11, Chapter III), a very low percentage o f CCCS and Hispanic students enrolled in ESL (1.2% and 1.3%), as opposed to English (16% and 15.7%) respectively. The breakdown o f English courses by Remedial, Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced levels (Table 32) indicates that CCCS took a m uch higher percentage o f Basic English (50.4%) than Hispanics (34.8%) and W hites (25.7%), but only R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a slightly higher percentage (1.1%) o f Advanced English than Hispanics (30.3%), and 2.3% lower than W hites (33.7%). Table 31 CCCS Enrollment in English and ESL Courses Across Population Groups, by number and percent Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(dJ) „ . . . Count 1129 English Column % 16% 13206 1948 15.7% 12.4% 65.227 Count 88 ° Column % 1.2% 1107 314 1.3% 2% 47.513 (3)*** TY Y TA T Count 1217 U Column % (17.2%)a 14313 2262 (17%)a (14.4%)a Note: ( )a indicates % o f all courses taken within the population, (e.g., CCCS took 17.2% o f English and ESL courses). *** Significant at p < .001 level. Table 32 Enrollment in English (ESL) Level Courses Across Population Groups, by number and percent Population Groups Fnalicli T mia! rmircAc Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(dJ) _ ,. , Count 138 Remedial Column % 11.3% 2566 536 17.9% 23.7% „ . Count 613 C Column % 50.4% 4983 581 34.8% 25.7% r , ,. . Count 84 Intermediate „ . ,,, , Column % 6.9% 2427 383 17% 16.9% . , , Count 382 Advanced „ . 0/ . . ... Column % 31.4% 4337 762 30.3% 33.7% TOTAL Count 1217 (English Level) Column % 100% 14313 2262 100% 100% 482.331 (12)*** Note: ( )a indicates % o f all courses taken within the population. *** Significant at p < .001 level. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150 4) Mathematics Table 33 shows a breakdown o f enrollment by level in mathematics courses for all groups. A comparison o f the percentage o f courses taken within each population revealed that CCCS took 1.8% fewer o f the total mathematics courses than Hispanics (11.4%), but a slightly higher (.3%) percent than Whites (9.3%). However, m ore than half o f Hispanics and W hites were prim arily enrolled in Remedial (26.1% and 23.7%) and Basic (32% and 29.6%) math courses respectively, while the overwhelming majority o f CCCS (69.2%) were enrolled in Advanced m ath courses opposed to 21.8% for Hispanics and 24.2% for Whites. Table 33 Enrollment in Math Level Courses Across Population Groups, by number and percent Population Groups Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites x M _ .. , Count 51 Remed'“l Column"/. 7.5% 2514 345 26.1% 23.7% „ . Count 65 U S lC Column % 9.6% 3084 430 32% 29.6% T , . Count 93 Intermediate „ . n/ , Column % 13.7% 1931 327 20.1% 22.5% , Count 469 Advanced Column % m J % 2095 351 21.8% 24.2% nTAT Count 678 A V i i n Column % 100% (Math level) (9 6%)a 9628 1453 100% 100% (11.4%)a (9.3%)a 827.771 (12)*** Note: *** Significant at p < .001 level. ( )a indicates % o f all courses taken w ithin the population. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151 5) Yin-Yang Module Following the division o f courses in the Yin-Yang paradigm presented in Chapter III, enrollment in the Yin-Yang module included the ‘universe’ o f course offerings at LACCD. Table 34 shows enrollment in the Yin and Yang courses by population group. Throughout all three-population groups the majority o f courses taken fell on the side o f Y in (English language oriented), and notably the CCCS took slightly m ore Yang and Yin-Yang (physical education and tutoring) courses than Hispanics and W hites. Chi-square analyses presented in Table 34 revealed these differences significant (p <. 05). Table 34 Enrollment in Yin and Yang Courses Across Population Groups, by number and percent Population Groups Tvnae of Pnnrepe Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(dJ) Count 3761 Column% 53% 49530 9469 58.8% 60.3% 130.635 v Count 2327 8 Column% 32.8% 23860 4504 28.3% 28.7% 90.789 ... Count 1008 Y.n-Yang Column% J42% 10870 1723 12.9% 11% 60.195 xnTAT Count 7096 C0lumn% 100% 84260 15696 100% 100% Note: *** Significant at p < .001 level. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152 In Summary o f Question 1(B): Enrollment in all the considered modules o f courses indicated the following course-taking trends with regard to CCCS - Hispanics and Whites: • CCCS take more academic transferable courses (UC/CSU and IGETC) than Hispanics and Whites. • CCCS take slightly m ore remedial, but fewer vocational courses than Hispanics and Whites. • CCCS primarily enrolled in more Basic (50.4%) and Advanced (31.4%) English courses than Hispanics (34.8% and 30.3%) and W hites (25.7% and 33.7%). • Although CCCS took fewer math courses, they overwhelmingly enrolled in the advanced math (69.2%) courses more so than Hispanics (21.8%) and W hites (22.5%). • CCCS enrolled prim arily in Yang (32.8%) and Yin-Yang (14.2%) courses than Hispanics (28.3% and 12.9%) and W hites (28.7% and 11%). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153 SE C TIO N 4 Research Question No. 1(C) Native vs. Non-Native Speakers o f English Enrollment in Courses Section 4 begins the analytical segment o f course enrollment relationships with regards to N SE and NNSE. The results o f the analysis are presented in relation to question number 1C: What are the specific differences/relationships between Chinese native speakers o f English (CCCS NSE) and Chinese non-native speakers o f English (CCCS NNSE) in the categories o f courses: Academic Transferable, Occupational, Remedial, English (ESL), Math, and Yin vs. Yang? Do CCCS NNSE enrollments in English and Math differ from other NNSE (e.g., Hispanics and Whites)? To answer research question number 1C, the analysis was divided into two stages. In the first stage, the CCCS NSE course enrollments were compared to CCCS NNSE. In the second stage, the CCCS NNSE English and M ath enrollments were compared to other NNSE, Hispanics and Whites. In order to analyze data files, the number o f NSE and NNSE (obtained from Q20) were first merged into the enrollment file (transcript data file). Then, by utilizing Pearson Chi-Square analysis, descriptive statistics and Chi-Square analysis data were collected on differences in the analyzed course modules for: CCCS NSE and NNSE, and CCCS NNSE compared to other NNSE (Hispanics and Whites). The m issing or undetermined cases w ere omitted from the analysis. The results on the enrollment R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 154 differences between Chinese NSE and NNSE from particular modules are presented in Tables 35 through 41. Descriptive statistics and Chi-Square analysis o f CCCS NSE and NNSE enrollments are provided in Appendix F. The results o f enrollment differences in particular modules among NNSE (CCCS , Hispanics and W hites) are presented in Tables 42 through 45. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square analysis o f NNSE enrollments are provided in Appendix G. The following findings are in response to research question number 1C. 1) Enrollment Differences between CCCS -N SE and NNSE Table 35 shows the breakdown o f CCCS into NSE and NNSE by the number o f subjects and number o f courses enrolled. The number o f subjects was determined based on the questionnaire data (Q20, see Table 1 in Chapter III). The num ber o f courses was based on the transcript data. O f the total courses taken by CCCS at LACCD 6555, NSE took 11% o f the courses while 89% o f the courses were taken by NNSE. The analysis o f CCCS enrollment patterns included the following modules o f courses: Academic transferable (UC, CSU, and IGETC), Occupational, Remedial, English (ESL), M ath and Yin-Yang. Understandably, due to the higher number o f NNSE in the CCCS sample, the NNSE took a higher number o f courses than NSE in each category (row orientation comparison). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155 Table 35 CCCS NSE and NNSE Course Enrollment, by Number o f Subjects, Number o f Courses Enrolled, and Percent Population Speakers of English Non-Native (NNSE)** Native (NSE)* 1U1AL Count 158 20 178 CCCS Subjects Row% 88.8% 11.2% 100% Courses Count 5824 721 6555 Enrolled Row % 89% 11% 100% Note: * NSE (Native Speakers o f English) and NNSE (Non-native Speakers o f English). Courses enrolled are based on the number o f all courses taken by the subjects who matched the questionnaire item: “Is English your native language?” (Q20). Undetermined/missing (NSE or NNSE) cases were not included in the analysis. Therefore, the comparisons o f trends between the NSE and NNSE are rather based on the vertical (column oriented) trends. In addition, only the results that are deviant from the row orientation pattern are discussed in the findings presented below. Academic Transferable Module. Table 36 shows the CCCS enrollment in academic transferable courses: UC, CSU, and IGETC. On a whole, CCCS NSE took approximately 10% more transferable courses than NNSE in each UC/CSU and IGETC module. Notably, CSU courses w ere the m ost popular courses between the two (NSE - 81.6% and NNSE - 71.8%). Significant differences (p < .001) were found between the Chinese NSE and NNSE in all transferable courses. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156 Table 36 CCCS NSE and NNSE Enrollment in Transferable Courses, by number and percent CCCS Population ApaHpmiV Tran«fprahlp fm irsM * Chi- Square NNSE NSE TOTAL X (d f) Count 3597 523 UC Transferable Row % 87.3% 12.7% Column% 61.8% 72.5% 4120 100% 62.9% 31.946 Count 4182 588 CSU Transferable Row % 87.7% 12.3% Column% 71.8% 81.6% 4770 100% 72.9% 30.839 Count 2544 393 IGETC Row % 86.6% 13.4% Column% 43.7% 54.5% 2937 100% 44.9% 30.399 Note: *Column % counted within NSE or NNSE. Many transferable courses are interchangeable (e.g. “Introduction to Human Anatomy” and “College Reading and Composition” are at the same time UC, CSU and/or IGETC transferable courses). *** Significant at p < .OOllevel. Occupational and Remedial Module. Table 37 indicates CCCS enrollment in Occupational and Remedial courses. Although enrollments for both groups (NSE and NNSE) in Occupational courses were similar, this enrollment was found not significant (p > .05). However, more NNSE (19.6%) enrolled in Remedial courses than NSE (11.9%). W ithin this type o f course the Chi-square analysis showed significant (p < .001). Enrollment in English. Table 38 indicates the CCCS enrollment in English and ESL courses. Although the m ajority o f CCCS were NNSE (88.8%), they enrolled in 92.6% o f English courses and only 7.4% o f ESL. Notably, English courses accounted for 17.7% for NNSE and 12.2% for NSE o f the total courses (N = 6545) taken by CCCS at LACCD. Table 39 divides the English courses into four levels: Remedial, Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced. The majority o f CCCS, both R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. NSE and NNSE, enrolled in the Basic (51.1% and 31.8%) and Advanced (30.4% and 47.7%) English courses, respectively. Table 37 CCCS NSE and NNSE Enrollment in Occupational and Remedial Courses, by number and percent Types of Courses CCCS Population Chi-Square NNSE NSE TOTAL X(df) Occupational Count Row % Column% 1288 89.3% 22.1% 155 10.7% 21.5% 1443 100% 22% .142 0 ) Remedial Count Row % Column% 1140 93% 19.6% 86 7% 11.9% 1226 100% 18.7% 24.640 ^ * * * TOTAL Count Row % Column% 2428 91% 41.7% 241 9% 33.4% 2669 100% 40.7% Note: Column % counted within NSE or NNSE. *** Significant at p < .OOllevel. Table 38 CCCS NSE and NNSE Enrollment in English by number and percent Tvnps nf Cnnrsps CCCS Population Chi- Square NNSE NSE X(df) English Count Row % Column% 950 92.2% 92.6% (16.4%) 80 7.7% 90.9% (10.1%) ESL Count Row % Column% 76 90.5% 7.4% (1.3%) 8 9.5% 9.1% (1.1%) .193 (1) TOTAL Count Row % Column% 1026 92.1% 100% (17.7%) 88 7.9% 100%(12.2%) 13.303 (1)*** Note: *Column % counted within NSE or NNSE; (%) indicates % o f the total courses (N= 6545) taken by the NSE/NNSE sample.*** Significant atp < .OOllevel. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Enrollment in Mathematics. Table 40 indicates the CCCS enrollment in Mathematics. M ath courses accounted for 11.5% for NSE and 9.5% for NNSE o f the total courses (N = 6545) taken by CCCS at LACCD. M ost o f the CCCS NSE and NNSE were enrolled in Advanced mathematics, the majority o f NNSE (71.6%) enrolled in Advanced M ath compared to the NSE at 57.8%. Moreover, more o f the NSE enrolled in Basic M ath (19.3%) than NNSE (7.6%). Table 39 CCCS NSE and NNSE Enrollment in English Level Courses by number and percent English Level Courses CCCS Population Chi- Square NNSE NSE TOTAL X(dJ) Count 1 2 0 1 2 132 Remedial Row% 90.9% 9.1% 1 0 0 % Column% 11.7% (2.1%) 13.6% (1.7%) 1 1 .8 % (2 %) Basic Count Row% Column% 524 94.9% 51.1% (9%) 28 5.1% 31.8% (3.9%) 552 1 0 0 % 49.6% (8.4%) Count 70 6 76 Intermediate Row% 92.1% 7.9% 1 0 0 % Column% 6 .8 % ( 1 .2 %) 6 .8 % (.8 %) 6 . 8 ( 1.2 %) Count Row% Column% 312 42 354 Advanced 8 8 .1% 30.4% (5.4%) 11.9% 47.7% (5.8%) 1 0 0 % 31.8% (5.4%) Count 1026 8 8 1114 23.671 TOTAL Row% 92.1% 7.9% 1 0 0 % Column% 100%(17.7%) 1 0 0 %(1 2 .2 %) 1 0 0 % (17%) Note: Number o f courses is based only on the valid number o f NSE and NNSE cases. *Column % counted within NSE or NNSE and within the () as % o f all courses taken by the NSE/NNSE sample (N= 6545). *** Significant atp < .OOllevel. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159 Table 40 CCCS NSE and NNSE Enrollment in Math Level Courses by number and percent Math Level Courses CCCS Population Chi-Square NNSE NSE X(df) Count 41 6 Remedial Row% 87.2% 1 2 .8 Column% 7.4% (.7%) 7.2% (.8 %) Count 42 16 Basic Row% 72.4% 17.6% Column% 7.6% (.7%) 19.3% (2.2%) Count 74 13 Intermediate Row% 85.1% 14.9% Column% 13.4% (1.3%) 15.7% (1.8%) Count 396 48 Advanced Row% 89.2% 1 0 .8 % Column% 71.6% (6.8%) 57.8% (6.7%) TOTAL Count Row% 553 86.9% 83 13.1% 18.069 (4)** Column% 100% (9.5%) 100% (11.5%) Note: Number o f courses is based only on the valid number o f NSE and NNSE cases. *Column % counted within NSE or NNSE and within the () as % o f all courses taken by the NSE/NNSE sample (N= 6545). *** Significant at p < .01 level. Enrollment in Yin-Yang Module. Table 42 indicates the enrollment in Yin- Yang courses. CCCS NNSE took a slightly higher percent o f the Y in (Language and Social Sciences) courses (52.6%) than the NSE (50.9%); however, the difference was not statistically significant (p>.05). The NSE took significantly more Yang (mathematics and engineering oriented) courses. In addition, 14.9% o f NNSE took Yin-Yang (tutorial and physical education) courses as opposed to 10.8% o f NSE. The difference was statistically significant (p < .0 1 ). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 160 Table 41 CCCS (NSE and NNSE) Enrollment in Yin-Yang Module by number and percent CCCS Population Tvnp« nf PnnpfiPfi Chi- Square NNSE NSE TOTAL X(df) Count 3064 367 „ Column% 52.6% 50.9% (Language Oriented) Rqw% 8 9 .3 o/o 1 0 7 o/o 3431 52.4% 1 0 0 % Count 1891 276 ^ Column% 32.5% 38.3% (Math Oriented) Row% 87.3% 12.7% 2167 33.1% 1 0 0 % Count 869 78 Yin-Yang Column% 14.9% 10.8% (Tutorial and P.E.) Rqw% gi%% 947 14.5% 1 0 0 % Count 5824 721 TOTAL Column% 100% 100% Row% 89% 11% 6545 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 % 14.364 (2 )** Note: *Numbers are based only on the valid cases o f NSE and NNSE. Note: *Column % counted within NSE and NNSE. ** Significant at p < .01 and *** p < 0.001 level. 2) Enrollment o f NNSE in English and Mathematics - CCCS vs. Hispanics and Whites. In the second stage, the enrollments o f CCCS NNSE in English and Mathematics are compared to other NNSE (Hispanics and Whites). The results are presented in relation to question lC(b): Do the enrollments o f CCCS NNSE in English and math differ from other NNSE (e.g., Hispanics and Whites)? Among all three comparative populations, NNSE accounted for 8 8 .8 % o f the CCCS sample, 71.1% o f Hispanics and 28.5% o f W hites (Table 42). However, a number o f courses that the NNSE took were approximately proportionate to the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 161 number o f subjects in each sample reaching 89% for CCCS and 71.1% for Hispanics, but it was 5% higher for W hites (33.5%). These courses and the number o f students were further used for a comparison o f course-taking patterns between CCCS and other samples (Hispanics and Whites). Table 42 Course Enrollment o f NSE and NNSE by Number o f Subjects, Number o f Courses Enrolled, and Percent Population Speakers of English TO Non-Native (NNSE)* Native (NSE)* TAL CCCS Subjects Count Row% 158 88.8% 2 0 1 1 .2 % 178 1 0 0 % Courses Count 5824 721 6555 Enrolled Row % 89% 1 1 % 1 0 0 % Subjects Count 1691 6 8 6 2377 Hispanics Row% 71.1% 28.9% 1 0 0 % Courses Count 56886 23094 79980 Enrolled Row % 71.1% 28.9% 1 0 0 % Subjects Count 147 369 516 Whites Row % 28.5% 71.5% 1 0 0 % Courses Count 4930 9769 14699 Enrolled Row % 33.5% 66.5% 1 0 0 % Note: * NSE (Native Speakers o f English) and NNSE (Non-native Speakers o f English) Courses enrolled include the number o f all courses taken by the subjects who matched Q20. Undetermined/missing (NSE or NNSE) cases were not included in the analysis. Enrollm ent in English. Tables 44 and 45 show the percentage o f courses taken by NNSE in each comparative population within the English module: CCCS (N=1026; 17.6%), Hispanics (N=10320; 18.2%), and W hites (N=973; 19.8%). Interestingly, almost all courses CCCS NNSE took were English (98.7%), whereas Hispanics and Whites took only 90.1% and 76% o f English, respectively. Therefore, the remaining Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162 difference o f 1.3% CCCS, 24% W hites and 9.9% Hispanics indicated the enrollment in ESL courses. However, when the Total English (ESL and English together) was considered, the enrollm ent o f CCCS NNSE (17.6%) in the Total English category accounted for the least percentage ratio o f the total courses compared to Hispanics (18.2%) and W hites (19.8%). The Chi-Square Analysis indicated these enrollm ent differences in the Total English category significant (p < .05). Table 43 Enrollment o f NNSE in English and ESL Across NNSE Population Groups, by number and percent Tvnes nf rnnrses NNSE Population Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) English Count Column% Column% 950 98.7% (16.3%) 9299 90.1% (16.4%) 739 76% (15%) 10.625 (3)** ESL Count Column% Column% 76 1.3% (1.3%) 1 0 2 1 9.9% (1 .8 %) 234 24% (4.8%) 328.355 (3)** TOTAL Count Column% Column% 1026 1 0 0 % (17.6%) 10320 1 0 0 % (18.2%) 973 1 0 0 % (19.8%) Note: *Column % counted within NSE or NNSE; (% > ) - indicates percent of all courses taken within the NNSE sample;** Significant at p < .OOllevel. The breakdown o f English into level courses (Table 44) indicated Basic English to be the m ost popular English course among 51.1% o f CCCS, compared to that o f W hites, 37.6% and Hispanics, 36.5%. The second most popular course was Advanced English among CCCS and Hispanics, and Remedial English for Whites. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163 Table 44 Enrollment o f NNSE in English Across NNSE Population Groups by level, number, and percent F .n a lis h I pvpI O n n r s p s NNSE Population* Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics Whites X(df) Count 1 2 0 1990 293 Remedial Column% 11.7% 19.3% 30.1% Column% (2 . 1%) (3.5%) (6 %) Count 524 3762 366 Basic Column% 51.1% 36.5% 37.6% Column% (9%) (6 .6 %) (7.4%) Count 70 1717 114 Intermediate Column% 6 .8 % 16.6% 11.7% Column% (1 .2 %) (3%) (2.3%) Count 312 2851 2 0 0 Advanced Column% 30.4% 27.6% 2 0 .6 % Column% (5.4%) (5%) (4.1%) Count 1026 10320 973 267.838 ( 1 2 )*** ENGLISH TOTAL Column% 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 % 1 0 0 % Column% (17.6%) (18.2%) (19.8%) Note: Numbers are based only on valid number o f NSE and NNSE cases. *Column % counted within NSE or NNSE; (%) denotes % o f all courses taken by the NNSE within each sample (CCCS, N= 5824; Hispanics, N = 56886; and Whites, N = 4930). *** Significant at p < .OOllevel. Enrollm ent in Mathematics. Table 45 shows the enrollment o f NNSE in mathematics courses. O f all the courses taken by each population, mathematics figured at 11.5% for Hispanics, 9.5% for CCCS, and 8.5% for Whites. Overwhelmingly, 71.6% o f CCCS NNSE took Advanced M athematics, whereas the mathematics course-taking patterns for Hispanic and W hite NNSE were spread approximately from 20-25% among all levels. The Chi-Square Analysis indicated the enrollment differences o f the Total M ath category significant (p < .05). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164 Table 45 Enrollment o f NNSE in Math Level Courses Across NNSE Population Groups, by number and percent NNSE Population Chi- Square CCCS Hispanics N = 5824 N = 56886 Whites N = 4930 Z(df) Count 41 1649 Remedial Column% 7.4% 25.4% Column% (.7%) (2.9%) 105 24.8% (2 .1 %) Count 42 2097 Basic Column% 7.6% 32.3% Column% (.7%) (3.7%) 94 2 2 .2 % (1.9%) Count 74 1289 Intermediate Column% 13.4% 19.8% Column% (1.3%) (2.3%) 91 21.5% (1 .8 %) Count 396 1464 Advanced Column% 71.6% 22.5% Column% (6 .8 %) (2.6%) 133 31.4% (2.7%) Count 553 6499 MATH TOTAL Column% 100% 100% Column% (9.5%) (11.5%) 423 1 0 0 % (8.5%) 794.578 ( 1 2 )*** Note: Numbers are based only on a valid number o f NSE and NNSE cases. *Column % counted within NSE or NNSE; In (%) as % o f all courses taken by the NNSE within each sample (CCCS, N= 5824; Hispanics, N = 56886; and Whites, N = 4930). *** Significant at p < .001 level. In Summary o f Research Question 1(C): The analysis o f Chinese enrollments in all considered modules o f courses indicated the following course-taking trends between CCCS NSE and NNSE: • CCCS NNSE took a higher number (percentage) o f courses than NSE which was due to the higher num ber o f NNSE subjects. • CCCS NSE took approximately 10% more transferable courses than NNSE in each UC/CSU and IGETC module. • M ore NNSE (19.6%) than NSE (11.9%) enrolled in Remedial courses. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 165 • The m ajority o f NNSE enrolled in 92.6% o f English courses com pared to only 7.4% o f ESL courses. • M ore NNSE (51.1 %) than NSE (31.8%) enrolled in Basic English. • NSE took m ore M ath courses than NNSE: M ath courses accounted for 9.5% for NNSE and 11.5% for NSE o f the total courses. • NNSE (71.6 %) enrolled in Advanced M ath more frequently, than NSE (57.8%), whereas NSE enrolled more in Basic Math (19.3%) than NNSE (7.6%). • NNSE enrolled prim arily in Y in and Yin-Yang modules (Physical Education and Tutoring non-credit courses). The following course-taking trends were revealed in English and M ath between NNSE - CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites: • CCCS N NSE enrolled more in total English (98.7%) than Hispanics (90.1%) and W hites (76%); • CCCS N NSE (50.1 %) enrolled in Basic English m ore than Hispanics (36.5%) and W hites (37.6%). • CCCS NNSE (98.7%) enrolled in regular English classes more frequently than Hispanics (90.1%) and W hites (76%), but in a lower percentage in ESL courses (1.3%) than Hispanics (9.9%) or W hites (24%). • CCCS NNSE enrolled overwhelmingly (71.6%) in Advanced M ath courses compared to that o f Hispanics (22.5%) and W hites (31.4%). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166 SECTION 5 Section 5 provides the results o f course-taking patterns analyses with regard to research question number two: Research Question Number 2 Is there a difference in course-taking patterns between Chinese native speakers o f English (CCCS NSE) and Chinese non-native speakers o f English (CCCS NNSE)? In other words, using the outcomes o f GPA (Grade Point Average), CPR (Course Participation Ratios) and CCR (Course Completion Ratios) is there a significant difference between CCCS NSE and CCCS NNSE in the types o f courses specified above? Do CCCS NNSE differ from other NNSE (e.g., Hispanic minorities and Whites) in the categories o f courses specified above? To answer research question number two, the analysis was divided into two stages. In the first stage, the CPR, CCR, and GPA were calculated (see M ethodology in Chapter III) for the CCCS sample. Then, GPA received by NSE was compared to NNSE within the CCCS sample. In the second stage, the CPR, GPA and CCR o f CCCS NNSE were compared to Hispanic and W hite populations. Findings on the differences in CPR, GPA, and CCR within the CCCS group are presented in Table 46 through Table 47. Only statistically significant findings for the CCCS sample will be discussed here; the full descriptive and inferential statistics tables (T-test analyses) appear in Appendix H I through H3. The results o f the CPR, CCR, and GPA differences between NNSE populations (CCCS, Hispanic, and Whites) are provided Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167 in Tables 48 through 50. Statistically significant findings on CPR, CCR, and GPA differences will be discussed here and the full descriptive and inferential statistics tables (ANOVA tests) appear in Appendix II through 13. Following are the answers to research question number two. STA GE O N E CCCS NSE and NNSE Course-Taking Patterns Course Participation Ratios (CPR) As indicated in Chapter III, Course Participation Ratio (CPR) is an average number o f courses taken by an individual per semester. The proportion o f course participation included all courses that students attempted to enroll, dropped, withdrew, or completed. The results o f the CPR analysis included the specific differences between CCCS NSE and NNSE course-taking patterns in each o f the analyzed modules o f courses. Table 46 shows the comparison o f the CPR results between Chinese NSE and NNSE in category o f courses in which the CPR values were statistically significant (p < .05). O f all analyzed modules, only the CPR for Transferable (UC/CSU and IGETC), Intermediate Math, Intermediate English, Yin and Yin-Yang were statistically significant (p < .05). The NNSE participation was higher in all o f these courses and ranged from 1.20 to 4.35 and for NSE from 1.00 to 3.70. This indicates that NNSE participated in more courses than NSE. Transfer Module (UC/CSU and IGETC). Although CCCS NSE took on average more UC/CSU and IGETC transferable courses per semester (29.40, 26.15, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and 19.20) than NNSE (28.26, 24.64, and 17.79), the CPR was higher for NNSE (1.48, 1.41, and 1.36) than for NSE (1.35, 1.27, and 1.24) in each transferable category. Table 46 CPR o f CCCS NSE and NNSE in Various Types o f Courses, Average Number o f Courses, and Average Number o f Semesters CCCS NSE CCCS NNSE TYPES OF COURSES (MODULES) (N = 20) (N = 158) Average # of Courses Average # o f Semesters CPR & (SD) Average # of Courses Average # o f Semesters CPR & (SD) CSU Transferable 29.40 (9.75) 22.25 (7.22) 1.35* (.23) 28.26 (14.00) 20.17 (10.27) 1.48* (.48) UC Transferable 26.15 (9.94) 20.45 (6.98) 1.27* (.18) 24.64 (12.45) 18.46 (9.57) 1.41* (.43) IGETC 19.20 15.20 1.24* 17.79 13.48 1.36* (8.64) (5.96) (.2 0 ) (9.51) (7.24) (.35) ENGLISH 1 . 2 0 1 . 2 0 1 .0 0 ** 1.71 1.46 1 .2 0 ** Intermediate (2) (.45) (.45) (.0 0 ) (.93) (.84) (.38) MATH 1.44 1 . 0 0 \ 4 4 *** 1.30 1.25 1.61*** Intermediate (2) (.73) (-0 0 ) (.73) (.59) (.49) (.8 8 ) YIN 13.80 3.85 3.70** 13.60 3.16 4.35** (5.34) (1.76) (.77) (7.78) (1.46) (1.85) YIN-YANG 5.20 (5.72) 1.87 (.99) 2.33** (1.32) 6.90 (5.77) 1.83 (.97) 3.86** (2.71) NOTE. * Significant at .05 and **.01 and *** .001 levels. UC/CSU represent courses eligible for transfer within the UC/CSU system. IGETC represents a sum o f all IGETC areas. Yin-Yang Module. The course-taking patterns based on the Yin-Yang paradigm related to the whole ‘universe’ o f courses offered at LACCD (see Chapter I and III). In the CCCS sample, both NSE and NNSE participated on average m ore in Yang (CPR = 4.65 and 4.68), than Yin (CPR = 3.70 and 4.35) courses (Table 46 and Appendix H I). However, the difference between groups in the Yang m odule was not Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169 significant (Appendix H I). In addition, participation in the Y in module (based on English intensive courses) was stronger for NNSE (CPR = 4.35) than for N SE (CPR = 3.70). M oreover, the NNSE participation in the neutral Yin-Yang module (tutoring, assisted learning and physical education) was more intense than for NSE. The N NSE enrolled in a higher (6.9) average number o f Yin-Yang courses than NSE (5.20) in an approximately similar average number o f semesters (1.83 and 1.87), respectively. These differences between NSE and NNSE in Y in and Yin-Yang module were significant at .01 level. Figure 21 shows all CPR values o f the NSE in the Yin-Yang module are contained by the NNSE. YIN-YANG YIN YANG — CCCS NSE - m - CCCS NNSE Figure 21: CCCR CPR in Yin and Yang Courses English and Mathematics. The examination o f English and M ath course- taking behaviors were based on the subjects’ choices o f the particular level o f English and/or M ath courses while attending a community college at LACCD. Significant differences between CCCS NSE and NNSE participation in English and Math occurred only at Intermediate level (Table 46). The CPR values at the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170 Intermediate English and Math were lower for NSE (CPR = 1.00 and 1.44) and higher for NNSE (CPR = 1.20 and 1.64). Besides, although NSE participation was much higher than NNSE in Remedial English (1.75* and 1.55), the difference was not statistically significant. Participation in other English and math levels {Basic, Advanced, and Total English or Math) were not statistically different (Appendix H I). The CPR values do not show w hether one group (NSE or NNSE) succeeded better than the other. For this reason, this research considers the CCCS success with regard to completion o f all attempted courses (CCR) and a passing grade (GPA). CCCS Academic Success: CCR and GPA In this study student success has been defined in terms o f course completion ratio (CCR), and grade point average (GPA) obtained by a student in a particular course which the student completed with a passing grade. In this section, CCCS NSE and NNSE were compared on success. Course Completion Ratio (CCR) was defined as ratio o f all courses completed with a letter grade (A, B, C or P - “Pass”) to all courses attempted during the Spring o f 2001 and Fall o f 2001 semesters. This equation includes all possible courses in which one o f the letter grades (A, B, C, D, F, W) or P (Pass/no Pass) was assigned (see M ethodology in Chapter III). Table 47 shows the statistically significant CCR in different types o f courses taken by CCCS population disengaged by CCCS NSE and NNSE. The NNSE completed courses with a much higher rate than NSE. Only the significant groups’ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171 differences in CCR are presented in Table 47. The full results are presented in Appendix H2. Chinese NNSE succeeded significantly in completing courses with higher CCR values (ranging from.71 to .8 6 ) than NSE (ranging from .61 to .75). M oreover, NNSE passed successfully more than 80% o f all attempted courses (CPR > .80), whereas the NSE were below 75% (CCR < .75). The total course completion success was .82 for NNSE and .70 for NSE (Table 47). Figure 20 shows an overwhelm ing dominance o f the NNSE success; the NNSE ratios encircling all the CPR values obtained by NSE in each category o f completed courses. CSU Transferable TOTAL Courses UC Transferable YANG OCCUPATIONAL Basic English (1) Advanced Math (3) iemedial Math (0) CCCS N S E CCCS NNSE Figure 22: CCCS CCR in Various Types o f Courses CCR in English and M ath indicated that NNSE had much stronger statistically significant CCR success in Total Mathematics (.83) and Advanced Math (.8 6 ) than NSE (.61 and .59). This means that 8 6 % o f CCCS NNSE completed the Advanced M ath compared to only 57% in the NSE group. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. O f all analyzed English courses, there was only a significant difference in the CCR between NSE (.47) and NNSE (.83) in Basic English (Table 47). The NNSE reached a very high value (.83) whereas NSE completed Basic English with much less success (47%). The full tables o f non-significant differences between NSE and NNSE are presented in Appendix H2. Table 47 CCR o f CCCS NSE and NNSE in Various Types o f Courses, by Number o f Courses Attempted, and Courses Passed TYPES OF COURSES (MODULES) CCCS NSE N = 20 CCCS NNSE N = 158 Course Attempted Course Passed CCR (SD) Course Attempted Course Passed CCR (SD) CSU Transferable* 19.45 (7.29) 14.60 (8.07) .71* (.2 0 ) 18.03 (8 .8 8 ) 15.15 (8.27) .82* (.2 2 ) UC Transferable* 17.55 (7.25) 13.15 (7.82) .70* (.2 1 ) 15.45 (7.65) 12.82 (7.12) .82* (.2 2 ) OCCUPATIONAL 5.75 (4.30) 4.20 (3.35) .71* (.29) 6.52 (5.37) 5.62 (4.90) .8 6 * (.24) Basic English (1) 1.90 (1.37) .80 (1.03) .47* (.50) 3.19 (2 .1 0 ) 2.58 (1.75) .83* (.26) Advanced Math (3) 2.29 (1.64) 1.36 (1.28) .59* (.41) 2.46 (1.64) 2.03 (1.31) .8 6 * (.26) MATH Total 3.28 (1.81) 2 . 0 0 (1.46) .61* (.38) 2.93 (2 .0 0 ) 2.28 (1.58) .83* (.30) YANG 9.55 (5.06) 6.50 (4.63) .61** (.25) 9.13 (5.50) 7.54 (5.15) .83** (.26) TOTAL 22.45 (8.03) 16.45 (8 .6 8 ) .70* (.2 1 ) 22.48 (8.29) 18.64 (1 0 .2 1 ) .82* (.2 1 ) NOTE. Transfer UC/CSU courses represent courses eligible for transfer within the UC/CSU system. * Significant at .05 and **. 01 levels. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173 CCCS GPA in Various Types o f Courses The majority o f CCCS received on average a very good GPA for the courses they attempted and completed. The NNSE GPA ranged from 2.82 to 4.0 (that will score around B to A), whereas NSE GPA values ranged from 1.75 to 3.21 (spread from below C to B). However, there were no significant differences on GPA between NSE and NNSE. The results o f the GPA analyses for all categories o f completed courses are presented in Appendix H3. STAGE TWO Comparisons o f N NSE across CCCS, Hispanic, and White Populations The results o f analysis included the specific differences across all three NNSE comparative groups: CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites. Using the ANOVA tests the statistically significant differences were determined for all categories o f courses. Only the significant differences between groups are presented here, whereas the full analysis results are presented in Appendices II through 13. The course-taking patterns between NNSE were determined with regard to three main outcomes: CPR, CCR, and GPA. N NSE Course Participation Ratio (CPR) Table 48 shows the statistically significant differences between three NNSE groups: CCCS, Hispanics, and W hites on CPR. O f the three groups, CCCS and W hites had higher CPR values than Hispanics in the majority o f courses. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 7 4 Transfer Module (UC/CSU and IGETC). CCCS NNSE (CPR = 1.48 and 1.41) participated more intensely in UC/CSU transferable courses than Hispanics (1.38 and 1.30), but less than W hites (1.51 and 1.43), respectively (Table 48). However, the CCCS participation in IGETC module was a little stronger (1.36) than that o f Hispanics (1.26) and W hites (1.34). These differences were statistically significant (p < .05). English and Mathematics. Table 47 shows the participation in English and Math courses. There were statistically significant differences in participation between three groups in ESL and in Basic, Intermediate, and Total English. W hites enrolled in all English courses more intensely than the two other groups. CCCS NNSE participated in English Total more (CPR = 1.43) than Hispanic (1.30), but less than W hites (1.52). In ESL the CPR was the least for CCCS (1.53), then Hispanic (1.78) and the highest for W hites (2.15). In Basic and Intermediate English, CCCS participation was higher (1.41 and 1.20) than Hispanics (1.23 and 1.13), but less than W hites (1.52 and 1.21). In Advanced and Total Math, CCCS participated more (1.30 and 1.29) than W hites (1.19 and 1.22), and Hispanics (1.20 and 1.16) followed. Yin-Yang Module. Enrollment in Yin-Yang module indicated that CCCS were more active participants in all three subcategories o f the Yin-Yang module, followed by W hites (Table 48). Figure 23 shows that the CPR values for CCCS encompassing the other two populations. The CPR differences between CCCS, Hispanics and W hites in this module were significant at .001 level (Appendix II). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175 Total Courses. The CPR values in total courses indicated that CCCS NNSE participated significantly more in total courses (CPR = 5.17, SD = 1.87), than Hispanics (CPR = 3.95, SD = 1.44) and W hites (CPR = 4.47, SD = 1.81). YIN YANG TOTAL YIN-YANG -♦— CCCS HISPANICS —A— WHITES Figure 23: CCCS CPR in Yin-Yang Courses R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table 48 CPR fo r CCCS, Hispanics and Whites in Types o f Courses by Average Number o f Courses, Average Number o f Semesters, and Percent Non-Native Speakers of English (NNSE) CPR TYPES OF COURSES (MODULES) CCCS (N = 158) HISPANIC (N = 1691) WHITES (N = 147] i Average # of Courses Average # of Semesters CPR* (SD) Average # of Courses Average # of Semesters CPR* (SD) Average # of Courses Average # of Semesters CPR* (SD) CSU Transferable* 28.26 (14.0) 20.17 (10.3) 1.48 (.48) 22.81 (16.5) 17.44 (12.7) 1.38 (.43) 23.89 (17.8) 17.29 (12.2) 1.51 (.63) UC Transferable* 24.64 (12.5) 18.46 (9.57) 1.41 (.43) 18.95 (14.1) 15.21 (11.4) 1.30 (-40) 19.01 (15.0) 14.40 (10.8) 1.43 (.67) IGETC** 17.79 (9.51) 13.48 (7.24) 1.36 (.35) 13.67 (10.3) 11.30 (8.62) 1.26 (-37) 12.97 (10.8) 10.27 (8.69) 1.34 (.53) REMEDIAL 8.57 (7.91) 5.85 (5.03) 1.44 (.39) 7.70 (8.32) 5.62 (5.35) 1.36 (.50) 8.97 (8.82) 5.83 (5.14) 1.51 (.64) ENGLISH Total 7.33 (5.35) 5.06 (3.19) 1.43 (.43) 6.82 (6.06) 5.08 (3.63) 1.30 (.40) 7.60 (6.84) 4.62 (3.07) 1.52 (58) Basic English (1) 4.52 (3.27) 3.22 (2.17) 1.41 (.47) 3.19 (3.07) 2.51 (2.09) 1.23 (.43) 4.02 (3.23) 2.54 (1.71) 1.53 (.64) Intermediate English (2) 1.71 (-93) 1.46 (.84) 1.20 (.38) 1.82 (1.23) 1.63 (1.04) 1.13 (-34) 1.39 (.58) 1.16 (37) 1.21 (.43) ESL 3.62 (3.47) 2.29 (2.03) 1.53 (.72) 6.30 (5.61) 3.27 (2.42) 1.78 (.75) 8.67 (6.60) 3.67 (2.42) 2.15 (.90) MATH Total 4.42 (3.16) 3.28 (1.92) 1.29 (.38) 4.69 (3.18) 3.85 (2.35) 1 . 2 0 (.30) 4.03 (3.02) 3.17 (1.95) 1.22 (34) Advanced Math (3) 3.67 (2.63) 2.69 (1.58) 1.30 (.40) 2.61 (2.14) 2 . 2 1 (1.59) 1.16 (.34) 2.51 (1.76) 2.08 (1.24) 1.19 (34) YIN 13.60 (7.78) 3.16 (1.46) 4.35 (1.85) 10.48 (8.37) 3.25 (2 .1 1 ) 3.17 (1-49) 10.80 (8.77) 3.18 (2.21) 3.38 (1.59) YANG 21.13 (1 1 .2 ) 4.65 (2.48) 4.68 (1.70) 5.58 (3.65) 2 0 . 8 8 (15.0) 3.74 (1.49) 21.58 (18.1) 4.83 (2.76) 4.21 (1.97) YIN-YANG 6.90 (5.77) 1.83 (.97) 3.86 (2.71) 1.96 (1.31) 5.69 (5.62) 2.76 (1.70) 5.30 (5.22) 1.57 (99) 3.24 (2.12) TOTAL 39.35 (2 0 .1) 7.58 (3.50) 5.17 (1.87) 35.30 23.81) 8.91 (5.25) 3.95 (1.44) 35.66 (25.6) 7.66 (4.07) 4.47 (1.81) NOTE: Transfer UC/CSU represents courses eligible for transfer within the UC/CSU system. IGETC represents a sum o f all IGETC areas. All CPR values are significant at .05 or higher levels (see Appendix 11). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177 N NSE Academ ic Success (CCR and GPA) The comparisons o f NNSE academic success included comparison o f course completion ratios (CCR) and grade point averages (GPA) in various types o f courses between CCCS, Hispanics and Whites. The significant results for three NNSE research populations - CCCS, Hispanics, and W hites are presented in Table 49. The full results from statistical analyzes (ANOVA tests) are presented in Appendices 12 and 13. CCR o f NNSE in Various Types o f Courses Table 49 gives the proportion o f courses passed to courses attempted for each NNSE research population, thus CCR. The CCCS sample passed attempted courses with a CCR ranging between .71 and .8 6 , while Hispanics between .58 and .80, and W hites between .64 and .95. These proportions o f courses completed are o f those courses for which the students were enrolled and sought a regular grade A through C. CCCS and W hites completed more attempted courses with a better CCR than Hispanics. For example, CCCS passed UC/CSU and IGETC transferable courses with a higher completion rate (CCR = .82, .82 and 80), than W hites (.81, .79, and .78), and Hispanics had the lowest completion rates (.69, 69, and 67). ESL was the only category in which Hispanics completed courses with a higher CCR (.80) than CCCS (.71), whereas W hites completed 95% o f attempted ESL courses (CCR = .95). Finally, while CCCS reached the highest completion rate (CCR = .82), W hites reached .72 and Hispanics were below 70% (CPR = .6 8 ) in the total o f attempted courses (Table 49). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178 GPA ofN N SE in Various Types o f Courses Table 50 gives the results o f the analyses o f Grade Point Average (GPA) for the three NNSE research populations, CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites. The statistical test ANOVA indicated that there w ere significant differences between the three groups in all categories o f analyzed courses. CCCS and W hites were two com peting groups with regard to GPA, whereas Hispanics never scored higher than one o f these two NNSE groups. The GPA across all categories o f regular courses (not counting the neutral Yin-Yang courses which included tutoring and physical education) ranged for CCCS from 2.70 to 4.0 (between B and A), W hites from 2.71 to 3.14 (around Bs), whereas for Hispanics it was from 2.14 to 2.48 (around Cs). In a neutral Yin-Yang category, CCCS had the highest GPA o f 3.64, followed by Hispanic (3.39), and W hites (3.22) (Table 50). GPA in total courses was approximately the same for CCCS (3.00) and W hites (2.98), whereas Hispanics scored the lowest (2.42). All the differences were statistically highly significant at p < .001, except for ESL and the Yin-Yang (neutral) category (Table 50 and Appendix 13). In Sum m ary o f Question No. 2: To summarize the data on CPR, CCR, and GPA, the CCCS are demonstrably and significantly different within its own group (NSE and NNSE); and CCCS NNSE are also significantly different from the other two NNSE research populations, Hispanics and W hites in course-enrollment patterns (CPR) and achievement (CCR and GPA) at LACCD. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179 Table 49 CCR fo r NNSE (CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites) in Various Types o f Courses, by Number o f Courses Attempted and Courses Passed TYPES OF COURSES CCCS (N = 158) Hispanics (N = 1691) Whites (N = 147) (MODULES) Course Attempt Course Passed CCR* (SD) Course Attempt Course Passed CCR* (SD) Course Attempt Course Passed CCR* (SD) CSU Transferable 18.03 (8.88) 15.15 (8.27) .82 (.22) 16.35 (10.9) 11.93 (8.86) .69 (.26) 16.30 (10.6) 13.60 (9.28) .81 (.22) UC Transferable 15.45 12.82 .82 13.49 9.69 .69 12.82 10.39 .79 (7.65) (7.12) (.22) (9.33) (7.53) (.27) (8.97) (7.47) (25) IGETC 11.24 9.26 .80 9.91 6.89 .67 9.20 7.27 .78 (5.71) (5.29) (.24) (6.90) (5.47) (.29) (7.08) (5.71) (28) OCCUPATIONAL 5.62 (4.90) 6.52 (5.37) .86 (.24) 5.12 (5.23) 7.26 (6.41) .68 (.31) 7.13 (7.26) 8.20 (8.16) .83 (24) REMEDIAL 3.32 2.46 .75 4.12 2.79 .70 5.51 4.76 .86 (4.90) (3.77) (.35) (4.52) (3.23) (.34) (6.01) (5.32) (.28) ENGLISH 4.76 3.81 .80 4.92 3.25 .66 5.41 4.82 .87 (3.92) (3.08) (.27) (4.09) (2.97) (.32) (4.87) (4.54) (.26) Remedial (0) 3.16 2.50 .76 3.01 2.07 .69 4.18 3.55 .84 (4.46) (4.08) (.41) (3.51) (2.57) (.40) (4.26) (3.79) (.32) Basie (1) 3.19 2.58 .83 2.47 1.74 .74 2.99 2.77 .89 (2.10) (1.75) (.26) (2.21) (1.66) (-35) (2.41) (2.34) (.28) Intermediate (2) 1.21 (.52) .92 (.35) .82 (.34) 1.39 (.74) .79 (.43) .68 (.42) 1.04 (19) .92 (27) .90 (.28) Advanced (3) 1.83 1.45 .83 2.01 1.28 .67 1.61 1.42 .92 (.81) (.67) (.30) (1.08) (.90) (.39) (.75) (.65) (.21) ESL 4.29 3.29 .71 5.67 4.86 .80 8.80 8.35 .95 (3.40) (2.69) (.39) (4.27) (3.96) (.31) (5.12) (4.85) (.10) MATH 2.93 2.28 .83 3.47 1.94 .58 2.73 1.88 .73 (2.00) (1.58) (.30) (2.20) (1.60) (.36) (1.88) (1.43) (36) Remedial (0) 2.23 1.31 .72 1.75 1.09 .68 1.63 1.14 .77 (2.28) (1.75) (.44) (1.14) (.85) (.41) (1-31) (81) (40) Basic (1) 1.35 .85 .75 1.71 .90 .62 1.24 .93 .84 (.93) (.49) (.41) (1.06) (.59) (.42) (.57) (.45) (.35) Intermediate (2) 1.12 (.40) .81 (.40) .80 (.40) 1.39 (.78) .76 (.45) .65 (.43) 1.19 (55) .88 (50) .81 (38) Advanced (3) 2.46 2.03 .86 2.04 1.17 .61 2.30 1.41 .64 (1.64) (1.31) (.26) (1.57) (1.24) (.42) (1.36) (1.06) (.40) YIN 13.47 11.19 .83 14.93 10.79 .70 14.34 12.52 .81 (7.61) (6.46) (.20) (9.85) (7.79) (.26) (11.01) (9.92) (.24) YANG 9.13 7.54 .83 7.34 4.74 .60 7.21 5.79 .78 (5.50) (5.15) (.26) (5.94) (4.84) (-32) (6.43) (5.57) (.30) TOTAL 22.48 18.64 .82 23.08 16.28 .68 22.55 18.87 .79 (8.29) (10.21) (.21) (14.21) (11.17) (.24) (14.61) (12.94) (23) N O TE: T ran sfer U C /C S U represents courses eligible fo r tran sfer w ith in th e U C /C S U system . IG E TC represents a sum o f all IG E TC areas. A ll C C R values are significant at .05 o r higher levels (see A ppendix 12). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 0 Table 50 CCR and GPA fo r NNSE in Various Types o f Courses, by Population TYPES OF COURSES (MODULES) NNSE POPULATIONS ANOVA CCCS (N = 158) Hispanic (N = 1691) Whites (N = 147) CCR (SD) GPA (SD) CCR (SD) GPA (SD) CCR (SD) GPA (SD) Sign. CSU Transferable* .82 (.22) 2.98 (.80) .69 (.26) 2.48 (.79) .81 (22) 3.01 (.76) kkk UC Transferable* .82 (.22) 2.96 (.82) .69 (.27) 2.45 (.82) .79 (.25) 2.91 (.80) kkk IGETC** .80 (.24) 2.93 (.81) .67 (.29) 2.36 (.85) .78 (28) 2.87 (84) kkk OCCUPATIONAL .86 (.24) 3.09 (.90) .68 (.31) 2.44 (-92) .83 (24) 3.03 (.88) kkk REMEDIAL .75 (.35) 2.85 (.87) .70 (-34) 2.47 (1.07) .86 (28) 3.06 (1.02) kkk ESL .71 (.39) 2.70 (1.06) .66 (.32) 2.62 (.81) .87 (.26) 2.98 (.88) * ENGLISH .80 (.27) 2.93 (.80) .80 (-31) 2.36 (.94) .95 (10) 3.17 (54) *** Remedial (0) .76 (-41) 4.00 (0.0) .69 (.40) 2.98 (.86) .84 (.32) 3.71 (49) *** Basic (1) .83 (-26) 2.94 (.75) .74 (.35) 2.51 (1.00) .89 (28) 3.05 (.88) *** Intermediate (2) .82 (.34) 2.82 (.90) .68 (.42) 2.30 (1.07) .90 (28) 2.81 (94) *** Advanced (3) .83 (.30) 3.21 (.90) .67 (.39) 2.44 (1.03) .92 (21) 3.12 (84) *** MATH .83 (.30) 3.02 (1.00) .69 (.40) 2.98 (.86) .84 (.32) 3.71 (49) *** Remedial (0) .72 (.44) 2.88 (1.64) .68 (.41) 2.30 (1.22) .77 (.40) 2.40 (1.49) •kick Basic (1) .75 (-41) 3.53 (.93) .62 (.42) 2.21 (1.14) .84 (35) 3.14 (1.14) kkk Intermediate (2) .80 (.40) 2.66 (1.33) .65 (.43) 2.25 (1.12) .81 (38) 3.03 (1.09) *** Advanced (3) .86 (.26) 3.15 (.87) .61 (-42) 2.23 (1.05) .64 (40) 2.62 (98) •kkk YIN .83 (.20) 3.00 (.70) .70 (.26) 2.50 (-79) .81 (24) 3.04 (73) kkk YANG .83 (.26) 3.03 (.91) .60 (.32) 2.14 (.95) .78 (.30) 2.80 (96) kkk YIN-YANG .84 (.33) 3.64 (.74) .80 (-33) 3.39 (-96) .80 (34) 3.22 (1.18) k TOTAL .82 (.21) 3.00 (.83) .68 (.24) 2.42 (.89) .79 (23) 2.98 (-88) kkk Note. Significant at *p < .05; ** p < .01; and ***p < .001 (see Appendix 13). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181 The significant findings fo r CCCS NNSE indicated: In CPR patterns. NNSE enrolled more frequently in transferable and Yin courses than NSE. In addition, NNSE also participated more intensely in Y in-Yang (tutoring and learning assistance) module by taking more courses in a shorter span o f time than NSE. Moreover, NNSE took significantly more M ath (1.61), but less English (1.20) than NSE (1.44 and 1.00) at Intermediate levels. In Academic Success (CCR and GPA1. NNSE achieved better results by passing most o f the attempted courses with a high CCR from .72 through .8 6 , than NSE from .61 through 71, while getting significantly higher GPA (2.82 - 4.0) than NSE (1.75 and 3.21). The significant findings fo r NNSE — CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites indicated: In CPR patterns. CCCS NNSE participation was significantly stronger in M ath with W hites in English and ESL. CCCS participated in ESL lower than Hispanics. Total participation (CPR) was highest for CCCS (5.17), followed by W hites (4.67) and Hispanics (3.85). Hispanics being the highest number o f participants, their participation in courses was rather low. In Academic Success (CCR and GPA). CCCS achieved better results than other NNSE by passing most o f the attempted courses with a CPR ratio ranging from 71% (ESL) through 8 6 % (occupational). Hispanics passed attempted courses with CPR ranging from 58% (M ath Total) through 80% (ESL being an exception). Hispanics passed all other courses with a lower ratio o f .70 and below. Whites passed 64% o f Advanced M ath and all other attempted courses with a ratio ranging Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182 from and 77% through 90%. O f the total courses, CCCS completed 82%, W hites 72% and Hispanics below 6 8 % o f all attempted courses. GPA was the domain o f academic success for CCCS and W hites. CCCS obtained significantly higher GPAs in regular courses ranging from 2.82 to 4.0, W hites from 2.80 to 3.71), and Hispanics from 2.36 to 2.51. W hen Yin-Yang (tutoring and physical education) were counted, the GPA was the highest for CCCS (3.64), then Hispanics (3.39), and W hites (2.98). SECTION 6 Research Question Number 3 Section 7 presents the results o f the multivariate correlational statistics related to research question number three: What are the factors that contribute to academic success (in terms o f GPA and CCR) o f Chinese students at LACCD? The academic success o f the Community College Chinese Students (CCCS) was analyzed in relation to grade point average (GPA) and course completion ratios (CCR). The CCCS success (GPA and CCR) is examined through multivariate statistical tests (multiple regression) that estimate the weights o f variables that are believed to influence the CCCS students’ success at the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). The variables (assembled in blocks) representing students’ characteristics were entered into the regression statistical models to examine the best predictors o f success for CCCS at LACCD. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183 To answer the posed research question, the analysis was perform ed on five blocks o f variables (students’ characteristics). All o f these variables w ere described in the Methodology, Chapter (III) and in Section I o f Chapter IV. Table 2 (Chapter IV) provides the test for alpha reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) o f variables that have been entered into the regression analyses. The variables used for the m ultiple regressions exhibited acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha > .6 ). In addition, the descriptive statistics were performed on selective variables and described in research question num ber one. Table 51 indicates blocks o f variables that have been entered into the m ultiple regression analysis. Table 51: Blocks o f Variables Used for Multiple Regressions Block Number Block Category Description 1 PERSONAL Age, Gender, Marital Status 2 LANGUAGE Writing in English, Reading in English, Communication in English, Problem with Understanding the English Language, Speaking English with Parents 3 SCHOOLING /EDUCATION Self-Reported High School Grades (GPA), Years of Education in the USA 4 SITUATIONAL /FINANCIAL Loan and/or Scholarship, Financial Affordability, Student Academic Status (“How do you primarily think of yourself?” - a student), Student Employment Status (part-time or full-time), Problem with Paying for College 5 COLLEGE First Generation in College, College Belonging (“I feel I belong at this college”), Academic Determination, Encouragement (“My parents and/or spouse wanted me to come here”), Desire to Get a College Degree (“I want to get a college degree”), College Opportunity Regression Analyses Created cross-products o f all IVs with “Education abroad” were entered into two multiple regression analyses as a 6 block to test for interactions by country o f Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 184 origin. The results indicated that the sixth block was significant for both dependent variables: GPA (F = 1.809, d f = 47/103, and p < .001) and CCR (F = 2.386, d f = 47/104, and p < .01). This indicated a significant difference between the two Chinese NSE and NNSE samples. In order to appropriately define the equation, the m ultiple regression model was limited, therefore, to CCCS non-native speakers o f English (NNSE) - since the number o f CCCS native speakers o f English (NSE) was too small (N = 20) to run a separate regression model. The results o f the regression analysis are presented in the following order: (1) the regression for CCR, (2) the regression for GPA, and (3) the summary o f the differences between the CCR and GPA. (1) Multiple Regressions for CCR Table 52 indicates the results o f the regression analysis for CCR. The first block o f variables: Personal (Gender, M arital status, and Age) explained only 3.3% o f the CCR variance in model 1 (p > .05); Language (Reading, W riting, Communication, Problem with understanding the English language, and Speaking English with parents) explained significantly (p < .05) an additional 10.7% o f the CCR variance in model 2 (R Square Change = .107); Schooling (High school grade and Education in the USA) explained (p > .05) slightly above half a percent o f the CCR variance in model 3; Financial or Situational (Loan and/or Scholarship, Financial affordability, Think o f yourself primarily as a student, Difficulty in paying for college, and Student employment status) explained (p > .05) an additional 5.1% o f the CCR variance in model 4; and finally, College (First generation in college, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185 Academic determination, I want to get a college degree, Encouragement, I feel I belong at this college, and College opportunity) explained significantly (p < .01) the highest percent (11.9%) o f the CCR variance in the model 5. In total, the final model explained (F = 2.448; p < .01) 31.7% o f the CCR variance (Table 53). Table 52 Multiple Regression — CCR * Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate Change Statistics R Square Change F Change dfl d£2 Sig.F Change 1 .182 .033 .011 .20350 .033 1.478 3 129 .224 2 .375 .140 .085 .19573 .107 3.089 5 124 .012 3 .383 .147 .077 .19659 .006 .462 2 122 .631 4 .444 .197 .094 .19471 .051 1.473 5 117 .204 5 .563 .317 .187 .18446 .119 3.228 6 111 .006** Note: * Dependent Variable: CCR (Course Completion Ratios). ** Significant at p < .05 level for all variables entered into model 2 and significant at p < .01 level for all variables entered into model 5. Table 53 ANOVA* Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 1.749 21 .083 2.448 .001** 5 Residual 3.777 111 .034 Total 5.526 132 N ote: * DV: C C R (C ourse C om pletion R atios). ** Significant at p < .01 level. There were five statistically significant variables: Gender, M arital Status, and Encouragement, Speaking English with parents and I feel I belong at this college Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 86 when CCR was the dependent variable (DV). Findings indicated that Personal, Language and Ifeel I belong at this college (‘Sense o f college belonging’) were important for the Chinese NNSE. Table 54 Regression M odel Coefficients - M odel 5* VARIABLES (Entered into Regression Model 5) Unstanc Coeff b lardized cients Std. Error Standardized Coefficients Beta t Sig. (Constant) .635 .233 2.725 .007 AGE -.024 .017 -.166 -1.425 .157 Gender .076 .036 .184 2.094 .039* Marital status .102 .050 .201 2.032 .045* Reading in English .008 .044 .023 .171 .864 Writing in English -.011 .037 -.036 -.310 .757 Communication in English .036 .046 .103 .767 .445 Speaking English with parents -.063 .019 -.295 -3.333 o o * * Understanding the English language -.010 .019 -.064 -.545 .587 Education in USA (q5_usa) -.002 .005 -.042 -.457 .649 Self-reported high school grade .022 .029 .072 .769 .443 Primarily as student (q36_student) .011 .042 .026 .261 .794 Employed (part/full time) .003 .025 .013 .136 .892 Loan and/or scholarship .023 .038 .053 .615 .540 Financial affordability .008 .006 .120 1.255 .212 Problem with paying for college .016 .014 .118 1.207 .230 Encouragement .009 .004 .209 2.151 .034* First generation in college .039 .035 .096 1.116 .267 I feel 1 belong at this college .039 .014 .274 2.749 .007*** Determination -.003 .003 1 o o -1.069 .287 I want to get a college degree -.021 .014 -.180 -1.445 .151 College opportunity .001 .007 .022 .161 .873 Note: * DV: CCR (Course Completion Ratios). ** Significant at p < .05, *** Significant at p < .01. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187 Table 54 shows the significance o f the regression weights (unstandardized “b ” and standardized “Beta” coefficients) for all variables entered into regression model 5. The values o f the standardized “Beta ” coefficients for the five significant variables can be ranked from the highest value o f Beta = .295 for Speaking English with parents, I feel I belong at this college (Beta = .274), Encouragement (Beta = .209), M arital Status (.201), to the lowest value o f Beta = .184 for Gender. The unstandardized “b ” weights can be interpreted as the change in the dependent variable for every unit change in the independent variable. For example, when controlling all other variables, for every unit change in M arital Status (“Are you currently m arried?” Yes= 2, No =1; and b = .102), there was an average change o f .102 in the DV (CCR). Therefore, married people had an average increase in CCR by .102. Seemingly, there was a change o f .076 in CCR for every unit change in Gender (b = .076). Thus, when males were assigned a value o f 1 and females a value o f 2, fem ales’ CCR was higher than males by .076. Correspondingly, there was an average decrease o f -.063 in CCR for every unit change on a 3-point scale (Never = 1, Occasionally - half o f the time = 2, and M ost o f the time = 3) in Speaking English with parents (b = -.063). Therefore, it was more difficult to complete a course for NNSE students if they spoke less English with their parents. Finally, there was an average change o f .039 in CCR for every unit change on a 7-point scale (ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly Agree) in ’/ fe e l I belong at this college (b = .039). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188 (2) Multiple Regressions fo r GPA GPA for Chinese NNSE was regressed on the same five blocks o f variables: Personal, Language, Schooling, Situational/Financial, and College. The results are presented in Tables 55 through 57. Table 55 indicates that Personal (Gender, M arital status, and Age) explained significantly (p < .001) 8 .6 % o f the GPA variance in the model, Language (Reading, W riting, Communication, Understanding the English language, and Speaking English with parents) explained (p < .001) an additional 17.1% o f the variance (R Square Change = .171), Schooling (‘Self-reported grade in high school’ and ‘Education in the U SA ’) explained (p > .05) only 1.2% o f the GPA variance in the model, Financial/Situational (Loan and Scholarship, Financial affordability, Think o f yourself prim ary as a student, Difficulty in paying for college, Student employment status) explained an additional 3.1% o f the GPA variance in the model; and finally, College (First generation in college, Academic determination, I want to get a college degree, Encouragement, I feel I belong at this college, College opportunity) explained (p > .05) an additional 3.5% o f the GPA variance in the regression model 5 (Table 55). Thus, the final model explained (F = 2.628; d f = 21/110, and p < .01) a total o f 33.4% o f the GPA variance. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189 Table 55 Multiple Regression - GPA * M odel Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error Change Statistics R Square Change F Change Dfl df2 Sig.F Change 1 .292 .086 .064 .78686 .086 3.990 3 128 .009** 2 .507 .257 .208 .72362 .171 5.670 5 123 .000*** 3 .518 .269 .208 .72378 .012 .973 2 121 .381 4 .547 .299 .209 .72346 .031 1.022 5 116 .408 5 .578 .334 .207 .72432 .035 .954 6 110 .460 N ote: * D ependent V ariable: G P A (G rade P o in t A verage). ** S ignificant a t p < .01 and *** a tp < .001. Table 56 ANOVA* Model Sum o f Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 5 Regression 28.952 21 1.379 2.628 .001** Residual 57.711 110 .525 Total 86.663 131 N ote: * D ependent V ariable: G P A (G rade P o in t A verage). ** S ignificant a t p < .01 level fo r all variables entered into m odel 5. Table 57 shows the significance o f the regression weights (“6 ” and “Beta” coefficients) for all variables entered into the GPA regression model 5. Although there were only two significant variables in the GPA regression model 5: Gender (p < .05) and Speaking English with parents, the latter variable was highly significant (p < .001). In addition, the regression weights for Gender (Beta = .344 and b = .210) and Speaking English with parents (Beta = -.328 and b = -.387) were the highest among all other “b” and “Beta” coefficients. There was an average decrease o f .210 and -.328 in GPA for every unit change in Gender on a two-point scale (Male =1 and Female =2) and in Speaking English with parents on a 3-point scale (Never = 1, Occasionally - half o f the time = 2, and M ost o f the time = 3). Therefore, it was more R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190 difficult to get a better GPA for male NNSE students if they spoke less English with their parents. Table 57 Regression M odel Coefficients — M odel 5: GPA VARIABLES (Entered into Regression M odel 5) Unstarn Coeff B iardized cients Std. Error Standardized Coefficients Beta t Sig. (Constant) 1.852 .922 2.010 .047* AGE -.045 .066 -.078 -.675 .501 Gender .344 .142 .210 2.423 .017* Marital Status .296 .197 .145 1.503 .136 Reading in English .195 .173 .151 1.126 .263 Writing in English -.043 .144 -.034 -.295 .768 Communication in English .121 .184 .088 .660 .511 Speaking English with parents -.328 .074 -.387 -4.404 .000** Understanding the English language -.004 .074 -.007 -.057 .954 Education in U SA (q5_usa) -.014 .020 -.065 -.718 .474 Self-reported high school grade .073 .114 .060 .639 .524 Primarily as student (q36 student) -.058 .166 -.034 -.350 .727 Employed (part/full time) -.058 .097 -.059 -.599 .550 Loan and/or scholarship .014 .151 .008 .090 .928 Financial affordability .037 .024 .148 1.551 .124 Problem with paying for college -.002 .054 -.004 -.037 .970 Encouragement .012 .016 .074 .769 .444 First generation in college .209 .139 .128 1.504 .135 I feel I belong at this college .058 .055 .104 1.048 .297 Determination -.007 .012 -.059 -.633 .528 I want to get a college degree -.074 .057 -.162 -1.303 .195 College opportunity .023 .028 .114 .828 .410 Note: * Significant at p < .05. ** Significant at p < .001 level. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191 (3) Summary o f the GPA and CCR Regressions Results In regression number one (Tables 52 - 54), CCR was regressed on five blocks o f variables: Personal, Language, Schooling, Situational/Financial, and College. The results indicated that five variables in the model: Gender, M arital status, Speaking English with parents, Encouragement, and academic belonging (I feel I belong at this college) were statistically significant. This indicates that such characteristics as Personal (gender and marital status), Language (English language skills) and College (encouragement and support from the close family members to attend college as well as a sense o f belonging at the college o f their choice) significantly mattered for the Chinese NNSE population to enroll and complete courses at LACCD. In regression number two (Tables 55 - 57), GPA was regressed on five blocks o f variables: Personal, Language, Schooling, Situational/Financial, and College. The results o f m ultiple analyses indicated that the two variables o f Gender and Speaking English with parents were statistically significant. Once again, Personal and Language characteristics showed to be significant (Table 57) for Chinese NNSE when it came to terms o f getting a better GPA at LACCD. M oreover, the negative and the strongest values o f Beta (-.387) in model 5 (Table 57) indicated that the ‘Speaking English with parents’ variable is a strong drawback for the Chinese NNSE who (in this case) do not ‘Speak English with parents’ at home. This finding again indicates the importance o f language for the Chinese NNSE when it R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192 comes to a strong academic record. In this analysis the Chinese NNSE do not frequently ‘Speak English with parents.’ In summary, Personal and Language characteristics were statistically significant and were the best predictors o f success for Chinese NNSE at LACCD. Moreover, language can be used as a proxy for culture. Moreover, language can be used as a stepping-stone toward acculturation within the new host country. Along with language as an instrument o f communication, culture forms not only students’ identity, but also students’ sense o f belonging to family, school/college and society. All o f these are bound within building an identity context and assimilation process. Since the English language for Chinese students is taught as a Foreign Language (EFL) in their native country (China, Taiwan, or any other country the Chinese participants came from), it takes strong self-motivation, diligence, and continued perseverance over time in an English language environment. W ithin this context, it takes a skillful learner o f the English language not only to choose the course, but also to pass it with a good grade. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 5 193 SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS This chapter presents a summary of the purpose and findings from the data analysis which is discussed and presented in relation to the basic research questions, the literature review, and the conceptual framework for the study. Finally implications for practice are discussed and recommendations for future research are suggested. The purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was fourfold: (1) to identify specific characteristics of Chinese community college students (CCCS) within the LACCD and make comparisons to those of Hispanics and Whites; (2) to analyze the Chinese students’ course-taking behaviors by identifying trends in their course enrollment patterns in specified types of courses and make comparisons between Chinese non-native speakers of English (NNSE) and Hispanics and White NNSE; (3) to identify differences and relationships in the course participation ratio (CPR), course completion ratio (CCR), and grade point average (GPA) between Chinese NSE and Chinese NNSE as well as between Chinese NNSE and other NNSE (Hispanics and Whites); (4) to find the best predictors of academic success (in terms of CCR and GPA) of the Chinese students at LACCD. The intent was that findings from this study could give a basis for suggesting programmatic strategies to mitigate a better transition for Chinese students from their host institution to U.S. institutions and increase the rate of success among Chinese and other language minority groups (NNSE). The R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 194 study focused on community colleges because this level of education has attracted many Chinese students seeking a solid educational foundation at a low cost and represents a sound path toward success for NNSE. The analyses of student course-taking behaviors and success through course enrollment, course- participation ratio (CPR), course completion ratio (CCR) and GPA would shed light into a little researched area of Chinese population success/failure. In addition, the findings of this study have the potential to impact future policy toward encouraging integrated success for Chinese students (culturally, socially, and academically) and, in turn, promote benefits for other Asians and language minorities, as well as increase community college enrollment. Summary of Findings The summary of findings is presented in order of the research questions and related hypotheses: Research question number 1(A): What are the characteristics o f Chinese Community College Students at LACCD? To what extent do Chinese differ from Whites and other minority groups (e.g., Hispanics) by selective students ’ characteristics? In response to research question and hypothesis 1(A), the students’ characteristics are summarized in five categories of variables as personal, language, schooling, financial, and college factors. The summary is as follows: PERSONAL. As expected, the study confirmed that the majority (73.4%) of Community College Chinese students (CCCS) at LACCD were younger than 30 years of age. For Hispanics it was 77.8% and 61.6% for Whites. There were R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195 approximately 60% females and 40% males among Chinese and Hispanics, whereas Whites were split approximately half and half. About one-fifth of Chinese and Hispanics, and approximately one-third among Whites were married; twice as many females (24.6%) as males (12.5%) among the Chinese were married. LANGUAGE. The study confirmed that the majority of the Chinese students were non-native speakers of English (NNSE or ESL). The Chinese sample consisted overwhelmingly of NNSE (8 8 .8 %), but there were fewer among Hispanics (71.1%) and Whites (28.5%). The Chinese reported having 10-15% lower abilities in English reading and communication, and approximately 25% lower skills in writing than Hispanics and Whites. Six times as many Chinese (17.9%) than Hispanics (3%) and Whites (2.3%) expected to have Targe and very large’ problems with understanding the English language. Only one-third (34.7%) of the Chinese expected ‘not to have a problem with understanding the English language,’ as opposed to three-fourths (75%) of Hispanics and the majority of Whites (85.4%). In addition, English language usage with parents and friends in the “most of the time” category was approximately one-half lower for Chinese (12.2% and 35.6%) than for Hispanics (22.9% and 77.3%) and six and three times lower than for Whites (71.7% and 85.2%), respectively. Chinese students used English “most of the time” with teachers at school (89.1%), but still less than Hispanics (96.4%) and Whites (95.5%). Of the three populations, CCCS (59.4%) claimed twice as many as Hispanics (28.2%) and three times as many as Whites (19.2%) reporting the importance of “Learning English for work.” R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196 SCHOOLING. As expected, the Chinese reported having more years of education abroad: elementary (68.4%), junior high school (61.7%), high school (51.5%) and college (21.4%) than Hispanics (26.9%, 26.9%, 10.7%, and 3.7%) and Whites (17.9%, 17.9%, 16.3%, 16.6%, and 8.7%), respectively. Thus, Hispanics and Whites received more education in the English language in the U.S. than Chinese. However, relevant to their high school years Chinese attended more education in the U. S. (51.5%) than abroad (41.8%), but still less than the two other groups. The Chinese reported receiving 2.5 times more “As” than Hispanics and 1.5 times more than Whites, whereas “Bs” were evenly distributed among all three groups. FINANCIAL. Slightly more Chinese (34.2%) than Hispanics (29.7%) and Whites (25.9%) received scholarships/grants and/or loans. This indicates that as a group, they are financially needy. Also 40% of Chinese, 44.1% of Hispanics and only 17.3% of Whites expected to have “large and very large” problems for paying for college. Approximately 42.8% of Chinese, 25.9% of Hispanics, and 28.5% of Whites did not report being employed while maintaining student status. COLLEGE. Approximately one-half of Chinese (52%), one-forth of Hispanics (25.5%) and two-thirds of Whites (67.8%) were first generation in college. More Chinese (62.6%) than Hispanics (55.5%) and Whites (47.7%) wanted “definitely” to transfer to a 4-year college or university. About three- fourths of Chinese (74.1%), and slightly fewer Hispanics (67.8%) and Whites (65.3%) definitely wanted to get a Bachelor degree. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197 Research question number 1(B): What is the distribution of Chinese students ’ enrollments in the following categories o f courses: Academic Transferable (CSU, UC, IGETC), Occupational, Remedial, English (ESL), Math, and Yin vs. Yang? To what extent do Chinese differ from Whites and other minorities (e.g., Hispanics) in the categories o f courses specified above? The Chinese student enrollment in the analyzed modules of courses (Transferable, Occupational, Remedial, English, ESL, Math, and Yin vs. Yang) at the Los Angeles Community College District were found to be significantly different from Hispanics and Whites. In summarizing research question 1(B) only the significant findings on enrollment differences between Chinese, Hispanics, and Whites are presented as follows: • As expected, a majority of the Chinese took more academic transferable courses: UC, CSU and IGETC (62.6%, 72.8% and 44.6%) than Hispanics (54%, 65.5% and 37.9%) and slightly more than Whites (58.6%, 72.2% and 40.2%), respectively. • The study confirmed that the majority of Chinese take more remedial, but fewer vocational courses. The Chinese took slightly more remedial (18.5%), but fewer vocational (22.7%) courses than Hispanics (27.1% and 18.2%) and Whites (28.3% and 14.3%), respectively. • The study confirmed that the majority of Chinese students enroll in English. In fact, of the total number of courses taken, Chinese enrolled R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. more in English (17.2%) than Hispanics (17%) and Whites (14.4%). O f the total English courses taken, Chinese overwhelmingly enrolled in the Basic (50.4%) and Advanced (31.4%) levels. For Hispanics it was (34.8% and 30.3%) and Whites (25.7% and 33.7%), respectively. • As expected, the Chinese took fewer Math courses (9.6%), than Hispanics (11.4%), but fewer then Whites (9.3%) overall. O f these, the majority of Chinese enrolled in the Advance Math (69.2%); much more often than Hispanics (21.8%) and Whites (22.5%). • Contrary to the hypothesis, the Chinese predominantly enrolled in Yin courses (53%), but less than Hispanics (58.8%) and Whites (60.3), rather than Yang courses (32.8%), at a rate more often than Hispanics (28.3%) and Whites (28.7%). • The study confirmed that Chinese enroll more in Yin-Yang (14.2%) than Hispanics (12.9%) and Whites (11%). Research question number 1(C): What are the specific differences/relationships between the enrollments o f Chinese native speakers o f English (NSE) and Chinese non-native speakers of English (NNSE) in the categories o f courses specified above? Do the Chinese NNSE enrollments in English and Math differ from other NNSE (e.g., Hispanics and Whites)? In summing up research question 1C, enrollments in the modules of courses (Transferable, Occupational, Remedial, English, ESL, Math, and Yin vs. Yang) indicated that Chinese NSE enrollments are also significantly different R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199 from NNSE; Chinese NNSE enrollments in English and Math are significantly different from other NNSE (Hispanics and Whites). Within the Chinese sample, due to the higher number of non-native speakers of English (8 8 .8 %), naturally, the Chinese NNSE took a much higher number (percentage) of courses than NSE. For this reason the comparisons of course-taking trends were analyzed within the NNSE or NSE samples and then compared on percentage differences. The following course-taking trends have been identified between Chinese NSE and NNSE: • As expected, the Chinese NSE took approximately 10% more transferable courses (72.5%, 81.6% and 54.5%) than NNSE (61.8%, 71.8% and 43.7%) in each UC, CSU and IGETC module, respectively. • The study confirmed, that more NNSE (19.6%) than NSE (11.9%) enrolled in remedial courses. • As expected, more NNSE (51.1%) than NSE (31.8%) enrolled in Basic English. However, the majority of NNSE (92.6%) enrolled in regular English courses rather than ESL courses (7.4%). • Contrary to expectation, of the total number of courses taken, NSE enrolled more in Total Math (11.5%) courses than NNSE (9.5%). Within this module, the majority of NNSE (71.6%) enrolled in Advanced Math more so than NSE (57.8%), whereas NSE enrolled more in Basic Math (19.3%) than NNSE (7.6%). • In contrast to expectation, NNSE enrolled primarily in Yin (52.6%) rather than Yang (32.5%) modules. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 0 • As expected, more NNSE (14.9%) enrolled in the Yin-Yang module (Physical Education and Tutorial non-credit course) than NSE ( 10.8%). The following course-taking trends were revealed between Chinese NNSE and other NNSE (Hispanics and Whites) in English and Math: • As expected, the Chinese NNSE enrolled more in English (98.7%) than Hispanics (90.1%) or Whites (76%). However, Chinese NNSE (50.1%) enrolled in Basic English more frequently than Hispanics (36.5%) or Whites (37.6%). • Chinese NNSE (98.7%) enrolled in regular English classes more frequently than Hispanics (90.1%) and Whites (76%); however, they enrolled less in ESL courses (1.3%) than Hispanics (9.9%) or Whites (24%). • As expected, the majority of Chinese NNSE enrolled overwhelmingly (71.6%) in Advanced Math courses as opposed to Hispanics (22.5%) and Whites (31.4%). Research question number 2: Is there a relationship o f course-taking patterns between Chinese native speakers o f English (NSE) and Chinese non-native speakers o f English (NNSE)? In other words, using the outcomes o f GPA (Grade Point Average), CPR (Course Participation Ratios) and CCR (Course Completion Ratios) is there a significant difference between Chinese NSE and NNSE in the types o f courses specified R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 1 above? Do Chinese NNSE differ from other NNSE (e.g., Hispanic minorities and Whites) in the categories o f courses specified above? In summary of research question number 2, Chinese NNSE were found to be doing better than NSE. Within the NNSE samples, Chinese and Whites were found to be doing significantly better in course participation (CPR) and academic success than Hispanics. For the summary, only the significant findings on course- taking relationships are presented. The significant findings for Chinese NSE and NNSE are as follows: • In CPR patterns, participation ratios in transferable CSU, UC, and IGETC courses were significantly lower for NSE (1.35, 1.27, 1.24) than for Chinese NNSE (1.48, 1.41, 1.36). • Participation in the Yin module was lower for NSE (CPR = 3.70) than for NNSE (CPR = 4.35). • CPR in the Yin-Yang was lower for NSE (CPR = 2.33) than NNSE (6.90). In addition, NSE participated less intensely by taking fewer courses (5.20) in a longer span of time (1.87) than NNSE (6.90 and 1.83). • Significant participation in Intermediate English and Intermediate Math was lower for NSE (1.00 and 1.44) than NNSE (1.61 and 1.20). • In Academic Success (CCR and GPA). the Chinese NNSE achieved better results by significantly passing most of the attempted courses with a higher CCR (from .72 through .8 6 ), than NSE (from .61 R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 2 through 71), while achieving significantly higher GPAs (2.82 - 4.0) than NSE (1.75 and 3.21). The significant findings for NNSE - CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites are as follows: • In CPR patterns, the Chinese had a slightly lower participation in CSU (1.48) and UC (1.41) transferable courses than Whites (1.51 and 1.43), • but higher CPR in IGETC (1.36) than Hispanics (1.26) and Whites (1.34). • The Chinese participation ratio in English (1.43) was higher than Hispanics (1.30), but lower than Whites (1.52). Surprisingly, Chinese NNSE participation in ESL (1.53) was the lowest compared to Hispanics (1.75) and Whites (2.15). • Chinese NNSE participation in Total Math was significantly stronger (CPR =1.29) than for Hispanics (1.20) and Whites (1.22). The strongest CPR significant difference occurred in Advanced Math with the Chinese at (1.30), Hispanics at (1.16) and Whites at (1.19). • Total participation (CPR) was highest for the Chinese (5.17), followed by Whites (4.67) and Hispanics (3.85). • Overwhelmingly, Chinese were leading participants in all three categories of the Yin-Yang and Total courses, followed by Whites, then Hispanics. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203 • In Academic Success fCCR and GPA). the Chinese achieved better results than other NNSE by passing most of the attempted courses with a CPR ratio ranging from 71% (ESL being the lowest) through 8 6 % (Occupational being the highest). Hispanics passed attempted courses with CPR ranging from 58% (Math Total) through 70% and 80% (ESL being an exception as Hispanics passed all other courses with a ratio of .70 and below). Whites passed attempted courses with a ratio ranging from 64% (Advanced Math being the lowest) through 90%. Of the total courses, Chinese completed 82%, Whites 72%, and Hispanics 6 8 %, of all courses attempted. • The Chinese achieved significantly higher GPAs in regular courses ranging from 2.82 to 4.0, than Whites whose GPAs ranged from 2.80 to 3.71 and Hispanics from 2.36 to 2.51. When Yin-Yang (tutoring and Physical Education) was counted, GPA was the highest for Chinese (3.64), then Hispanics (3.39) and finally Whites (2.98). Research question number 3: What are the factors that contribute to the academic success (in terms o f GPA and CCR) o f Chinese students at LACCD? In summary of research question number 3, the results of two multiple analyses indicated that there was a significant difference between NSE and NNSE with regard to “Education abroad.” However, the multiple regression model was limited only to Chinese non-native speakers of English (NNSE) since R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 204 the number of native speakers of English (NSE) was too small (N = 20) to run a separate regression model. • In terms of GPA, Gender and Speaking English with parents had a strong influence on achieving a higher GPA. The regression weights for Gender (Beta = .344) indicated that females were doing much better than males and the best success was for those females who spoke English with their parents. However, Speaking English with parents showed the negative and strong value of Beta (~.387){Table 67), which indicated that the ‘Speaking English with parents’ variable was a strong drawback for Chinese NNSE. Therefore, it was more difficult to achieve a higher GPA for male NNSE students, if they spoke less English with their parents. • The success in course completion ratio (CCR) indicated that five variables: gender, marital status, speaking English with parents, encouragement (from spouse and family), and academic belonging (I feel I belong at this college) were the best predictors of Chinese NNSE course completion at LACCD. Discussions The following discussion centers on Chinese students as the main subjects o f th is stud y in relation to lan gu age, su ccess/fa ilu re, m o d e l m inority, and cou rse- taking patterns. These themes are discussed sequentially in relation to the selective student characteristics, significant findings from each research question and the literature review. Student characteristics are the variables believed to R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205 influence academic success. The full questionnaire data of selective student characteristics disengaged by gender, transfer, and desired educational degree are presented in Appendix K. LANGUAGE Ethnic group considerations. A different linguistic background introduces hidden disadvantages in the learning process (Jupp, Roberts, & Cook- Gumpers, 1982). The Chinese group’s linguistic background used in this study is different from English (Tang & Dunkelblau, 1998). Chinese (CCCS, N = 196) represent a group of subjects whose majority speak other than the English (e.g., Mandarin and Cantonese) language which essentially differs from a Latin-based alphabet. The native languages of both Hispanics (N = 2513) and Whites (N = 541), selected for comparison purposes, are Latin based. These fundamental characteristics present additional difficulties for Chinese in learning English and achieving overall success. On the first impression, Chinese students comprising only 6 % of the total comparative sample may look like a ‘small’ group compared to Hispanics 77.3% and Whites 16.6%, in terms of numbers. However, the perspective changes when looking at these samples from the language point of view using the questionnaire item (Q.20) regarding language characteristic, “Is English your native language?” The number of Chinese becomes more noteworthy when non-native speakers of English (NNSE) are considered. Among the total number of NNSE, Chinese (7.9%) represent more than Whites (7.4%). Moreover, looking at a breakdown of NSE and NNSE within each sample, overwhelmingly NNSE made up the majority of the total Chinese sample (8 8 .8 %), compared to Hispanics (71.1%) and Whites (only 28.5%). In other R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206 words, there were more native English speaking students among Hispanics and Whites than Chinese. In addition, ethnic characteristics point to the fact that unlike Hispanics, who were represented by all Spanish speaking subgroups (Mexican, Mexican American or Chicano, South American, Central American or Other Latino/Hispanic), the Chinese subjects were clearly separated from all other Asian groups and stood alone as a Chinese ‘monolith1, group. Education abroad and education in the U.S. A structured formal education at school has an enormous impact on the development of language literacy and proficiency. According to this study Chinese students had fewer years of elementary, junior high school, and high school education in the U.S. than Hispanics or Whites. This translates into fewer years of formal education in English, which means there are more gaps in literacy and academic English proficiency. In addition, although Chinese participants reached a point of equilibrium for schooling in the U. S. (in English language) and abroad (in their own mother tongue) in high school (Table 23 and Figure 18), the percentage of students obtaining a high school education in the U.S. was much lower (41.8%) than Hispanics (87%) and Whites (79.5%). Consequently, Chinese had less exposure than others to the English language overall; in particular, there were only opportunities during the primary school age to develop abilities needed for academic success in the U.S. environment. Chinese students self-reported to have 10-15% lower abilities in English reading and communication, and approximately 25% lower skills in writing than Hispanics and Whites. Besides, 1 There are also differences among Chinese ethnic groups with regard to spoken language, but all tend to use the same writing system. However, this subject goes beyond the purpose o f this study, therefore there was no distinction made. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207 overwhelmingly more Chinese (17.9%) than Hispanics (3%) and Whites (2.3%) expected to have ‘large and very large problems with understanding the English language at this school.’ Only about one-third (34.7%) of Chinese expected not to have a problem with understanding the English language, as opposed to the majority of Hispanics (75%) and Whites (85.4%). Home is the place where children acquire basic elements of language literacy from their parents and then further develop those skills in school (Delgado-Gaitan, 1990). However, English language usage with parents and friends was approximately one-half lower for Chinese than Hispanics and three times lower than Whites. For the majority of Chinese students, school was the only place to use English in structured face-to-face interactions with teachers. It was confirmed by this study that the majority of Chinese (89.1%) used English “most of the time” with teachers at school but still less than Hispanics (96.4%) and Whites (95.5%). Language abilities are important for work. It was much more important for Chinese (59.4%) than for Hispanics (28.2%) and Whites (19.2%) to learn English for work. These findings indicated that Chinese are more conscious about their lack of English language abilities, which natives speakers may often take for granted. Language implications and conclusions With the growing number of Chinese NNSE on school campuses, meeting the needs for improvement of language and academic skills among Chinese NNSE is very important and the needs grow with the prevalence of English as a second language at community colleges. If English is not the first language, the R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 0 8 importance of learning English takes priority for non-native speakers in order to succeed academically and occupationally. It is common for native speakers of a language to overlook or even ignore the difficulties in which non-native speakers are constantly immersed. If the special needs of NNSE, whose native languages differ from Latin based languages, are ignored they may slowly shy away from aspiring towards English language intensive courses and professions such as social work or education. It is, then, of the utmost importance for programs, services, and policies to consider the needs of NNSE whose linguistic origins differ from Latin roots. For example, for the sake of Chinese, in particular, community college policies need to concentrate on their needs from the perspective of their linguistic and cultural background. That is why it is especially important to understand that original designs to meet the needs of diminishing numbers of Black and White students may need to be redesigned with a stronger focus on other growing minorities, specifically Chinese. Within this context, administration and faculty awareness may need to be enhanced with respect not only to the difficulties of language teaching and learning, but also to the myths of a “model minority” and the consequent potential of not meeting the needs of a growing Chinese population. Most importantly, the differences between individual ethnic groups may require differential responses and service provisions. For example, when providing education to Chinese and/or other Asian NNSE with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, special attention should be given to the methods of teaching and learning styles and strategies that are different from those used in the American context. Thus, more language/culture remedial courses should be R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209 offered with specific concentration on those NNSE who lack cultural/language capital. Moreover, if a second ethnic group dominates the ethnic landscape of the school campus, as found in Campus 2 where Hispanic and Chinese students are the two main majorities, the focus of policy and curriculum design should take the “middle” road, which would include those traveling on both sides of language learning. This is important to prevent students from feeling neglected or abandoned by instructors or the educational system, in general, in their cultural adjustment and learning process, as well as to avoid cultural clashes caused by the ethnic dominance on the school campus. Otherwise, certain minority ethnic groups may leave the campus feeling that their academic needs have never been met. The absence of Chinese “role models” may also make the path to higher education difficult for students who want to choose a teaching career or any other educational profession in the U.S. Furthermore, the absence of cultural understanding on the part of faculty, may make some students skeptical of remaining enrolled in a community college (Rendon and Valadez, 1993). Chinese enrolled at community colleges need more stress on English language usage, but they may be ashamed of risk-taking (Frammolino, 2004). It is important then, while providing language education to Chinese students who received most of their education abroad, to know the differences in teaching and learning styles and strategies. Knowing the individual learner differences, especially that Chinese are culturally less predisposed, should be considered in teaching, assessment, curriculum and policy design. Chinese students who are at risk or unable to live up to the ‘MM’ image may have unmet academic needs and be at R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 0 risk because of their hesitancy to seek help and/or because of inappropriate stereotyping by the faculty who assume that these students do not require help because they are members of the ‘overachieving’ family. MODEL MINORITY (DECONSTRUCTED The ‘model minority’ (MM) idea is intrinsic to the nature of this study. Construction and deconstruction of the MM relates to the question, “Are Chinese a model minority in this study?” The results of this study provide the case for both construction and deconstruction of the MM in this study. The argument for deconstruction the MM model is built upon selective student characteristics; whereas the construction of the MM is built on Chinese success as found in this study within the LACCD. Construction o f Model Minority Student success is difficult to define in a community college context because students’ reasons for attending college vary widely. The work by Hagedom (2002) has indicated that the use of shorter-term measures of course completion provide a more accurate measure of success. In this study, the success ratios were used to determine how successful Chinese community college students were in taking and completing their courses in respective modules at LACCD. Based on this study, the construction of the model minority can be built upon the high success of Chinese in course completion ratios (CCR) and high grade point average (GPA). As indicated above, Chinese students not only completed courses with high ratios (for example, the total course CCR = .82), but also maintained a higher GPA (3.00) than Hispanics (CCR = .62, GPA = 2.42) or Whites (CCR = .79, GPA = 2.98). R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 1 Deconstruction of the Model Minority Deconstruction of the MM ideology can be supported by the comparisons of Chinese student characteristics {personal, language, schooling, financial, and college) to the other groups used in this study. Based on this study, we see that Chinese not only differ from others, but also among themselves. However, they are also similar to others in that, as a language minority they also have many needs. Although Chinese students did better in CCR and GPA than Hispanics, Whites were found to perform almost equally as well as Chinese. On the other hand, non-native English speaking Chinese were doing better than native English speaking Chinese. For example, a comparison of Chinese success within the sample indicated that NNSE with a CCR of .82 and GPA (3.0) did better than the NSE with CCR = .70 and GPA = 2.76. This raises a significant question. How is it possible that the one group of Chinese (NNSE) is doing better than the other (NSE)? In contrast to Ogbu’s theory of voluntary and involuntary minorities (Ogbu and Simons, 1998), Chinese NNSE should have performed less favorably, unless NSE became more like involuntary minorities in the U.S. This may imply that there is a variety within the Chinese sample itself with respect to language (NSE and NNSE). From the literature review it is learned that language is a big obstacle to academic success; however, NNSE did better than NSE. This suggests that there may be other reasons or characteristics that make some Chinese perform better than others. An examination of the selective student characteristics speaks for the “silent minority.” PERSONAL. They are similar to other groups in distribution of age and gender. The majority of Chinese (73.4%) students were younger than 30 years of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 1 2 age with Hispanics (77.8%) and Whites (61.6%). There were approximately 60% females and 40% males among Chinese and Hispanics, while for Whites the numbers were approximately half and half. An old Chinese saying, “San-shi-ar- li” says that “At thirty one stands up” or is socially ready to stand up for himself/herself. However, the majority of the Chinese students are still not socially ready to stand up and speak for themselves. LANGUAGE. Chinese are even more needy than other students in terms of language abilities. This study revealed that the overwhelming majority of Chinese (88.8%) are non-native speakers of English, which was much higher than Hispanics (71.1%) and Whites (28.5%). In addition, Chinese reported to have 10- 15% lower abilities in English reading and communication, and approximately 25% lower skills in writing than Hispanics and Whites. Only one-third (34.7%) of Chinese expected ‘not to have a problem with understanding the English language,’ as opposed to three fourths (75%) of Hispanics and the majority of Whites (85.4%). Not many Chinese spoke English at home, and, if they did, it was just done sporadically. The study indicated that twice as many Chinese as Hispanics and Whites lacked in English language usage with parents and friends in the “most of the time” category. The only time to use English “most of the time” was with teachers at school but Chinese (89.1%), still used it less than Hispanics (96.4%) and Whites (95.5%). Chinese also stressed the importance of learning English for work twice as much as Hispanics and three times as much as Whites. SCHOOLING. Chinese are needy in terms of cultural capital due to more years of schooling abroad and fewer years of education in the U.S. The R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213 study revealed that Hispanics and Whites received more structured education in the English language in the U.S. than Chinese. Although the Chinese attended more high school education in the U. S. (51.5%) than abroad (41.8%), they still lagged behind the two other groups which significantly affected the English proficiency of the Chinese. FINANCIAL. The data indicated that Chinese received loans and/or scholarships. Similar to Hispanics, about one-third of Chinese were recipients of financial assistance in the form of scholarships/grants or loans. Also, half of the Chinese (51%) and Hispanics (51.5%) relied on their parents for financial assistance. In comparison, only one in five Whites in this study were recipients of financial aid. COLLEGE. Although the Chinese value education very much, this study revealed that the majority of Chinese students’ parents (2%) did not attend college. This showed that there was a large group of Chinese students who were the first generation in college. The first generation in college for Hispanics was 25.5% and 67.8% for Whites. Moreover, most of the Chinese (74.1%), and slightly fewer Hispanics (67.8%) and Whites (65.3%) definitely wanted to get a Bachelor degree. Implications and conclusions When discussing the academic success of Chinese at community college, one should consider a broader sense of minority “success” in the U.S. Other factors to examine are a student command of the English language, economic standing, and other characteristics. For example, when schooled in their own language/culture, Chinese students felt more confident when they self-reported R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 214 their high school grades than the other two populations. The Chinese reported earning 2.5 times more As than Hispanics and 1.5 more than Whites. However, this fact can be misleading since most of them were still educated in their own language, whereas other minorities were struggling through education in English as a second language. With Chinese involved in a course-taking study at community college educators need to be aware of the ‘model minority’ myth. As indicated, not every Chinese student excels in school; therefore, educators should avoid the pressure of expecting all Chinese students to live up to this ideology in order not to hurt those students who may not live up to the mythological expectations. Besides, students identified as first generation in college need better language skills because attending college in the US requires a good command of the English language. Language can be a great obstacle to academic success. From the literature review it is found find that L2 learners encounter many difficulties when learning a second language and adapting to a dominant culture/language. In this study, English is the dominant language; however, the dominant culture on campus is predominantly made up of non-English speaking subjects — the Spanish speaking population at community college. The fact that Hispanics have a prevalent presence in the Los Angeles Community College District creates a distinguishable group that may or may not possess interests, aspirations, and needs similar to Chinese or Whites. On the other hand, the growing prevalence of the Chinese community may be easily distinguishable, but mistakenly seen as the “model minority” (Hune and Chan, 1997). Therefore, while discussing the success one should focus on similarities and differences between the high and low achieving students; for example, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215 differences in maintaining a good GPA and completion of courses with a high ratio are important too. Race and socioeconomic factors continue to play a major role in the success ratios of students. Hagedom and Maxwell et al. (2001) reported that grade point average, strength of college commitments, number of course credit hours, extent of high school preparation, and perceptions of the need for assistance were positively correlated with the retention of African- American males in community colleges. The literature review also suggests that Chinese value education and they have always struggled to achieve in the U.S. They put forth a lot of effort not to stay behind others in school achievement. Although the study confirmed that they are succeeding much better than others in CCR and GPA, it also revealed their ‘silent’ needs. Why are Chinese doing better than others? The studied data indicate that Chinese not only value education, but they also feel supported by their families. Parental/familial support and encouragement has been found to be of great influence on success. Chinese parents and families support their children even if they do not speak English well. They cooperate, change their attitudes, and adjust to the school environment in order to help their children (Delgado- Gaitan, 1990). This may indicate that Chinese are more determined in achieving their goals than others. For example, they concentrated more on studies since Chinese (43.4%) reported themselves solely as students and not employed. In addition, most of them (71.1%) wanted to transfer and get a Bachelor’s degree. Chinese learn from the experience of other Chinese and grow educationally; for example, in the 1970s, about a quarter of Chinese adults were college graduates (Kitano and Daniels 1988). In this study, less than one-half of the Chinese R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216 students were found to be first generation in college, but a closer look at the aspiration for obtaining an academic degree revealed that Chinese appeared to have a clearer determination to get a Bachelor’s degree than Hispanics and Whites. Additionally, more Chinese (62.6%) than Hispanics (55.5%) and Whites (47.7%) reported that they would “definitely” transfer to a 4-year college or university. They expressed a stronger determination in ‘getting good grades’ (58.6%), ‘finishing course’ (61.7%), and ‘effort to succeed’ (57.6%), than Hispanics (51%, 61%, and 55.3%) and Whites (49.8%, 55.2% and 48.1%), respectively. These findings suggest that Chinese students have more focused attitudes towards getting good grades, are determined to finish a course, and attribute success to efforts in attaining a higher degree more so than their Hispanic and Whites counterparts at LACCD. This clearly explains to why Chinese had a higher success rate than Hispanics or Whites at LACCD. This is not seen as an ultimate research conclusion and more qualitative research could explore this hypothesis further. In summary, student characteristics of Chinese show a strong determination and aspiration toward obtaining an educational degree. They also feel more confident in their struggle for grades and achievement in course completion. In this study, the majority of Chinese reported having more A ’s and B ’s than Hispanics or Whites. This would suggest that the basis for building a model minority is set earlier in the process of education and continues on to college. However, a willingness to achieve is pushing them more strongly to survive whether financially by taking a loan/scholarship or making good grades in Physical Science courses. Community college is an environment that allows R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217 students to work, whether part-time or full time, and take classes concurrently. Most Chinese enrolled in school think of themselves as students. This may be due to the lack of language skills to find employment on or beyond the school campus. Thus, they obtain financial assistance to survive. They use the community college as a stepping-stone toward attaining adequate language skills and transferable credits to 4-year institutions of higher education. Besides, supported by their families, most of the ‘first generation ’ of college Chinese students aspired to get a Bachelor’s degree. PREDICTORS OF CHINESE ACADEMICSUCCES The Chinese academic success was assessed in terms of course completion ratio (CCR) and grade point average (GPA) within LACCD. Selective students’ characteristics were used as predictors of success. In relation to GPA, the results of the multiple regression analysis indicated that Gender and Speaking English with parents had a strong influence on Chinese students’ GPA success within LACCD. The regression weights for Gender (Beta = .344) indicated that females who spoke English with parents did much better than males. Further, the Speaking English with parents ’ variable had a strong negative influence {Beta = -.387) thus indicating that this variable was a strong drawback for Chinese non-native speakers of English. Therefore, it was more difficult for non-native English speaking males than females to get a higher GPA if they spoke less English with their parents. In relation to CCR, the results of the multiple analyses indicated that five variables: gender, marital status, speaking English with parents, encouragement, and sense of academic belonging R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218 at this college were the best predictors of Chinese NNSE course completion within LACCD. The values of standardized “Beta ” coefficients for the five significant variables indicated the highest relative value of Beta = .295 for Speaking English with parents, Ifeel I belong at this college (Beta = .274), Encouragement (Beta = .209), Marital Status (.201), to the lowest value of Beta = .184 for Gender. This indicated that the females who were married, had a strong sense of belonging at this college, and spoke English with their parents had the highest CCR. Implications and conclusions Language characteristics, found in this study to be statistically significant, indicate the importance of language for Chinese academic success within LACCD. Since language can be used as a proxy for culture (Wajnryb, 1992) because it not only forms students’ identity, but also students’ sense of belonging to family, college, and society (Strevens, 1987; Tse, 1997), all of these are bound within building an identity context and adaptation/assimilation process into American society. Within the community college context, it takes a skillful and determined English as a second language learner not only to choose the more demanding course, but also then to pass it with a good grade. Chinese place a high priority on education and are willing to make sacrifices to support participation in education (Ou 1999). Thus, the family encourages their family members to enroll and focus on school. The implication would be that with Chinese students focusing on school, they would more likely be receptive to offers of assistance that promote their success in school. However, R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219 further reinforcing the importance of education is a significant factor for improving the adaptation process, which in the broader context enhances better learning and social integration. Sense of academic belonging is an important element of academic integration. Brag (2001) suggested that the lack of time or ability to be socially integrated might be predictive of a diminished level of persistence as it may relate to academic and social integration. In the stepwise regression analysis, the sense of belonging was initially identified as a significant predictor of CCR; however, it was no longer significant for GPA. This may indicate that Chinese students attend the community college for specific reasons other than preparing to transfer (thus, getting better GPA). It may be that they are simply engaging in the collegiate educational experience for its own sake. Thus, providing services to satisfy their specific objectives and needs may serve them better, rather than merely stressing their success in GPA and transfer options. YIN-YANG PERSPECTIVE Yin-Yang language perspective. There are two basic uses of the Yin- Yang principle in this study that are reciprocally bound with the English language. The first relates to Chinese students as native or non-native speakers of English course-taking patterns at community college, and the other, extending beyond this study, points to a lack of Chinese in English language intensive occupational choices (Chin, 2001).While using the Y in-Y ang principle in the division of courses, the whole ‘universe’ of courses offered at community college was assessed so that all course-taking patterns of Chinese students were more visible from both the language perspective and students’ trends. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 0 The Yin-Yang paradigm offers a look at course taking trends with regard to English intensive courses represented by Social Sciences (the Yin module) and less English intensive courses represented by Physical Sciences (the Yang module). The Yin-Yang perspective pointed out some imbalance in the course taking behaviors of the Chinese students in comparison to others within LACCD. For example, Chinese enrolled less in Yin (53%) than Hispanics (58.8%) and Whites (60.3%), and concentrated more on the Yang (32.8%) courses than Hispanics (28.3%) and Whites (28.7%). Moreover, within the Yin module, they enrolled primarily in English classes, whereas the Yin module would suggest a broader expansion within overall Social Sciences. This concentration on fewer language intensive courses may lead to a predilection of non-educational career choices, business and social sciences alike (CAERDA, 1996; Chin, 2001; Cowen, 2001; Duh, 1990; Gore, 2002; Hsia, 1988; Laanan, 2000). Implications and conclusions The insights gained from the study of Yin-Yang patterns can be extended beyond the success of Chinese to other language minorities. Educators and policy makers must understand Chinese students Yin-Yang course enrollment trends in order to minimize the risks that these minority and/or immigrant students take at institutions of higher education whether classified as financial, linguistic, cultural or psycho-sociological barriers, and thus avoid future educational and other occupational conflicts. With insights into the Yin-Yang course-taking patterns, educational policymakers must take proper and timely action to continuously improve the language minority of Chinese students’ experiences at public two-year R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 1 community colleges and prepare them for better emergence into American culture generally, and at institutions of higher education and future professions, particularly. To accomplish this task, continuous and sustained research that builds upon this study and true American Asian identity is highly recommended. While building on theories based on true research, the policy and curriculum design stakeholders will be able to make more sense of Asian student enrollments that reach beyond the community colleges into future projections of teaching careers. In the absence of competing demands on their time, Chinese students may have time to participate in support activities that would boost their Yin choices of courses and future careers. Most importantly, considering society’s need in the teaching and educational professions more stress should be given for involvement of the ‘minority model’ in education and other social sciences areas. This would translate into more involvement in Social Science occupational fields. As this study indicates, the Chinese are on the right track when taking Yin courses; however, enrollment needs to go beyond ‘only’ enrollment in English classes. Recommendations In response to the conclusions, three sets of suggestions, with regard to language (teaching or learning), the MM ideology, and success (course-taking patterns) are recommended to: (1) Community college personnel (administrators, faculty, and policy makers), (2) Chinese students, and (3) Future researchers. To Community College Personnel The overall results of this study can be generalized to educational institutions in the U.S. and the Chinese students enrolled in these institutions with R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 2 regard to the assumptions made therein. The study results are believed to extrapolate at least in part, to other two-year institutions of higher education, even with somewhat different Chinese student ratios, and with respect to different numbers and other geographic areas outside California. Language. Within the context of an increasing number of minority students attending community colleges, it is recommended that more attention be given to language teaching, curriculum design, and educational policy to better meet the needs of the perceived MM populations and to increase both individual and institutional academic performance in general, and MM students, in particular. The MM ideology. On the one hand, this study confirmed that there are meaningful relationships between academic success and the cultural heritage of constructing a “model minority” which suggests that Chinese are “would be” overachievers. However, on the other hand, this study also indicated that many are as needy as the others. It is recommended that instructors be aware of the hidden dangers of stereotyping Chinese into one category of “overachievers” when reality may show a different life story. For example, this study confirmed that Chinese NNSE were performing better than NSE. To avoid such misconceptions, they should familiarize themselves with the deconstruction ideas of the MM ideology. In other words, administrators and faculty need to take care to ensure that they and their support staff possess intercultural knowledge and a true understanding of the “MM” cultures, while exhibiting appropriate behavior toward them whenever needed because this ideology may not be true to its general perception. Furthermore, the community college must develop and R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223 maintain an ongoing relationship/dialogue with the MM students to create a mandated multidimensional programming response to “minority model” students so that their goals are known, encouraged, monitored, and fulfilled properly. Success at community college. It may seem odd to make recommendations for improvement when the target population, Chinese students, turned out to be the most academically successful of the three groups studied. However, this study indicated that not all, but some Chinese are doing better (e.g., NNSE), though only equally as well as other NNSE minorities (e.g., Whites) at community college. Such a lesson from Chinese success can enrich and contribute to an understanding not only of this ethnic group, in light of their educational success, but also help other minorities learn how to succeed at community college. It is recommended that the educational policy makers and researchers in predicting a more stable future not only for Chinese, but also for other language minorities’ success and enrollment at community college, use the example of Chinese involvement, progress, and success. Since this study found that most of the language face-to-face interaction happened for Chinese students at school, it is recommended that school interactions should also include a proper introduction of programs to Chinese and other “model minority” students that enhance the U.S. culture and educational system, including free educational services, counseling and advising. Course-taking patterns. Chinese tend to enroll more in Yang courses, which does not satisfy their lack of cultural (language) and social capital. It is recommended that more counseling and advising be offered to Chinese students to encourage their enrollments more in Social Science courses (Yin) over R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 224 Physical Science (Yang) courses, as well as joining on-campus-clubs and other activities. This, in extension, would lead to fulfilling society’s needs for more involvement of the “minority model” in education. Thus, Chinese need to be encouraged to be involved in educating the next generation of American Chinese. In order to do so, community colleges need to help these Chinese to direct their way toward the multi-cultural American society’s needs. To Chinese Students From the learner’s point of view, one must be realistic in reaching his/her academic goals: first by enrolling in school, then taking courses with a determination to obtain an academic degree. Since language learning is an enormous obstacle towards academic success for NNSE, students should pay special attention to those courses that offer the potential to improve both language literacy and proficiency. The MM ideology. The “model minority” may be perceived as a strong ideology; however, it is up to the individual student to confront it by breaking out of silence and expressing his or her point of view whenever possible. Chinese students are advised to mingle with American students and faculty and through these channels build social networks that will enable them access to institutional sources as resources toward promoting their success in college. For example, the face-to-face daily interaction with instructors, counselors and fellow students can create ways for better understanding and deconstruction of the MM, and eventually assist students in reaching their goals at community college. In other words, community college personnel need to be more aware of such misconceptions, which are not always a clear representation of students’ R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225 perceptions or their plight which has been wrongly classified as the “model minority.” These interactions in good faith will help build an atmosphere of understanding, that in turn will lead to reevaluation of the MM, as well as assess students’ satisfaction with specific support services and programs that may or may not be supportive due to the lack of understanding on how to deconstruct this specific phenomenon as indicated by this study. Course-taking patterns. Having in mind the difficulties of obtaining any success without success in language, first and foremost, Chinese students should make every effort to master the English language in order to succeed at American institutions. That is why it is recommended that Chinese students enroll more in English intensive courses to build their English language skills and understanding of American culture. Therefore, in addition to Oral Communication or Basic Communication Skills, enrollment in courses that are more oriented toward social sciences (the Yin module) is strongly recommended. Counselors might encourage Chinese to take more Social Science courses in order to balance their concentration on the Yang (Physical Sciences). This would prepare Chinese students for a better understanding of language future career choices bound with education and social services. For example, taking a course such as African American History or The Mexican-American in Contemporary Society might not only help students in understanding the variety of issues in American culture, cultural patterns, and perceptions, but also help students become more proficient and literate ambassadors of their own culture at the same time. Success. The majority of Chinese students in this study recognized that it takes a strong willingness and effort to succeed. However, success is a R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226 misleading concept with regard to occupational success in the long run. In order to succeed, first, a student must learn the English language well and then grow in awareness of the American culture. To Future Researchers Teaching and learning have always been a domain for many researchers, however, it is recommended that a perspective be introduced for research on course-taking patterns, namely, an Yin-Yang language teaching/learning perspective. For example - are students leaning more towards English or Math professions? The MM ideology. It is recommended that more careful attention be given to issues of categorizing the minorities into an “overachieving” group. Thus, more attention should be given to other language minorities with regard to language and the MM paradigm. For example, in this study Whites were found lacking in college degrees. This means that the MM does not apply purely to Asians, but rather is a phenomenon that stretches beyond race and ethnicity. To confirm this hypothesis, more studies with regard to immigrant Whites and other “minorities” are suggested. Success. This study indicated that Chinese have been more successful than others in their course completion and GPA at community college. However, there are many more obstacles reaching the intended educational goals. More research studies on Chinese or other language minorities through a language perspective at community college is suggested. It is recommended that more research be conducted with regard to the whole universe of courses using the Yin-Yang language paradigm. Similar studies can explore theoretical concepts of R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227 cross-cultural learning with particular attention being given to academic success factors based on a language paradigm. Ideally, a blend of both quantitative and qualitative analyses is strongly encouraged in the future. Course-taking patterns. Research has never used the Yin-Yang language perspective to see the impact of language on student course-taking patterns. Further research on Chinese student course-taking patterns would improve the Chinese student experience at community colleges. Since little research has been done to look at course-taking patterns from the language perspective, and this is the first serious attempt of its nature to use the Yin-Yang division of courses, it is recommended that more replicas of this study be applied to other institutions or ethnic minorities. This Yin-Yang impact of course-taking patterns is of the utmost importance with regard to NNSE and future job aspirations. Based on the insights from this study, it is recommended that more studies be done using the Yin-Yang division of courses in order to solidify and substantiate these constructs in a more conclusive manner. Conclusion This research contributed to exploration and understanding of a fast growing Chinese language minority at LACCD. It has been demonstrated that although Chinese are labeled as the “model minority”, they are also as needy as other language minorities in terms of language, culture, and social capital. Policy makers, staff, and students at community college may find it useful to use this study to understand the MM ideology, as well as to deconstruct the model minority myth by taking a different approach from the Yin-Yang language and gender perspectives. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 2 8 Much more can be done to improve the plight of language minority students at community college as this research suggests; however, the most important factor to remember is that cultural and linguistic backgrounds of minorities should not be lightly taken for granted when discussing academic success of language minorities against the English language background in the U.S. The insights gained from this study can be stretched beyond the success of Chinese onto other language minorities. Educators and policy makers must understand Chinese students in terms of course enrollment trends in order to minimize the risks that this minority and/or immigrant students take at institutions of higher education. Whether classified as financial, linguistic, cultural or psycho-sociological barriers, educators can help this group avoid future educational and occupational conflicts. With insights into the predictors that lead to course-taking patterns, educational policymakers must take proper and timely action to continuously improve the language minority of Chinese students’ experiences at public two- year community colleges and prepare them for better emergence into American culture generally, and at institutions of higher education, particularly. To accomplish this task, continuous and sustained research that builds upon previous studies and true American Asian identity is highly recommended. While building on theories based on true research, society and educators will be able to make more sense of Asian student enrollments that reach beyond the community colleges. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230 References Adelman, C. (1996). The truth about remedial work: It's more complex than windy rhetoric and simple solutions suggest. The Chronicle o f Higher Education, 43(6), 56. Anton, K. P. (1980). Eligibility and enrollment in California public higher education. University of California, Berkeley. Apple, M. (1995). Education and power. London: Rutledge. Apte, M. L. (1979). Region, religion, and language: Parameters of identity in the process of acculturation. In W. C. McCormack & S. A. Wurm (Eds.), Language and society: Anthropological issues (pp. 367-375). New York: Mouton Publishers. Aquirre, B. E., Saenz, R., & Hwang, S.-S. (2002). Remarriage and intermarriage o f Asians in the United States o f America. Retrieved October 24, 2002, from http://www/udel.edu/DRC/Aquirre/publications/ag56.pdf Ayers, W. (1995). Becoming a teacher. In W. Ayers (Ed.), To become a teacher: Making a difference in children's lives (pp. 5-10). New York: Teachers College Press. Baker, C. (1996). Foundations o f bilingual education and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Baker, C., & Jones, S. P. (Eds.). (1998). Encyclopedia o f bilingualism and bilingual education: Literacy. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters. Barnes, J. S., & Bennett, C. E. (2002). U.S. Census Bureau 2001: The Asian population. Retrieved 5/30/04, 2004, from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sfl.pdf Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Publishers. Board of Governors California Community Colleges. (1991). 1991 Intersegmental general education transfer curriculum. Report (March 15, 1991). Retrieved 9.22.2004, 2004, from http://www.curriculum.cc.ca.us/Curriculum/RegulationsGuidelines/IGET C Standards.htm Bohn, M. J. (1994). A comparison o f achievement between students taking a developmental mathematics course using computer-assisted instruction and students taking the course in the traditional classroom setting. University of Houston, Houston. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231 Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & E. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 487-511). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook o f theory and research for the sociology o f education (pp. 487-258). New York: Greenwood Press. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction, society and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books. Brake, M. (1980). The sociology o f your culture and youth subculture. London: Routledge and Keagen Paul. Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise o f educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York: Oxford University Press. Brown, H. D. (1994a). Principles o f language teaching and learning (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Regents. Brown, H. D. (1994b). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall Regents. Bryan Dai Ying Man. (1978). Chinese occupational achievement patterns: The case of "Model Minority." (UCLA Doctoral Dissertation). Dissertation Abstract International, 39(1978), 3172A. Burgess, E. W. (1967). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. In R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess & R. D. McKenzie (Eds.), The City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bush, W. B. (2003). Academic course taking and transitional experiences of rural high school graduates: A case study. The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania. CA ERDA . (1996). B a l a n c i n g a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t a n d s o c i a l g r o w t h . Proceedings o f the annual meeting o f the Chinese American educational research and development association (4th, San Jose, California, September 21, 1996) (No. ED408237). California: Chinese American Educational Research and Development Association (CAERDA), Rockville MD. Castells, M. (1997). The power o f identity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232 Chang, M. J. (2000). Improving campus racial dynamics: A balancing act among competing interests. The Review o f Higher Education, 23(2), 153-175. Chen, L., & Yang, P. Q. (1996). Asians: The "Model Minority" deconstructed. In R. Waldinger & M. Bozorgmehr (Eds.), Ethnic Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Cheng, L., & Yang, P. Q. (2000). The "Model Minority" deconstructed. In M. Zhou & J. V. Gatewood (Eds.), Contemporary Asian American: A multidisciplinary reader (pp. 459-482). New York: New York University Press. Chin, P. (2001). Culture, acculturation, and cultural barriers: An examination o f the factors that affect education vs. non-education career choices o f Asian Pacific Americans in higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects o f the theory o f syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press. Cohen, A. M. (1986). Perennial issues in community colleges (ED270139). U.S.: California. Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, A. M., & Ignash, J. M. (1993). The total community college curriculum. In J. Ratcliff, S. Schwartz & L. Ebbers (Eds.), Community Colleges (2nd ed.) (pp. 141-164). Needam Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing. Coleman, J. A. (1975). The concept of equality of educational opportunity. In D. Levine & M. Bane (Eds.), The inequality controversy: Schooling and distributive Justice (pp. 199-213). New York: Basic Books, Inc. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. R., Robison, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Wemfield, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality o f educational opportunity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Cooper, A. M. (1990). Fallacy o f a single m odel for school achievem ent: Considerations for ethnicity. Sociological Perspectives, 33(1), 159-184. Crystal, D. (1992). An encyclopedic dictionary o f language and languages (Vol. 30). London: Penguin Books. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233 CSPEC. (2002). Student transfer in California postsecondary education. Commission Report (ED464672). Sacramento: California State Postsecondary Education Commission. Cummins, J. (1980). The cross-lingual dimensions of language proficiency: Implications for bilingual education and the optimal age issue. TESOL Quarterly(\4), 175-187. Decoteau, J. P. (1988). A longitudinal analysis o f cohort course-taking patterns o f high school graduates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: the role o f parents in children’ s education. New York: Falmer. Delpit, L. D. (1998). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298. DeVos, G. A. (1983). Achievement motivation and intra-family attitudes in immigrant Koreans. The Journal o f Psychoanalytic Anthropology, 6, 25- 71. Downer-Assaf, M. E. (1997). Academic course-taking in high school: An analysis o f the impart of graduation requirements. University of Virginia, Richmond. Duh, M. C. (1990). The orientation towards employment o f Taiwanese graduate students in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Ebrey, P. (1993). Chinese civilization: A sourcebook. New York. Edwards, J. (1985). Language, society and identity. Oxford: Blackwell. ELAC. (2004a). Financial aid. Retrieved September 19, Retrieved 9/19/2004 from http://www.elac.edu/departments/financialaid/financialaid.html. from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org ELAC. (2004b). Student fees and refunds. Retrieved September 19, Retrieved 9/19/2004 from http: //www. elac. cc. ca.us/general/fees .html. from http ://opendoors. iienetwork. org Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 234 Fanselow, J. F. (1990). 'Let's see: contrasting conversations about teaching. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Farrel, J. P. (1992). Conceptualizing education and the drive for social equality. In R. F. Amove, P. G. Altbach & G. P. Kelly (Eds.), Emergent issues in education: Comparative perspective (pp. 107-122). Albany: State University of New York Press. Faung, J., & Lee, J. (1991). Asian American experiences in the United States: Oral histories offirst to fourth generation Americans from China, the Philippines, Japan, India, the Pacific Islands, Vietnam, and Cambodia. New York: The New Press. Foley, G. (1999). Learning in social action: A contribution to understand informal education. New York: Zed Books. Frammolino, R. (2004). China discovers the couch. Los Angeles Times, p. A1 and A13. Frank, R. A. (2000). Repositioned lives: Language, ethnicity, and narrative identity among Chinese- Vietnamese community college students in Los Angeles' San Gabriel Valley (ED458795). Los Angeles: University of California. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R. et al. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. 6th Ed. New York, Longman Publishers USA. Gerhard, L., & Postnek, F. (1992). Auricular acupuncture in the treatment of female infertility. Gynecology & Endocrinology, 6(3), 171-181. Gersten, R. (1985). Structured immersion for language minority students: Results of a longitudinal evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(3), 187-196. Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey. Gordon, J. (2000). Asian American resistance to selecting teaching as a career: the pow er o f com m unity and tradition. T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e R e c o r d , 1 0 2 , 173-196. Gore, D. (2002). Race and education are linked to new business success. University of Southern California Chronicle (October 28, 2002), p. 5. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in the American life: The role o f race, religion and national origin. New York: Oxford University Press. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 235 Grace, M. (1997). Asians suffer under model-minority myth. Retrieved October 24, 2002, from http://www.dailvbruin,ucla.edu/db/issues/97/09.22/newsasians.html Greeley, A. (1985). The ethnic miracle. InN . Tetman (Ed.), Majority and minority: The dynamics o f race and ethnicity in American life (pp. 268- 277). Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Grimes, S. K., & David, K. C. (1999). Underprepared community college students: implications of attitudinal and experiential differences. Community College Review, 27, 73-92. Guest, A. M., & Weed, J. A. (1976). Ethnic residential segregation: Patterns of change. American Journal o f Sociology, 81, 1088-1 111. Guiora, A. Z., Brannon, R. C., & Dull, C. Y. (1972). Empathy and second language learning. Language Learning(2A), 111-297. Hagedom, L. S. (2000). Community college student survey. Los Angeles: Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. Hagedom, L. S., Maxwel, W. B., & Hampton, P. (2001). Correlates of retention for African American males in community colleges. Journal College Student Retention Research, Theory, and Practice, 3(3). Hagedom, L. S., & Maxwell, B. (2002). Research on urban community college transfer and retention: The Los Angeles TRUCCSproject (ERIC Digest text: JC020353). Los Angeles: U.S.C. Hagedom, L. S., W. Maxwell, et al. (2002). Assessing the interplay o f the quality o f student life and retention o f urban community college students. American Educational Research Association (AERA), New Orleans. April. Hagedom, L. S., Moon, H. S., Cypers, S., Maxwell, W. E., & Lester, J. (2003). Transfer between community colleges and four-year colleges: The all- American game. Paper presented at the 2003 ASHE Annual Meeting, November 12-16, Portland, Oregon. Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., & Sigal, M. (Eds.). (1999). G e n e r a t i o n 1.5 m e e t s college composition: Issues in teaching o f writing to U.S. - educated learners o f ESL. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers. Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1994). Succeeding generations: On the effects of investments in children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236 Heath, S. B. (1986). Sociocultural contexts of language development. In O. o. B. a. B. Education (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 143-186). Los Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center. Hellot, C. (1988). Bringing up children in English, French and Irish: Two case studies. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 7(3), 281-287. Heyns, B. (1974). Selection and stratification within schools. American Journal o f Sociology(79), 6. Hirschman, C. (1983). America's melting pot reconsidered. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 63-78. Hoffman, C. (1985). Language acquisition in two trilingual children. Journal o f Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 6(6), 479-495. Hong, P. Y. (1998, July 4). The changing face of higher educatioa Los Angeles Times (July 4), p. A18. Horn, L., & Carroll, C. D. (1989). Enrollment, completion, attrition, and vocational course-taking patterns in postsecondary education: A comparison o f 1972 and 1980 high school graduates entering two-year institutions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Hsia, J. (1988). Asian Americans in higher education and at work. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hu-DeHart, E. (Ed.). (1999). Across the Pacific: Asian Americans and globalization. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Hune, S., & Chan, K. S. (1997). Special focus: Asian Pacific American demographics and educational trends. In D. J. Carter & R. Wilson (Eds.), Minorities in higher education, vol. 15 (Vol. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED425668), pp. 15 and 39-67). Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Institute of International Education. (2004). I n t e r n a t i o n a l s t u d e n t s i n t h e U n i t e d States. Retrieved September 19, Retrieved 9/19/2004 from http ://opendoors .iienetwork. org, from http://opendoors. iienetwork. org Iritani, E., & Dickerson, M. (2002). China becoming world's factory. Los Angeles Times (Sunday, October 20), pp. A l, A10-A11. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237 Johnson, D. (2002). Asian-American history: From Chinese laborers in the 1800s to millions o f U.S. citizens today. Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http://www.factmonster.com/spot/immigrationl.html Jupp, T. C., Roberts, C., & Cook-Gumpers, J. (1982). Language and disadvantage: the hidden process. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and identity (pp. 13-266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, P. (Ed.). (1990). The relationship between postsecondary and high school course-taking patterns: the preparation o f1980 high school sophomores who entered postsecondary institutions by 1984. Washington D.C.: U.S. Dept, of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Keller, G. (2001). The new demographics of higher education. The Review o f Higher Education, 24, 219-235. Kitano, H. H. (1976). Japanese Americans: The development of a middleman minority. In J. Norris Hundley (Ed.), The Asian American. Santa Barbara, CA: Clio Books. Kitano, H. L., & Daniels, R. (Eds.). (1988). Asian Americans: Emerging minorities. The Chinese: The early years and the Chinese after 1943. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Kneller, G. F. (1968). Educational anthropology: An introduction. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. Kramer, S. L. (2002). The joint impact o f block scheduling and a standards- based curriculum on high school algebra achievement and mathematics course taking. University of Maryland College Park, College Park. Krashen, S. (1977). The monitor model for second language performance. In H. Dulay & M. Finocchiao (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a Second Language (2nd ed.). New York: Regents. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press. K rashen, S. (1982). P r i n c i p l e s a n d p r a c t i c e s o f s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications (2nd ed.). London: Longman. Krashen, S. D. (1996). Under attack: The case against bilingual education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238 Kroskrity, P. V. (1993). Language, history and identity: Ethnolinguistic studies o f the Arizona Tewa. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Laanan, F. S. (2000). Community college students' career and educational goals. In S. L. Aragon (Ed.), Beyond access: Methods and models for increasing retention and learning among minority students. New directions for community colleges, no. 112 (Vol. Winter 2000, pp. 19-34). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. LACCD. (2004a). About LACCD. Retrieved September 19, Retrieved 9/19/2004 from http://www.laccd.edu/about us/, from http ://opendoors .iienetwork. org LACCD. (2004b). Educational philosophy o f the Los Angeles Community College District. Retrieved September 19, Retrieved 9/19/2004 from http://www.laccd.edu/board rules/, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org LACCD. (2004c). Enrollment by ethnicity. Retrieved 8/30/04, 2004, from http://research.laccd.edu/research/ LACCD. (2004d). Fall 2003 Student and enrollment characteristics: Enrollment by home language. Retrieved 8/30/04, 2004, from http:/marlin.laccd.edu/research/Digest/SummrySp.htm LACCD. (2004e). Functions o f the Community Colleges. Retrieved September 19, Retrieved 9/19/2004 from http://www.laccd.edu/board rules/, from http://opendoors.iienetwork.org LACCD. (2004f). How much does it cost to attend? Retrieved September 19, Retrieved 9/19/2004 from http://www.laccd.edu/LAColleges/admissions/fees.htm. from http: //opendoors .iienetwork. org Laanan, F. S. (2000). Community college students' career and educational goals. In S. L. Aragon (Ed.), Beyond access: Methods and models for increasing retention and learning among minority students. New directions for community colleges, no. 112 (Vol. Winter 2000, pp. 19-34). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Lee, C. S. (1979). A s i a n A m e r i c a n s t u d e n t s s p e a k o u t . P h i l i p J a s o n m e m o r i a l papers No. 6. Elkins Park, PA: Philip Jaisohn Memorial Foundation. Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling the "Model Minority" stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth. New York: Teachers College Press. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239 Leki, I. (1999). "Pretty much I screwed up": Ill-served needs of a permanent resident. In L. Harklau, K. M. Losey & M. Sigal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition: Issues in teaching of writing to U.S. - educated learners ofESL (pp. 17-44). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundation o f language. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Leow, C. S. (2002). Course-taking and achievement in mathematics and science: A comparison o f three nations using TIMSS (United States, Australia, Israel). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania. Lester, J. (2003). Course-taking patterns o f Latina community college students: On the transfer path. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Levin, J. (2001). Globalizing the community college: Strategies for change in the twenty-first century. New York: Palgrave. Levine, F. J., Rodriguez, H., Howery, C. B., & Latoni-Rodriguez, A. R. (2002). Promoting diversity and excellence in higher education through department change. New York: American Sociological Association. Levinston, B. A., Foley, D. E., & Holland, D. C. (Eds.). (1996). The cultural production o f the educated person: Critical ethnographies o f schooling and local practices. Albany: State University of New York Press. Li, W., Milroy, L., & Ching, P. S. (1992). A two-step sociolinguistic Analysis of code-switching and language choice: The example of a bilingual Chinese community in Britain. International Journal o f Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 63-86. Lin, G., & Yi, J. K. (1997). Asian international students' adjustment: Issues and program suggestions. College Students Journal, 31, 473-479. Los Angeles Almanac. (2002a). Legal immigration to California and Los Angeles County 1990 -1998. Retrieved July 14, 2002, from http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/Immigration/im03.htm Los Angeles Almanac. (2002b). Social Poverty? Retrieved July 14, 2002, from http://www.losangelesalmanac.eom/topics/Social/so20.htm#Race Loveless, T. (1998). The tracking and ability grouping debate. Retrieved May 1, 2004, 2004, from http://edexelence.net/librarv/track.htm R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 240 Lowe, L. (2000). Heterogeneity, hybridity, multiplicity: Making Asian American differences. In M. Zhou & J. V. Gatewood (Eds.), Contemporary Asian American: A Multidisciplinary Reader (pp. 677-699). New York: New York University Press. Makuakane-Drechsel, T. H. (1999). Factors affecting Hawaiian student persistence at four community colleges on the island o f Oahu, Hawaii. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1987). Trends in the residential segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians: 1970-1980. American Sociological Review, 52, 802-825. Mattice, N. J. (1983). The course-taking patterns o f community college students. University of California, Los Angeles. Maxwell, W., Hagedom, L. S., Cypers, S., Moon, H. S., Brocato, P., Wahl, K., et al. (2003). Community and diversity in urban community colleges: Course taking among entering students. Community College Review, 30(4), 21-46. McConnell, P. J. (Winter 2000). What community colleges should do to assist first-generation students. Community College Review, 28, 75-87. McCormick, W. C., & Wurm, S. A. (Eds.). (1979). Language and society: Anthropological issues. New York: Mouton Publishers. McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. McKenzie, R. D., Miller, & Sung, L. B. (2002). Chinese exclusion. Retrieved July 24, 2004, from http: /www. factmonster. com/ce6/historv/A0 811914. html McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies o f dissent for the new millennium. Boulder: Westview Press. McQuillan, P. J. (1998). Educational opportunity in an urban American high school. New York: State University of New York Press. Mendoza, J. A. (2003). Mathematics course-taking and the SAT score gap: A case study o f 151 Los Angeles County public high schools (California). Harvard University, Boston. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 241 Milner, J. L. (2002). Transfer and traditional students ’patterns of course-taking and participation in academic programs. Retrieved October 23, 2002, from http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/obpa/TIS UW-Madison Minger, M. A. (1990). Lived experiences o f self-reported science-anxious students taking an interdisciplinary undergraduate science course. University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Mok, H. (2002). Asian identity: To be or not to be. Retrieved May 24, 2004, from http :/www. explode. com/rr/accidental. shtml Mori, S. (2000). Addressing the mental health concerns of international students. Journal o f Counseling and Development, 78(2), 137-144. Morris, J. W. (1990). High school course taking patterns and student postsecondary success: An exploratory study. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign. Morris, N. (1996). Language and identity in twentieth century Puerto Rico. Journal o f Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 77(1), 17-32. Musial, D. (1999). Schools and social-capital networks: A new vision for reform. The Educational Forum, 63(2), 113-120. Nakanishi, D. T. (2000). A quota on excellence? The Asian American admissions debate. In M. Zhou & J. V. Gatewood (Eds.), Contemporary Asian American: A Multidisciplinary Reader (pp. 483-498). New York: New York University Press. Nakanishi, D. T., James S. Lai, & Omatsu, G. (Eds.). (1999). 1998-1999 National Asian Pacific American Political Almanac. Los Angeles: UCLA, Asian American Studies Center. Nishimoto, J. K. (2004). Retention, persistence, and course-taking patterns of Asian Pacific Americans in urban community college. University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Obetz, W. S. (1998). Using cluster analysis for transcript analysis o f course- taking patterns o f general studies graduates at community college o f Philadelphia (Pennsylvania). University of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania. Ogbu, J., & Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Understanding sociocultural factors: knowledge, identity, and school adjustment. In Bilingual Education Office (Ed.), Beyond language: Social and cultural factors in schooling language minority students (pp. 73-142). California, Sacramento: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center: California State University, Los Angeles. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 242 Ogbu, J., & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: a cultural- ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188. Ogbu, J. U. (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross- cultural perspective. Orlando, FI: Academic Press. Ogbu, J. U. (1983). Minority status and schooling in plural societies. Comparative Education Review, 27, 168-190. Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minority response to schooling: Nonimmigrants vs. immigrants. In G. Spindler & L. Spindler (Eds.), Interpretive Ethnography o f Education: At Home and Abroad (pp. 255280). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Ogbu, J. U. (1993). Frameworks — variability in minority school performance. In E. Jacob & C. Jordan (Eds.), Minority education: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 83-111). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publications. Okihiro, G. Y. (2000). When and where I entered. In M. Zhou & J. V. Gatewood (Eds.), Contemporary Asian America: A multidisciplinary reader (pp. 133-151). New York: New York University Press. Omi, M., & Vinant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States from the 1960s to 1990s. New York: Routledge. Ong, P., & Liu, J. M. (2000). U.S. immigration policies and Asian migration. In M. Zhou & J. V. Gatewood (Eds.), Contemporary Asian America: A Multidisciplinary Reader (pp. 155-174). New York: New York University Press. Osajima, K. (2000). Asian Americans as the model minority: An analysis of the popular press image in the 1960s and 1980s. In M. Zhou & J. V. Gatewood (Eds.), Contemporary Asian American: A Multidisciplinary reader (pp. 449-458). New York: New York University Press. Ou, Y.-S. (1999). The ethnic socialization of Chinese American children. In H. P. McAdoo (Ed.), Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity (pp. 252-276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Oxenham, J. (1980). Literacy: writing, reading and social organization. London: Rutledge and Kegan Paul. Paisano, E. L. (1993). We, the American Asians. Retrieved 5/30/04, 2004, from http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-3.pdf R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243 Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1970). Introduction to the science o f sociology (1921 Reprint ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Peng, S. S., Ed. (1990). The relationship between postsecondary and high school course-taking patterns: The preparation o f 1980 high school sophomores who entered postsecondary institutions by 1984. Washington D.C., National Center for Education Statistics. Penny, C. (2001). Culture, acculturation, and cultural barriers: An examination o f the factors that affect education vs. non-education career choices of Asian Pacific Americans in higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Phelan, D. (2000). Enrollment policies and student access at community colleges: Education Commission of the States (Policy Paper, February 2000). Phillippe, K., & Patton, M. (Eds.). (2000). National profile o f community colleges: Trends and statistics (3rd Ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges (ED: 440671). Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modem sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24. Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1- 12. Prather, G. (1998). Tidal wave II??? Reflections on the purpose and methodology o f enrollment projections. Retrieved 5/30/04, 2004, from http://research.laccd.edu/research/Publications.htm Rendon, L. I., & Valadez. (1993). Qualitative indicators of Hispanic student transfer. Community College Review, 60(3), 18-23. Ripps, F. M. (1985). The relationship between attitudes towards mathematics, mathematics performance and mathematics course taking at community college level. Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. Robinson, T. r. (2004). Community college English courses: The road less traveled by community college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, U niversity o f Southern California, Los Angeles. Rogers, P. (2004). Online study material on acupuncture & traditional Chinese medicine in humans & animals. Retrieved 9.22.2004, 2004, from http: //homepage. eircom.net/~pro gers/studv.htm R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 244 Rohlen, T. (1983). Education: Policies and prospects. In C. Lee & G. DeVos (Eds.), Koreans in Japan: Ethnic conflicts and accommodation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Rose, A. M. (1956). Sociology: The study of human relations. New York, Alfred A. Knoff. Rosenbaum, J. E. (1976). Making inequality. New York: Wiley. Ross, H. A. (1993). China learns English: Language teaching and social change in the People's Republic. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Saito, L. T. (1998). Race and Politics: Asian Americans, Latinos, And Whites in a Los Angeles Suburb. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Sanchirico, A. (1991). The importance of small-business ownership in Chinese American educational achievement. Sociology of Education, 64, 293-304. Schumann, J. H. (1976). Second language acquisition research: Getting a more global look at the learner. Language Learning (Special Issue number 4), 15-28. Schumann, J. H. (1978). The piginization process: A model for second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Scovel, T. (1988). A time to speak: A psycholinguistic inquiry into the critical period for human speech. New York: Newbury House Publishers. Shafer, W. E., & Olexa, C. (1971). Tracking and opportunity. Scranton, PA: Chandler. Shelton, M. S. (1981). Statewide longitudinal study: 1978-1981 (Final Report). Los Angeles: Los Angeles Pierce Community. Shilds, K. N. (1995). Course taking patterns in two suburban high schools (Ability grouping). Northwestern University. Sohoni, D. (2000). Group assimilation during periods of high immigration: methodological and theoretical issues (CSED Working Paper No. 00-10). Washington: Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington. Spindler, G. (Ed.). (1997). Education and cultural process: Anthropological approaches. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245 Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 1-40. Stanton-Salazar, R. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and kin support networks o f U.S.-Mexican youth. New York: Teachers College Press. Stegall, L. C. (1985). An analysis o f enrollment patterns in required general education courses by technical-occupational students in an urban community college (Vocational). University of North Texas, Dallas. Steinberg, L., Dombush, S. M., & Brown, B. B. (1992). Ethnic differences in adolescent achievement: An ecological perspective. American Psychologist, 47(6), 723-729. Stewart, E. C., & Bennett, M. J. (1991). American cultural patterns: A cross- cultural perspective. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press. Striplin, J. C. (2000). A review of community college curriculum trends. Los Angeles: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 438011). Stromquist, N. P. (1997). Literacy for citizenship: Gender and grassroots dynamics in Brazil. New York: State University of New York Press, Albany. Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian American educational achievements: A phenomenon in search of explanation. American Psychologist, 45, 913- 920. Taghavi, S. E. (2001). Evaluation o f college students' attitudes toward computers before and after taking a computer literacy course. Mississippi State University, Jackson. Tang, F., & Dunkelblau, H. (1998). Chinese students in the U.S. myths and reality. ESL Magazine, November/December (1998), 26-29. Teranishi, R., Dinwiddie, G., & Tiao, A. (2003). Asian Americans and the impact o f c r i t i c a l m a s s o n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f c a m p u s r a c i a l c l i m a t e . ( P a p e r presented at the annual meeting o f the American Educational Research Association).Unpublished manuscript, Chicago, IL (April 2003). Thompson, I. (1991). Foreign accents revisited: The English pronunciation of Russian immigrants. Language Learning (41), 148-204. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 246 Tiemey, W. G. (1997). The parameters of affirmative action: Equity and excellence in the academy. Review o f Education Research, 67(165-196). Tolbert, M. (2002). U.S. Census 2000: Chinese largest Asian group in the United States. Retrieved 5/30/02, 2002, from http://www.census.gov/Press- Release/www/2002/cb02cn59.html Townsend, B. K., & Twombly, S. B. (Eds.). (2001). Community colleges: Policy in the future context. Westport: Ablex Publishing. Trochim, W. M. K. (2001). The research methods knowledge base, 2e. Cincinnati: Atomic Dog Publishing. TRUCCS (2001). TRUCCS (Transfer and retention o f urban community college students) project executive report. Los Angeles, Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California. Tse, J. K.-P. (2000). Language and a rising new identity in Taiwan. International Journal o f the Sociology o f Language, 143(3), 151-164. Tse, L. (1997). Ethnic identity and the role o f heritage language. University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Tung, M. P. (2000). Chinese Americans and their immigrant parents: conflict, identity, and values. New York: The Haworth Clinical Practice Press. Turner, J. A. (2003). The impact o f the hope scholarship on Georgia's secondary schools in relation to student achievement and course-taking patterns. Georgia State University, Georgia. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Population estimates. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from http://censtats.census.gov/data/CA/05006Q37.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). A profile o f nation's foreign-born population from Asia (2000 Update). Retrieved 6/1/04, 2004, from http ://www. census. gov/prod/2002pubs/cenbr01 -3 .pdf Varenne, H., Goldman, S., & McDermott, R. P. (1997). Racing in place: Middle class work in success/failure. In G. D. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Anthropological approaches (3 rd ed.). Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press. Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom observation tasks: A resource book for language teachers and trainers. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 247 Walsh, T., & Diller, K. C. (1981). Neurolinguistic considerations on the optimum age for second language learning. In K. C. Diller (Ed.), Individual differences and universals in language learning aptitude (pp. 15-29). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. West, J., Miller, W., & Diodato, L. (Eds.). (1985). An analysis o f course-taking patterns in secondary schools as related to students characteristics. Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics. Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Columbia University Press. Wolcott, H. F. (1997). The teacher as an enemy. In G. D. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Anthropological approaches (pp. 77-92). Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press. Wong, E. F. (1986). Asian American middleman minority theory: The framework of an American myth. Journal o f Ethnic Studies, 13, 51-88. Wong, K. (1994). Building an Asian Pacific labor alliance: A new chapter in our history. In K. A.-S. Juan (Ed.), The State of Asian America: Activism and resistance in the 1990s (pp. 335-349). Boston: South and Press. WordiQ. (2004). Definition o f Yin Yang. Retrieved 9.24.04, 2004, from http://www.wordiq.com/definitioiVYin Yang Zhao, X. (2002). Remaking Chinese America: Immigration, family, and community, 1940-1965. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Zhou, M. (1997). Segmented assimilation: Issues, controversies and recent research on the new second generation. International Migration Review, 37(4), 975-1008. R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 248 APPENDIX A l: Community College Student Survey Community College Student Survey D ear Student: T his inform ation is being co llected b y researchers from th e U niversity o f S outhern C alifornia and the U niversity o f C alifo rn ia at L o s A ngeles in conjunction w ith the L o s A ngeles C o m m unity C ollege D istrict as part o f a large study o f com m unity college students in L o s A ngeles. You have b een selected as a p articipant in a m ulti-year project. Y our cooperation w ill assist researchers to h elp L os A ngeles C om m unity C ollege students to be successful in th e ir e d u catio n al pursuits. Y our assistance is crucial to the project; w e thank you fo r your particip atio n in this im p o rtan t research. DIRECTIONS Please answer all questions as completely and accurately as possible. Because your responses w ill be read by a machine, your careful observance of these few simple rules w ill be most appreciated. • U se only black lead pencil (N o . 2 Is ideal). E X A M P L E S ' • Make heavy black marks that fill the ovals (do n otd rcle or check the ovals). Correct Mark: Incorrect Mark: • Erase cleanly any answ er you w ish to change. O O • O <s5(S®or • M ake no stray m arkings of any k in d . Name:_________________ Your primary email address: Your phone num ber______ Social Security Number Q D Q D Q D C J D < 3 D C 3 D C 2 > C I D Q D C D (D O D O ) C D C D C D C D C D (2 )C D O )(3 )C D < 3 D C D C E )(D 3) C 3 ) G D C D C D C D < 3 ) C D G D ® C 5 3 0 D G )< 3 > (X > < 3 )G £ > < 3 > 0 D Q D C 5 ) < E ) C S 3 C 5 ) C S 3 C S ) C S > 0 D Q D < 5 )C D (3 )< 3 )C E > ® (3 ) C D CD C D C D C D C Z ) C D C D C D 3 3 C 8 3 0 D c D C S )C D C D (D C D 3 D C P q D C S )(3 D G D G & C B 3 0 D W e want to follow your progress for the next two years; yet we realize that many students will move from time to time. Please provide the names of two people who are likely to know your address even If you move. W e request the name, address, and phone number of two persons. Contact 1: A relative or friend who does not live with you and who is likely to know your address at al[ times: Name:________________________________________ Address:______________________________________ City, State, Zip:_______________ __________________ Phone Number:_________________________________ Email address:_________________________________ Contact 2: Another relative or friend who does not live with you and who is likely to know your address at all times: Nam e:____________________________________________ Address:__________________________________________ City, State, Zip:_____________________________________ Phone Number:____________________________________ Email address:_____________________________________ [o]BBB0 B0 B0 0 BBBB0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15534 DO NOT WRITE IN THIS AREA - 1 - • • • • • • • • R eproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249 1. Below are som e reasons that might have Influenced your decision to attend this particular college. How important w as each reason In your decision to com e here? (Mark one for each statement.) My parents wanted me to come h e re .. My spouse, partner or other family member wanted me to come here . . . This college has a good reputation— I wanted to go to a different college than many of my friends........................ This college has good social activities . I couldnt find a jo b .................................. This college is affordable........................ A high school or other counselor advised m e ............................................. This college is close to my hom e.......... This college's graduates get good jo b s.. This college's students transfer to good 4-year schools............................ I couldn't find anything better to d o . . . I want to get a better job........................ My friends are attending h e re ............. This college is close to where I work . This college offers educational programs of special interest to me that other colleges do NOT have— I want to get a college d e g re e ............. To learn English for w ork...................... My employer encouraged me to enroll here. This college offers the program or certificate I need for w o rk ............. O o o o o 0 0 o 0 b oo o 2. How many of your closest personal friends are also currently attending this college? (Mark one.) None of my closest frien d s....................... O One of my closest frien d s......................... O A few of my closest frien d s....................... O About half of my closest frien d s O Most of my closest friends..........................O All of my closest friends .................O 3. In general, what do the following people think about this particular college? (Mark one for each statement.) You Your closest friends Your spouse or partner Your parents or guardians Your other relatives Your high school teachers Others 4. Which of the following statem en ts b est d e scrib es your college plans for next sem ester? (Mark one.) I will attend only this college.................................................................O I will attend this college and 1 other c o lle g e ...................................O I will attend this college and 2 or more other c o lle g e s ................. O I will not attend here, but I will attend t other college....................O I will not attend here, but I will attend 2 or more other colleges .. O I will not attend any college...................................................................O 5. W here did you attend school? United A nother (Mark aflthat apply in each column.) S tates Country Elementary school or equivalent (Ages 4 to 1 1 ) ... O .................O Junior high school (Ages 12 to 14)..............................O ................. O High school (Ages 15 to 18)........................................ O ................. O College............................................................................ O ................. O 6. Not including th is college, how many o ther colleges or universities have you ever atten d ed ? (Mark one.) None (I have attended only this college)................... O 1 o th e r............................................................................. Q 2-3 o th e rs .......................................................................O 4 or more o th e rs............................................................ O 7. How many credits have you earned at thjs college In previous sem esters? (Mark one.) None ...............................................................................O 1 - 3 ................................................................................... O 4 - 9 ................................................................................... O 1 0 -1 8 ...............................................................................O 1 9 -2 7 ...............................................................................O 28-36 ...............................................................................O 3 7 -6 0 ...............................................................................O More than 6 0 ..................................................................O I 8. Since leaving high school, have you ever taken courses at any other institution? For Not for (Mark aH that apply.) Credit Credit Yes, at another community or junior college . . . . . . o . .. . . . . . o Yes, at a 4-year college or university................. . . . o . . . . O Yes, at some other postsecondary school (for example, technical, vocational, business).. . . . O . . . . ....o 9. In addition to this college, are you taking courses at another school or college this sem ester? (Mark ah that apply.) Yes, at another community college..............................O Yes, at a four-year college or university..................... O Yes, at a high school......................................................O Yes, at a vocational or trade school............................O Yes, at an adult sc h o o l................................................. C Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250 As things stan d today, d o you think you w i l l...? (Mark one for each statement.) Change your career choice............................ Q j ooo 1 o Graduate with h o n o rs ..................................... O oooo Play varsity/intercollegiate athletics............. O oooo Get a bachelor's degree................................... ooooo Permanently stop attending college............. oo p o G3 Leave this college temporarily and return la te r ...................................................... oo ooo Transfer to another community college......... ooQ oo Transfer to a 4-year college or university. . . ooooo Develop d o se new relationships with students at this co lleg e................................. Q o p o p Talk regularly with the instructors at this college...................................................... P o p o p Change your college m ajor............................ oo □ o o 11. Indicate a» college d egrees earned United Another (If any). (Mark all that apply.) States Country Associate degree (A.A. or equivalent)......... O ..................O Bachelor's degree (B.A., B.S., e tc .) ..............O ..................O Graduate degree (M.A., M.S., Ph.D., Ed.D., J.D., M.D., e tc .)................................... O ..................O Certificate........................................................... O ..................O 12. If there were no obstacles, what Is the highest academic degree you would like to attain In your lifetime? (Mark one.) Will take classes, but do not intend to earn a degree .... O Vocational certificate................................................................O Associate (A.A. or equivalent).................................................O Bachelor's degree (B A , B.S., etc.)........................................O At least a Bachelor's, maybe m o re ........................................O Master's degree (M.A., M.S., etc.).......................................... O Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., J.D., e tc .)..............................O Medical degree (M.D., D.D.S., D.V.M., e tc .) ......................... O 13. Approximately how many tim es In tlw past 7 days, did you: (Mark one for each statement.) rn m i c T < v * no p > O nnn Talk with an instructor before or after n nnoo Talk with an instructor during office D n D nnn Use email or the Internet for homework. a ooooo Help another student understand n o r rD O n Study in small groups outside of c la s s .. oooooo Speak with an academic counselor.___ oooooo 14. For this course only, approximately how many tim es In the past 7 days, did you: (Mark one for each statement.) Work in small groups during class time Telephone or email another student to ask a question about your studies . . . Ask the instructor questions................. Speak up during class discussion — 15. In the past 7 days, approximately how many hours did you: (Mark one for each statement.) Work at a job....................................... Do housework or childcare............. Watch TV............................................. Spend on this campus (including time in c lass).................................... Spend talking with students about things not related to a c o u rs e ___ Study alone at h o m e ........................ Study alone in the college library... Study with students from this c o u rs e ................................................ Study with students from other courses (not this c ourse)............... iuiiii 'ef * • * v o * « e ooo oQ o ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo oo □ o oo 16. How large a problem do you expect each of the following to be while getting your education at this college? (Mark one for each statement.) Parking................................................................. Transportation (access to public transportation, sharing cars, etc.)................. Family responsibilities (e.g., child care, parent c a re ) ........................................... Job-related responsibilities.............................. Paying for college............................................... Scheduling classes lor next se m e ste r........... Understanding the English language............. Difficulty of c la s s e s ........................................... 17. How often do you use English with the following people? (Mark one for each statement.) With my parents................................................... With frie n d s.......................................................... With teachers or professors at this college . . . m oooo - 3 - Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251 18. How often do you u se a language other than English with th e following people? (Mark one for each statement.) With my parents With friends With teachers or professors at this college 19. How well are you able to do the following in English? (Mark one for each item.) Read Write Understand a college lecture Read a college text book Write an essay exam Write a term paper Participate in class discussions Communicate with instructors O O ? flit 20. Is English your native language? Y es O Go to question 22 No O Continue to question 21 21. How well are you able to do the following In your native language? (Mark one for each item.) R ead................................................ W rite................................................ Understand a college lecture . . . Read a college text b o o k ........... Write an essay e x a m .................. Write a term p a p e r , ........... Participate in class discussions . Communicate with instructors .. 22. How long d o es It take you to travel to th is college? (Mark one.) Less than 15 m inutes....................................................O 15 to 30 m inutes.............................................................O 31 to 45 m inutes.............................................................O 46 to 60 m inutes.............................................................O Between 1 and 2 hours................................................. O More than 2 hours.......................................................... O 23. Do you have a disability? (Mark aH that apply.) Hearing......................................................................................................O S p e e c h ......................................................................................................O Mobility im paired.................................................................................... O Attention deficit d iso rd er....................................................................... O Psychological d iso rd e r......................................................................... O Learning disability.................................................................................. O Vision problem that cannot be corrected by glasses or contact le n s e s .................................................................................. O O ther..........................................................................................................O No disabilities...........................................................................................O - 4 24. What w as your average grade in high sch o o l? (Mark one.) A or A+ (Extraordinary)..........................................................................O A- (Superior Q uality)..............................................................................O B+ (Excellent)........................................................... O B (Very Good)...........................................................................................O B- (G ood)................................................................................................. O C+(Above Average) ..............................................................................O C (Average) .............................................................................................O C- (Below A verage)................................................................................O D or lower (P o o r).................................................................................... O 25. Before this sem ester, w hat m athem atics co u rse s have you taken? Include c o u rse s In high school or previous college work. (Mark all that apply.) Basic math, Business math, or P re -a lg eb ra ....................................O Algebra I ...................................................................................................O G eom etry.................................................... O Algebra I I .................................................................................................O Trigonom etry..........................................................................................O Pre-calculus............................................................................................O C alculus...................................................................................................O 26. Before th is sem ester, w hat scien ce c o u rse s have you tak en ? Include c o u rse s In high sch o o l o r previous college work. (Mark all that apply.) General Biology......................................................................................O Chemistry.................................................................................................O P hysics.....................................................................................................O Biology specialty (I.e., microbiology, genetics, botany, cell biology, marine biology, e tc .) .......................................................O Other Earth science (i.e., geology, meteorology, e tc .) ...................O 27. With whom d o you live while attending th is college? (Mark aj[ that apply.) With my spouse or p a rtn e r..................................................................O With my parents or guardians..............................................................O With my children/stepchildren..............................................................O With siblings (brothers) and/or siste rs))...........................................O With other relativ es............................................................................... O With a roommate(s) or a friend(s) ......................................................O I live a lo n e ...............................................................................................O 28. Your gender: Male ...................O F e m a le O 29. How old will you b e on Decem ber 31 of th is year? 16 years or younger............................................................................... O 1 7 ..............................................................................................................O 1 8 ..............................................................................................................O 1 9 ..............................................................................................................O 2 0 ..............................................................................................................O 2 1 - 2 4 ....................................................................................................... O 25-29 ....................................................................................................... O 30-39 ....................................................................................................... O 40-54 ....................................................................................................... O 55 or o ld e r...............................................................................................O Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252 30. What Is your ethnic g roup s)? (Mark all that apply.) C h in ese.................................................................................. O Filipino.....................................................................................O Ja p an e se ................................................................................ O Korean.....................................................................................O T h a i.........................................................................................O Laotian .................................................................................. O C am bodian............................................................................O V ietnam ese............................................................................O South Asian (Indian Subcontinent)...................................O A rab .........................................................................................O African-American/Black...................................................... O M exican..................................................................................O Mexican-American/Chicano................................................O South American ...................................................................O Central A m erican.................................................................O Other Latino/Hispanic ........................................................O Alaskan N a tiv e..................................................................... O American In d ian ...................................................................O Pacific Islander/Samoan, Hawaiian, or Guamanian . . . O Other Pacific Islander.......................................................... O Caucasian/White .................................................................O O th e r...................................................................................... O 31. Are you currently m arried? Y es...........................................................................................O N o ...........................................................................................O 32. W ho is (are) th e prim ary w age e a rn e rs ) in your househ o ld ? (Mark al[ that apply.) Yourself.................................................................................. O Partner/Spouse.....................................................................O Parents/G uardians.............................................................. O Children/Stepchildren..........................................................O O th e r...................................................................................... O 33. How m any of your chlldren/atepchlldren a re living in your ho u seh o ld ? (Mark one.) N o n e ...................................................................................... O 1 - 2 ...........................................................................................O 3 - 4 ...........................................................................................O 5 or m ore................................................................................O 34. Excluding yourself, how many people (children, grandchildren, brothers, sisters, parents, etc.) are you financially supporting? (Mark one for each item.) Under 5 years of a g e ................................. 5 to 18 years of age ................................. Over 18 years of a g e ................................. 35. Which on e of the following best describes your employment status at this tim e? (Mark one.) Employed full-time (including self-employed)................. O Employed part-time (including self-employed)...............O Not employed but looking for work.....................................O Not employed and not presently looking for work...........O m r /•i * 9 * » o o o o o 3 o p o o o O 36. How d o you think of yourself? (Mark one.) Primarily a s a student who is e m p lo y ed .................................................. O Primarily a s an employee who is going to c o lle g e .................................O Primarily a s a parent who is going to c o lle g e ......................................... O Solely a s a s tu d e n t.......................................................................................O 37. For th e following Items, p lease indicate th e extent to which you a g ree o r d isag ree with the following statem ents. (Mark one for each statement.) My teachers here give me a lot of encouragement in my studies.................... I enjoy doing challenging class assignm ents.................................................. What other people think of me is very im portant...................................................... i start to study at least 2 or 3 days prior to t e s t s ........................................................... I expect to do well and earn good grades in c o lle g e ...................................................... o Understanding what is taught is important to me ............................................................. ’' I always complete homework assignments I keep trying even when I am frustrated by a ta s k ........................................................ Learning can be judged best by the grade one g e te ........................................................ It is important for me to finish the courses in my program of s tu d ie s .......................... Things are harder for me because of my race or ethnicity............................................ I frequently have difficulty meeting d ead lin es...................................................... I am very determined to reach my g o a ls.. I w as initially very nervous about attending c o lle g e ........................................................... I feel most satisfied when I work hard to achieve something ..................................... My family is more important than my c a re e r............................................................. / 7 S uccess in college is largely due to effort (has to do with how hard you try)............. I feel I belong at this college........................ I wait until the day before an assignment is due before starting i t ............................... I know I can learn all the skills taught In c o lle g e ...................................................... I want to become involved in programs to clean up the environment...................... I have declared a college m ajo r................. oooopoo ooooooo ooooooo oooo ooo oooo ooo oooo o oo oooo ooo oooo ooo oooo o oo oooQ ooo oooo oo o b ooo ooo oooo ooo oo o o o oo oo oo oo o oooo 3oo ooooooo ooooooo ooooooo oo o oooo oo ooo oo oo oo o oo - 5 - Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253 3 8 .1 have attended an orientation sessio n at this college. Y es.............................................. O No .............................................. O 38. Are you receiving the following types of financial assistance? (Mark aH that apply.) L oan............................................ O Scholarship or g ran t.................O 40. Do you own your own . . . ? (Mark one in each column.) Yes No Home (not renting)..................................................... O ..........O Computer (with Internet a c c e s s )..............................O ..........O Computer (without Internet access) ........................O ..........O C a r .................................................................................O ..........O 41. What is the highest level of formal education obtained by your p arents either In the U.S. o r In another country? (Mark one in each column.) Mother Father 6th grade or l e s s .........................................................O ...... O Junior high or middle school ....................... O ......O Some high sch o o l.......................................................O ...... O Finished high school or G E D.......................O ...... O Some community college..........................................O ...... O Completed community college..................................O ..........O Some four-year college..............................O ...... O Completed four-year college d e g re e...............O ...... O Some graduate sc h o o l...............................................O ...... O Graduate degree ........................................................O ......O I do not know............................... O .............O 42. While you were growing up, m ark th e Job th at beet describes your p aren t's major occupation. (Mark one in each column.) M other Father R etired..........................................................................O ............O Day laborer (cleaning, construction, farm, factory, etc.)................................................................O ............O Worker or hourly employee (service, hotel, hospital, agriculture, truck driver, clerical, retail sales and service, laundry or maintenance, e tc.).. O O Factory worker (manufacturing, warehousing, shipping, operations, telephone operator, etc.)... O ....... O Skilled tradesman (machinist, plumber, tile setter, electrician, auto mechanic, nurse, secretary, chef, technician)........................................................O ............O Supervisor or m anager (professional)......................O ........O Small business owner (retail, construction, service, e tc .) ..............................................................O ........O Professional, white collar (sales, finance, teaching, consulting, engineer, accounting, doctor, lawyer, etc.)...................................................O ......O Housework (taking care of children or hom e) .O O Unemployed or on w elfare........................................O .......O Do not know..........................................O .......O 43. Write in your father's main Job (or, tf not working now, his m ost recent Job). 44. Write In your mother's main Job (or, tf not working now, her m ost recent Job). 45. Describe your present work/career. 46. Describe the type of work/career you plan to be involved In 7 or 8 years from now. 47. How much education do you think Is needed for the above type of work you are planning? (Mark one.) High school diploma or GED .............................................................O Some community co lle g e...................................................................O Completion of Associate degree (A.A. or equivalent).................... O Some four-year college w o rk .............................................................O Completion of a four-year college degree (B.A., B .S .).................. O Completion of more than a four-year college d e g re e .................... O Completion of a professional degree or credential.........................O Completion of a graduate degree (Master's D eg ree).................... O Completion of an advanced professional degree (Doctorate, Ph.D., M.D., e tc .) ...........................................................O Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254 APPENDIX A2: Student Records Authorization Form ------------------- Code: use RECORDS RELEASE AUTHORIZATION ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION D ear Student, W e request y our participation in an im portant study. T he inform ation we are gathering from this project will be used to im prove college teaching and learning and im prove the student experience in com m unity colleges. It w ould be helpful if w e could exam ine records pertaining to educational preparation, dem ographic characteristics and course enrollm ent inform ation along w ith your responses to this survey. T he Fam ily E ducational R ights and Privacy A ct o f 1974 (FERPA) provides that an educational institution m ay not release confidential inform ation about a student w ithout the student’s consent. Please provide us w ith perm ission to access these portions o f your records w ith the L os A ngeles C om m unity C olleges. Your consent w ill also allow us to contact you for follow -up research. T hank you. Linda Serra H a g ed o m Ph.D . A ssociate Professor & Chair, C om m unity C ollege Leadership 213-740-7218 I hereby authorize the research team headed by Dr. L inda Serra H agedom to obtain from the Los A ngeles C om m unity C olleges the records o f course registration, the final course grades I receive, inform ation from my college application, scores from m y assessm ent tests, and other records directly pertaining to m y academ ic experience a t the L os A ngeles C om m unity C olleges. This perm ission is valid only for the purposes o f the research described herein. I understand that m y nam e and o ther inform ation that m ay identify m e individually w ill not be released by the researchers. I provide m y perm ission freely w ithout coercion or threat. Student’ s Signature Date Your full nam e (please print) U SC U PIR B #00-05-181 - 7 - Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 5 5 APPENDIX B: SYNTAX for Creating Hispanic and Compound Groups. 1) Calculating syntax for Latinos Compute Latinos=0. If (q30_01 =1) and (q30_02=1) and (q30_03=1) and (q30_04=1) and (q30_05=1) and (q30_06=1) and (q30_07=1) and (q30_08=1) and (q30_09=1) and (q30_10=1) and (q30_11 =1) and (q30_12=2) or (q30_13=2) or (q30_14=2) or (q30_15=2) or (q30_16=2) and (q30_17=1) and (q30_18=1) and (q30_19=1) and (q30_20=1) and (q30_21=1) and (q30_22=1) Latinos=1. Execute. 2) Calculating syntax for Whites. Compute white=0. If (q30_01 =1) and (q30_02=1) and (q30_03=1) and (q30_04=1) and (q30_05=1) and (q30_06=1) and (q30_07=1) and (q30_08=1) and (q30_09=1) and (q30_10=1) and (q30_11 =1) and (q30_12=1) and (q30_13=1) and (q30_14=1) and (q30_15=1) and (q30_16=1) and (q30_17=1) and (q30_18=1) and (q30_19=1) and (q30_20=1) and (q30_21 =2) and (q30_22=1) white=1. Execute. 3) Calculating Chinese population. Compute Chinese = 1. If (q30_01 =2) and (q30_02=1) and (q30_03=1) and (q30_04=1) and (q30_05=1)and (q30_06=1)and (q30_07=1)and (q30_08=1) and (q30_09=1) and (q30_10=1)and (q30_11=1)and (q30_12=1)and (q30_13=1)and (q30_14=1)and (q30_15=1)and (q30_16=1)and (q30_17=1) and (q30_18=1) and (q30_19=1)and (q30_20=1) and (q30_21=1) and (q30_22=1) Chinese=1. Execute. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 5 6 APPENDIX C: Procedures for Calculating Course Participation Ratio (CPR): Participation ratio for each type of courses is calculated according to the procedures provided below. Repeat all of these steps for each type of courses. Step 1: A total number of semesters are created in an enrollment file. Run syntax to mark all the semesters and courses in the enrollment file: If (litho = Lag (litho) & semester = Lag (semester)) semtotal = 1. Execute. Step2: Recode the values of the ‘semtotal’ variable to identify the number of semesters in which subjects enrolled in classes: RECODE semtotal (1=0) (SYSMIS=1). EXECUTE. Step 3: Create an aggregate file of total number of semesters and total number of courses from the ‘semtotal’ file according to the syntax: AGGREGATE /OUTFILE-C:\WINDOWS\.. Asemtotal agg'+ ' and total # of classes.sav' /BREAK=litho /tl#ofsem 'total number of semesters' = SUM(semtotal) /N_ttlcls=N. Step 4: Compute the total participation ratio (PR). compute totalpr= N_ttlcls/ tl#ofsem. Execute . *Step 5 — Check your work by running a frequency of the variable you created. FREQUENCIES VARIABLES= totalpr /ORDER= ANALYSIS . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 5 7 APPENDIX D: Procedures and Syntax for Calculating GPA. The following six steps (syntax) were used for calculating the GPA in an enrollment file (file taken form Transcript data file). *Step 1 - First, recode the letter values into numerical values. RECODE grade ('A'=4) ('B -3) ('C -2) ('D'=1) ('F-0) INTO g rad eg pa . VARIABLE LABELS gradegpa 'calculating GPA'. EXECUTE. *Step 2 -- Delete all cases in which the Grade is undetermined or units not calculated into GPA (e.g., Pass, No Pass, Withdrawals, In Progress). FILTER OFF. USE ALL. SELECT IF(gradegpa >= 0). EXECUTE. *Step 3 - Multiply Number of Units by the numerical grade value. COMPUTE grxunits = gradegpa * units . VARIABLE LABELS grxunits 'multiplication of grade and units'. EXECUTE. *Step 5 - Aggregate the sum of this product (grxunits) as well as the total number of units person taken. Remember to change the name and location of the outfile to meet your needs. AGGREGATE /OUTFILE='E:\Dissertation\gpa all.sav' /BREAK=litho /grxuni_1 = SUM(grxunits) /units_1 = SUM(units) /N_BREAK=N. *Step 6 - Dividing (grxunM ) by (units_1) to get GPA from the new file you created. Remember to close this file and open a new file. COMPUTE GPA = grxunM / units_1. EXECUTE. *Step 7 -- Check your work by running a frequency of the variable you created. Remember that values should be from 0 to 4. FREQUENCIES VARIABLES=gpa /ORDER= ANALYSIS . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 5 8 APPENDIX E: SYNTAX for Creating Success - Course Completion Ratios. *Create an ‘attempt’ variable in an Enrollment File. RECODE grade (’A -1 ) (’B -1) (’C -1 ) (’D -1) (’F -1 ) (T=1) (’N -1) ('W=^(V' = 1) INTO attempt. VARIABLE LABELS attempt ’courses attempted total history (A,B,C,D,F,I,W,P)’. EXECUTE. *Create a ‘pass’ variable in an Enrollment File. RECODE grade (’A -1 ) (’B -1) (’C -1) ('P‘=1) (’F = 0) (T = 0) (*N’ = 0) (W = 0) (’D’ = 0) INTO pass. VARIABLE LABELS pass ‘courses passed total history (A,B,C,P)'. EXECUTE. ‘ Aggregate both ‘pass’ and ‘attempt’ variables by litho (research number). AGGREGATE /OUTFILE-E:\Dissertation\CCR agg course completion'+ ' ratio.sav' /BREAK=litho /pass_1 = SUM(pass) /attempt = SUM(attempt). ‘ Compute a new ‘successr’ variable -- Success Ratio (SR). compute successr = pass_1 / attempt_1. Execute . ‘ Check your work by running a frequency of the variable you created. Remember that values should be from 0 to 1 (meaning from 0% to 100%). FREQUENCIES VARIABLES= successr /ORDER= ANALYSIS . Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 5 9 Appendix F: Distribution of Enrollments for CCCS NSE and NNSE. Descriptive Statistics and Chi-Square. COURSE TYPE CCCS NSE CHINESE NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH Number of Subjects, N = 20 CCCS NNSE CHINESE NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH Number of Subjects, N = 158 Courses N * Mean Std. Deviation N * Mean Std. Deviation Total Chi-S. X(df) UC Transferable 523 .7254 .44663 3597 .6176 .48601 4120 31.946 ^ ^*** csu Transferable 588 .8155 .38813 4182 .7181 .44998 4770 30.839 (1)*** IGETC 393 .5451 .49831 2544 .4368 .49603 2937 30.399 ^ - J J*** VOCATIONAL 155 .2150 .41109 1288 . 2 2 1 2 .41506 1443 .142 (1 ) REMEDIAL 8 6 .1193 .32434 1140 .1957 .39680 1226 24.640 ^ J*** ENGLISH 8 8 . 1 2 2 1 .32757 1026 .1762 .38100 1114 13.303 J*** ESL 8 . 0 1 1 1 .10482 76 .0130 .11350 84 .193 (1 ) MATH (total) 83 .1151 .31939 553 .0950 .29317 636 2.974 (1) YING 367 .5090 .50027 3064 .5261 .49936 3431 14.364 (2 )** YANG 276 .3828 .48641 1891 .3247 .46830 2167 YING-YANG 78 .1082 .31083 869 .1492 4.404 947 Note. N* Number of enrolled courses. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 0 Appendix G: Distribution of Courses for CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites. Descriptive Statistics. COURSE TYPE CCCS N = 7096 Hispanics N = 84260 Whites N = 1 5 6 9 6 Chi- Square N w /in M ea n Std. D ev. N w /in M e a n Std. D ev. N w /in M ea n Std. D ev. X M UC Transferable 4445 .6264 .48379 45513 .5401 .49839 9202 .5863 .49252 288.987 CSU Transferable 5168 .7283 .44487 55230 .6555 .47522 11331 .7219 .44808 381.682 IGETC 3166 .4462 .49713 31938 .3790 .48515 6309 .4019 .49031 169.332 O C C U PA TIONAL 1610 .2269 .41885 22834 .2710 .44448 4445 .2832 .45056 9 4 .5 8 5 (3 )* * * R EM EDIAL 1311 .1848 .38812 15335 .1820 .38584 2246 .1431 .35018 153.138 ENG LISH 1217 .1715 .37698 14313 .1699 .37552 2262 .1441 .35122 6 5 .2 2 7 ESL 88 .0124 .11068 1107 .0131 .11387 314 .0200 .14002 4 7 .5 1 3 M ATH 678 .0955 .29399 9624 .1142 .31808 1453 .0926 .28984 827.771 (12)*** Y IN G (Oriented) 3761 .5300 .49913 49530 .5878 .49223 9469 .6033 .48923 130.635 ( 3 ) * * * YANG (Oriented) 2327 .3279 .46949 23860 .2832 .45054 4504 .2870 .45235 9 0 .7 8 9 ( 3 ) * * * YING- Y A NG 1008 .1421 .34913 10870 .1290 .33521 1723 .1098 .31262 6 0 .195 Note: Significant at *** p < .001; ** p < .01; *p < .05 level. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261 Appendix HI: Differences on CPR for CCCS NSE and NNSE. Descriptive Statistics and T-test. COURSE CATEGORY I s E n g l i s h y o u r n a t iv e la n g u a g e ? Group Statistics T - te s t N M e a n C P R S t d . D e v i a t i o n t S ig . ( 2 - ta ile d ) N o C S U T r a n s f e r a b le Y e s 1 4 8 2 0 1 . 4 7 7 1 1 . 3 4 6 1 .4 8 1 0 4 .2 2 9 2 6 2 .0 2 2 .0 4 9 N o U C T r a n s f e r a b le Y e s 1 4 8 2 0 1 .4 0 7 6 1 . 2 7 4 1 .4 2 8 8 9 .1 8 4 2 8 2 .4 5 4 .0 1 7 N o I G E T C Y e s 1 4 1 2 0 1 .3 6 3 4 1 .2 3 6 5 . 3 5 0 2 1 .1 9 8 9 8 2 .3 7 6 .0 2 3 O C C U P A T I O N A L N ° Y e s 1 4 0 2 0 1 .5 2 5 8 1 .4 6 2 9 .5 7 9 6 8 .3 5 3 4 8 .6 7 6 .5 0 3 N o R E M E D I A L Y e s 1 3 3 1 4 1 .4 4 2 0 1 .4 9 8 4 .3 9 4 9 2 . 7 0 5 1 1 - .2 9 4 .7 7 3 . r - , N o R e m e d i a l E n g l i s h Y e s 3 5 3 1 .5 4 9 0 1 .7 5 0 0 .8 8 5 7 6 .6 6 1 4 4 - .4 9 0 .6 6 2 N o B a s ic E n g l i s h ye s 1 1 6 1 0 1 .4 0 7 3 1 .4 1 6 7 . 4 7 3 5 1 .6 4 4 3 0 - .0 4 5 .9 6 5 N o I n te r m e d i a te E n g l i s h yes 4 1 5 1 .2 0 3 3 1 .0 0 0 0 .3 8 4 6 2 .0 0 0 0 0 3 .3 8 4 .0 0 2 A d v a n c e d E n g l i s h Y e s 1 1 1 1 5 1 .2 3 6 9 1 .1 2 2 2 .3 7 0 5 4 .2 5 5 6 2 1 .5 3 4 .1 3 9 N o E N G L I S H T O T A L Y e g 1 4 0 1 8 1 .4 3 3 4 1 .3 4 1 7 .4 2 8 1 8 .4 8 7 9 0 . 7 6 1 .4 5 5 Y e s 2 1 1 1 .5 2 8 6 2 .6 6 6 7 .7 2 3 9 8 ..... x , N o R e m e d i a l M a t h Y e s 1 6 2 1 .1 1 6 7 1 .0 0 0 0 .2 6 3 8 7 .0 0 0 0 0 1 .7 6 9 .0 9 7 N o B a s ic M a t h ye g 2 4 7 1 . 0 9 3 1 1 .1 4 2 9 .2 3 8 9 5 .3 7 7 9 6 - .3 3 0 . 7 5 1 I n te r m e d ia te M a t h Y e s 4 6 9 1 .2 5 0 0 1 .0 0 0 0 .4 9 1 6 0 .0 0 0 0 0 3 .4 4 9 . 0 0 1 A d v a n c e d M a t h Y e s 1 0 8 1 6 1 .3 0 0 0 1 .3 5 7 3 .4 0 4 6 3 .7 5 7 3 8 - .2 9 6 . 7 7 1 N o M A T H T O T A L Y e s 1 2 5 1 9 1 .2 9 2 4 1 .2 3 7 3 .3 8 3 1 5 .3 5 4 3 0 .6 2 4 .5 3 8 N o Y I N Y e s 1 3 9 2 0 4 .3 5 1 6 3 .7 0 3 2 1 .8 5 0 6 3 .7 6 9 5 8 2 .7 8 4 .0 0 7 N o Y A N G Y e s 1 4 5 1 9 4 .6 8 3 1 4 .6 5 3 0 1 .7 0 4 2 2 1 . 8 3 3 0 1 .0 6 8 .9 4 7 Y I N - Y A N G N ° Y e s 1 2 6 1 5 3 .8 5 6 7 2 .3 3 3 3 2 .7 0 7 3 7 1 .3 1 5 3 5 3 .6 5 7 . 0 0 1 N o T O T A L ( C P R ) Y e s 1 4 8 2 0 5 .1 6 9 5 4 .6 0 1 6 1 . 8 6 7 9 1 1 .4 5 4 9 4 1 .5 7 9 .1 2 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 2 Appendix H2: Differences on CCR for CCCS NSE and NNSE. Descriptive Statistics and T-test. COURSE CATEGORY I s E n g l i s h y o u r n a t iv e la n g u a g e ? Group Statistics T - te s t N M e a n C C R S td . D e v i a t i o n t S i g . ( 2 - t a ile d ) C S U T r a n s f e r a b le Y e s 1 4 8 2 0 .8 2 4 8 .7 0 8 8 .2 1 5 7 8 .1 9 6 0 6 2 .4 5 1 . 0 2 1 N o U C T r a n s f e r a b le Y e s 1 4 5 2 0 .8 1 6 3 .7 0 2 8 .2 2 2 5 2 .2 0 6 5 9 2 .2 8 3 . 0 3 1 N o I G E T C Y e s 1 4 0 2 0 .8 0 0 9 .7 0 0 6 .2 4 2 6 2 .2 6 6 1 8 1 .5 9 3 .1 2 4 O C C U P A T I O N A L Y °g 1 3 8 2 0 .8 5 6 8 .7 0 5 7 .2 4 2 6 6 .2 8 5 1 8 2 .2 5 5 .0 3 4 N o R E M E D I A L Y e s 9 5 1 1 .7 4 6 7 .5 3 5 7 . 3 5 4 0 1 .4 6 6 4 8 1 .4 5 2 .1 7 3 N o R e m e d ia l E n g l i s h Y e g 2 4 2 .7 6 3 4 .7 5 0 0 .4 1 1 9 2 .3 5 3 5 5 . 0 5 1 .9 6 6 N o B a s ic E n g l i s h Y g g 1 1 0 1 0 .8 3 3 5 .4 6 6 7 .2 6 1 4 4 .5 0 1 8 5 2 .2 8 3 .0 4 7 N o I n te r m e d i a te E n g l i s h Y g g 3 9 5 .8 2 4 8 1 .0 0 0 0 .3 4 1 8 8 .0 0 0 0 0 - 3 .2 0 1 .0 0 3 N o A d v a n c e d E n g l i s h Y g g 1 0 3 1 4 .8 2 8 8 .7 7 3 8 . 3 0 4 0 1 .3 1 7 6 2 . 6 1 1 .5 5 0 N o E N G L I S H T O T A L Y e s 1 3 9 1 8 .8 0 1 6 .6 9 4 0 .2 6 8 5 0 .3 7 2 2 4 1 .1 8 7 .2 5 0 ESL Y e s 7 1 .7 1 4 3 .0 0 0 0 .3 9 3 4 0 N o R e m e d ia l M a t h Y e s 1 3 2 .7 2 2 5 .6 6 6 7 .4 3 7 4 5 .4 7 1 4 0 .1 5 7 .8 9 6 N o B a s ic M a t h v Y e s 2 0 7 .7 5 0 0 .6 7 8 6 .4 1 3 5 9 .4 2 6 0 8 .3 8 5 .7 0 8 N o I n te r m e d ia te M a t h Y e s 4 2 8 .7 9 7 6 .8 1 2 5 .3 9 9 0 8 . 3 7 2 0 1 - .1 0 2 .9 2 0 N o A d v a n c e d M a t h Y e s 1 0 0 1 4 .8 6 1 0 .5 8 8 4 .2 6 0 1 6 .4 1 1 4 9 2 .4 1 2 .0 3 0 N o M A T H T O T A L Y e s 1 1 9 1 8 .8 2 7 9 .6 1 2 6 .2 9 7 7 2 .3 7 5 1 4 2 .3 2 7 .0 3 0 N o Y I N Y e s 1 4 4 1 9 .8 2 7 2 .7 5 2 5 . 2 0 1 6 1 .2 2 9 3 9 1 .3 5 3 .1 9 0 Y A N G y° Y e s 1 3 6 2 0 .8 2 8 9 .6 0 9 8 .2 5 5 1 6 .2 5 4 0 7 3 .5 9 8 . 0 0 1 N o Y I N - Y A N G Y e s 8 6 6 .8 3 8 0 .7 5 0 0 . 3 3 1 8 1 .4 1 8 3 3 .5 0 5 .6 3 4 N o T O T A L ( C C R ) Y e g 1 4 8 2 0 .8 2 2 9 .7 0 3 4 .2 1 0 3 9 .2 0 6 1 7 2 .4 2 6 .0 2 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 3 Appendix H3: Differences on GPA for CCCS NSE and NNSE. Descriptive Statistics and T-test. COURSE CATEGORY I s E n g l i s h y o u r n a t iv e la n g u a g e ? Group Statistics T - te s t F o r e q u a lity o f m e a n s N M e a n G P A S td . D e v i a t i o n t S ig . ( 2 - t a ile d ) C S U T r a n s f e r a b le Y e s 1 4 8 2 0 2 .9 8 3 9 2 .7 9 6 8 .7 9 5 6 2 .7 2 2 1 6 1 .0 7 4 .2 9 3 U C T r a n s f e r a b le Y e s 1 4 5 2 0 2 .9 6 3 4 2 .7 5 2 5 .8 2 0 4 0 .7 1 7 1 8 1 .2 1 0 .2 3 7 I G E T C Y e s 1 3 9 1 9 2 .9 3 4 0 2 .7 7 9 7 .8 1 2 2 3 .7 5 4 1 9 .8 2 8 .4 1 6 O C C U P A T I O N A L x ^° Y e s 1 3 8 2 0 3 .0 8 6 4 2 .7 2 0 8 .9 0 1 8 0 1 .0 1 2 0 4 1 .5 3 0 .1 3 9 N o R E M E D I A L Y e s 7 5 6 2 .8 5 3 3 1 .8 2 1 4 .8 7 1 3 7 1 .2 1 5 3 4 2 .0 3 8 .0 9 3 N o R e m e d i a l E n g l i s h Y e g 1 3 5 1 6 2 .9 2 7 0 2 .8 8 1 0 . 8 0 1 7 1 1 .0 5 4 7 4 .1 6 9 .8 6 8 N o B a s ic E n g l i s h Y e g 1 0 1 4 .0 0 0 0 3 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 I n te r m e d ia te E n g l i s h I 'J 0 Y e s 9 6 4 2 .9 3 6 5 1 .7 5 0 0 .7 5 3 1 0 1 .5 0 0 0 0 1 .5 7 4 .2 1 2 N o A d v a n c e d E n g l i s h Y g g 3 6 5 2 .8 1 9 4 3 .0 0 0 0 .8 9 5 6 5 .7 0 7 1 1 - .5 1 6 .6 2 4 N o E N G L I S H T O T A L Y e s 1 0 0 1 3 3 .2 0 5 0 3 . 2 0 5 1 .9 0 0 7 6 .6 7 0 6 6 - . 0 0 1 1 .0 0 0 E S L N ° Y e s 5 0 ( a ) 2 .7 0 3 3 1 .0 6 1 8 6 1 .5 2 4 .1 4 4 N o R e m e d ia l M a t h Y e g 1 1 7 1 7 3 .0 2 3 0 2 .5 5 9 7 1 .0 0 9 4 2 1 .1 9 2 6 6 1 .5 5 4 .1 4 4 N o B a s ic M a t h Y e s 9 8 1 2 3 .1 4 5 9 2 .6 7 2 0 .8 6 5 6 7 1 .0 1 2 5 8 - .9 3 3 .3 7 3 I n te r m e d ia te M a t h I ' * 0 Y e s 4 0 7 2 .6 6 2 5 3 .0 7 1 4 1 .3 2 7 1 7 1 .0 1 7 7 0 1 .2 5 6 .2 4 5 N o A d v a n c e d M a t h Y e s 1 7 7 3 .5 2 9 4 2 .7 3 8 1 .9 2 6 5 3 1 . 5 5 7 1 1 1 .1 8 6 .3 3 8 N o M A T H T O T A L Y e s 8 2 2 .8 7 5 0 1 .7 5 0 0 1 .6 4 2 0 8 1 .0 6 0 6 6 1 .0 9 9 .2 8 4 N o Y I N Y e s 1 4 4 1 9 3 .0 0 1 8 2 .8 0 0 3 .7 0 3 3 7 .7 5 7 5 0 1 . 5 0 1 .1 4 7 Y A N G Y e s 1 3 4 2 0 3 .0 3 0 6 2 .6 4 0 9 . 9 1 2 5 1 1 .1 0 6 1 2 - .0 4 9 .9 6 2 N o Y I N - Y A N G Y e s 7 9 5 3 .6 3 8 5 3 .6 5 0 0 .7 3 7 9 8 .4 8 7 3 4 1 .1 9 2 .2 4 5 N o T O T A L ( G P A ) Y e s 1 4 7 2 0 3 .0 0 2 3 2 .7 6 2 2 .8 3 1 3 5 .8 4 6 9 3 1 .1 9 2 .2 4 5 a. t cannot be computed because at least one of the groups is empty. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 4 Appendix II: NNSE Differences on CPR Between CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA tests. COURSE CATEGORY P o p u l a t i o n 1 = C C C S 2 = H i s p 3 = W h i t e Group Statistics ANOVA N M e a n C P R S t d . D e v i a t i o n F S i g . 1 C S U T r a n s f e r a b le 2 3 1 4 8 1 5 8 3 1 3 3 1 . 4 7 7 1 1 .3 7 5 2 1 .5 0 9 3 .4 8 1 0 4 .4 2 6 2 4 .6 3 0 9 2 8 .3 2 4 .0 0 0 1 U C T r a n s f e r a b le 2 3 1 4 6 1 5 5 8 1 3 1 1 .4 0 7 6 1 .3 0 2 7 1 . 4 3 0 1 .4 2 8 8 9 . 4 0 4 0 1 .6 7 1 5 2 8 .5 6 7 .0 0 0 1 I G E T C 2 3 1 4 1 1 4 7 2 1 2 3 1 .3 6 3 4 1 .2 5 6 7 1 .3 4 1 2 . 3 5 0 2 1 . 3 7 3 5 1 .5 3 3 8 8 7 .1 1 5 . 0 0 1 1 O C C U P A T I O N A L 2 3 1 4 0 1 5 5 9 1 2 7 1 .5 2 5 8 1 .4 2 7 4 1 .5 0 3 8 .5 7 9 6 8 .5 1 5 4 8 .5 9 5 3 3 3 .2 3 8 .0 3 9 1 R E M E D I A L 2 3 1 3 3 1 4 4 9 1 2 0 1 .4 4 2 0 1 .3 6 2 5 1 .5 1 4 0 .3 9 4 9 2 .5 0 3 8 9 .6 3 9 8 0 6 .0 4 7 .0 0 2 1 R e m e d ia l E n g l i s h 2 3 3 5 5 5 0 5 5 1 .5 4 9 0 1 .4 8 2 3 1 .7 3 4 9 .8 8 5 7 6 .7 9 7 1 0 .9 4 8 4 5 2 .4 4 3 .0 8 8 1 B a s ic E n g l i s h 2 3 1 1 6 1 1 7 8 9 1 1 .4 0 7 3 1 .2 3 4 8 1 .5 2 9 6 . 4 7 3 5 1 .4 3 1 0 0 .6 4 2 1 7 2 3 .9 9 9 .0 0 0 1 I n te r m e d ia te E n g l i s h 2 3 4 1 9 4 2 8 2 1 .2 0 3 3 1 .1 2 7 3 1 .2 1 3 4 .3 8 4 6 2 .3 3 8 6 9 .4 3 0 5 5 3 .0 7 6 .0 4 7 1 A d v a n c e d E n g l i s h 2 3 1 1 1 9 8 8 7 9 1 .2 3 6 9 1 .1 8 2 6 1 .1 8 8 4 .3 7 0 5 4 .3 4 7 8 0 .3 2 0 9 9 1 .2 1 6 .2 9 7 1 E N G L I S H T O T A L 2 3 1 4 0 1 5 1 4 1 2 8 1 .4 3 3 4 1 .2 9 5 9 1 .5 2 1 3 .4 2 8 1 8 .3 9 8 8 3 .5 7 5 9 7 2 2 .6 6 1 .0 0 0 1 E S L 2 3 2 1 1 6 2 2 7 1 .5 2 8 6 1 .7 8 1 0 2 .1 5 0 7 .7 2 3 9 8 .7 5 1 4 7 .8 9 6 1 2 4 .1 6 8 .0 1 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 5 Appendix II: (Continued) COURSE CATEGORY P o p u la ti o n 1 = C C C S 2 = H i s p 3 = W h i t e Group Statistics ANOVA N M e a n C P R S t d . D e v i a t i o n F S i f l . 1 R e m e d ia l M a t h 2 3 1 6 7 6 8 4 7 1 .1 1 6 7 1 .1 4 6 2 1 .1 2 9 4 .2 6 3 8 7 .3 4 0 1 7 .2 9 4 7 9 .1 1 2 .8 9 4 1 B a s ic M a t h 2 3 2 4 9 5 0 5 6 1 . 0 9 3 1 1 .1 2 2 6 1 . 1 7 1 1 .2 3 8 9 5 .2 9 1 5 8 .3 9 0 0 3 .8 4 7 .4 2 9 1 I n te r m e d i a te M a t h 2 3 4 6 7 2 5 5 1 1 .2 5 0 0 1 .1 1 9 4 1 .1 6 2 4 .4 9 1 6 0 .3 2 1 7 6 .4 0 2 9 5 3 .4 7 6 . 0 3 1 1 A d v a n c e d M a t h 2 3 1 0 8 5 6 1 5 3 1 .3 0 0 0 1 .1 5 7 8 1 . 1 8 7 1 .4 0 4 6 3 .3 4 0 4 0 .3 3 8 0 5 7 .4 6 8 . 0 0 1 1 M A T H T O T A L 2 3 1 2 5 1 3 8 7 1 0 5 1 .2 9 2 4 1 . 1 9 6 1 1 .2 1 9 0 .3 8 3 1 5 .2 9 8 1 6 .3 4 0 0 5 5 .7 0 7 .0 0 3 1 Y I N 2 3 1 3 9 1 5 4 6 1 2 8 4 .3 5 1 6 3 .1 6 6 2 3 .3 8 1 8 1 .8 5 0 6 3 1 .4 8 7 7 6 1 .5 8 5 4 3 3 8 .8 6 3 .0 0 0 1 Y A N G 2 3 1 4 5 1 5 9 2 1 3 7 4 . 6 8 3 1 3 . 7 3 7 1 4 .2 0 5 4 1 .7 0 4 2 2 1 .4 9 3 3 5 1 .9 6 6 6 7 2 8 .7 7 6 .0 0 0 1 Y I N - Y A N G 2 3 1 2 6 1 2 9 5 1 1 0 3 .8 5 6 7 2 .7 6 1 4 3 .2 3 8 5 2 .7 0 7 3 7 1 .7 0 2 9 3 2 .1 2 4 8 9 2 2 .5 7 5 .0 0 0 1 T O T A L C O U R S E S 2 3 1 4 8 1 6 0 9 1 3 8 5 .1 6 9 5 3 .9 4 5 8 4 .4 6 8 6 1 .8 6 7 9 1 1 .4 3 7 5 7 1 .8 1 2 1 7 4 9 .7 7 4 .0 0 0 Note. 1 - CCCS, 2 - Hispanics, 3 - Whites. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 6 Appendix 12: NNSE Differences on CCR for CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA tests. COURSE CATEGORY P o p u l a t i o n 1 = C C C S 2 = H i s p 3 = W h i t e Group Statistics ANOVA N M e a n C C R S t d . D e v i a t i o n F S i g . 1 C S U T r a n s f e r a b le 2 3 1 4 8 1 5 6 4 1 3 0 .8 2 4 8 .6 9 2 8 .8 0 9 4 .2 1 5 7 8 .2 5 8 7 5 .2 2 4 8 3 2 8 .7 7 7 .0 0 0 1 U C T r a n s f e r a b le 2 3 1 4 5 1 5 3 0 1 2 7 .8 1 6 3 .6 8 6 2 .7 9 3 4 .2 2 2 5 2 .2 6 9 3 4 .2 5 0 8 3 2 3 .7 7 7 .0 0 0 1 I G E T C 2 3 1 4 0 1 4 3 6 1 1 6 .8 0 0 9 .6 6 6 0 .7 7 9 0 .2 4 2 6 2 . 2 9 4 3 1 .2 8 2 1 4 2 0 .4 1 2 .0 0 0 1 O C C U P A T I O N A L 2 3 1 3 8 1 5 3 5 1 2 2 .8 5 6 8 .6 8 2 4 .8 3 4 3 .2 4 2 6 6 .3 0 8 1 7 .2 4 4 4 6 3 3 .4 0 2 .0 0 0 1 R E M E D I A L 2 3 9 5 1 2 8 1 9 8 .7 4 6 7 .7 0 4 0 .8 5 7 9 . 3 5 4 0 1 .3 4 0 2 6 .2 7 9 2 7 9 .8 6 6 .0 0 0 1 R e m e d ia l E n g l i s h 2 3 2 4 4 9 6 5 1 .7 6 3 4 .6 9 3 7 .8 4 1 7 .4 1 1 9 2 .3 9 8 0 8 .3 2 4 1 2 3 .5 1 5 .0 3 0 1 B a s ic E n g l i s h 2 3 1 1 0 1 1 1 9 8 8 .8 3 3 5 . 7 4 2 1 .8 9 3 6 .2 6 1 4 4 .3 5 3 3 9 .2 7 9 4 6 1 0 .7 6 2 .0 0 0 1 I n te r m e d ia te E n g l i s h 2 3 3 9 8 7 6 7 8 .8 2 4 8 .6 8 0 0 .9 0 3 8 .3 4 1 8 8 .4 1 9 1 5 .2 7 9 8 2 1 2 .6 2 4 .0 0 0 1 A d v a n c e d E n g l i s h 2 3 1 0 3 9 3 1 7 1 .8 2 8 8 .6 6 5 9 .9 2 1 4 . 3 0 4 0 1 .3 9 2 0 4 .2 0 8 4 0 2 2 .2 1 8 .0 0 0 1 E N G L I S H T O T A L 2 3 1 3 9 1 4 9 5 1 2 4 .8 0 1 6 .6 5 5 8 .8 6 6 3 .2 6 8 5 0 . 3 1 9 9 1 .2 5 6 9 9 3 7 .0 6 9 .0 0 0 1 E S L 2 3 7 1 1 9 2 0 .7 1 4 3 .8 0 2 4 .9 5 4 2 .3 9 3 4 0 .3 0 6 3 6 .0 9 6 6 0 2 .7 8 8 .0 6 5 1 R e m e d ia l M a t h 2 3 1 3 6 9 6 3 5 .7 2 2 5 .6 8 3 3 .7 7 2 6 .4 3 7 4 5 .4 1 2 0 5 .4 0 1 1 0 .8 2 9 .4 3 7 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 7 Appendix 12: (Continued) COURSE CATEGORY P o p u l a t io n 1 = C C C S 2 = H i s p a n i c 3 = W h i t e Group Statistics ANOVA N M e a n C C R S td . D e v i a t i o n F S ig . 1 B a s ic M a t h 2 3 2 0 8 8 4 4 5 .7 5 0 0 .6 2 4 8 .8 4 4 4 .4 1 3 5 9 .4 1 6 5 5 .3 5 0 6 8 6 .7 8 6 .0 0 1 1 I n te r m e d i a te M a t h 2 3 4 2 6 4 1 4 3 .7 9 7 6 .6 5 1 7 . 8 1 0 1 .3 9 9 0 8 .4 2 8 9 0 .3 8 2 4 5 4 .8 3 2 .0 0 8 1 A d v a n c e d M a t h 2 3 1 0 0 5 0 0 4 4 .8 6 1 0 .6 0 8 8 .6 4 2 3 .2 6 0 1 6 .4 2 0 1 7 .3 9 9 3 6 1 6 . 7 3 1 .0 0 0 1 M A T H T O T A L 2 3 1 1 9 1 3 4 0 9 7 .8 2 7 9 . 5 7 7 1 .7 2 5 5 .2 9 7 7 2 .3 6 2 3 5 .3 6 4 6 7 3 2 .6 4 7 .0 0 0 1 Y I N 2 3 1 4 4 1 5 8 0 1 3 6 .8 2 7 2 .6 9 6 5 .8 1 4 9 . 2 0 1 6 1 .2 5 8 4 6 .2 4 2 1 4 2 8 .8 9 6 .0 0 0 1 Y A N G 2 3 1 3 6 1 5 0 1 1 2 7 .8 2 8 9 .5 9 9 7 .7 7 7 9 .2 5 5 1 6 . 3 1 8 8 1 .2 9 8 9 4 4 8 .6 6 4 .0 0 0 1 Y I N - Y A N G 2 3 8 6 9 3 3 6 9 .8 3 8 0 .7 9 7 7 .8 0 0 5 . 3 3 1 8 1 .3 3 0 7 2 .3 4 1 1 3 .5 8 3 .5 5 8 1 T O T A L C O U R S E S 2 3 1 4 8 1 6 0 8 1 3 7 .8 2 2 9 .6 7 7 7 .7 9 2 5 .2 1 0 3 9 .2 3 9 4 4 .2 2 8 7 0 3 7 .4 7 0 .0 0 0 Note. 1 - CCCS, 2 - Hispanics, 3 - Whites. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 8 Appendix 13: NNSE Differences on GPA for CCCS, Hispanics, and Whites. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA tests. COURSE CATEGORY P o p u l a t i o n 1 = C C C S 2 = H i s p a n ic 3 = W h i t e Group Statistics ANOVA N M e a n G P A S t d . D e v i a t i o n F S ig . 1 C S U T r a n s f e r a b le 2 3 1 4 8 1 5 4 3 1 2 9 2 .9 8 3 9 2 .4 7 8 6 3 .0 0 6 5 .7 9 5 6 2 .7 9 4 4 6 . 7 5 7 2 1 4 9 .8 3 7 .0 0 0 1 U C T r a n s f e r a b le 2 3 1 4 5 1 5 0 7 1 2 5 2 .9 6 3 4 2 .4 4 7 0 2 .9 0 6 1 .8 2 0 4 0 .8 1 8 5 3 . 8 0 4 7 1 4 1 .2 4 1 .0 0 0 1 I G E T C 2 3 1 3 9 1 4 0 5 1 1 2 2 .9 3 4 0 2 .3 5 7 7 2 .8 7 0 5 .8 1 2 2 3 . 8 5 3 5 1 .8 4 2 0 0 4 4 .4 8 7 .0 0 0 1 O C C U P A T I O N A L 2 3 1 3 8 1 4 8 7 1 2 1 3 .0 8 6 4 2 .4 4 4 1 3 .0 3 4 6 .9 0 1 8 0 .9 1 7 2 6 .8 8 2 5 4 5 0 .5 7 9 .0 0 0 1 R E M E D I A L 2 3 7 5 9 6 5 7 2 2 .8 5 3 3 2 .4 6 6 6 3 .0 6 0 0 .8 7 1 3 7 1 .0 6 6 5 8 1 .0 2 1 9 2 1 4 .4 3 4 .0 0 0 1 R e m e d ia l E n g l i s h 2 3 1 0 1 6 0 7 4 .0 0 0 0 2 .9 8 3 5 3 .7 1 4 3 .0 0 0 0 0 .8 6 3 4 0 .4 8 7 9 5 9 .2 4 8 .0 0 0 1 B a s ic E n g l i s h 2 3 9 6 7 0 7 6 4 2 .9 3 6 5 2 .5 1 2 8 3 .0 4 8 9 .7 5 3 1 0 1 .0 0 3 2 2 .8 7 9 2 5 1 5 .4 8 3 .0 0 0 1 I n te r m e d ia te E n g l i s h 2 3 3 6 8 1 1 7 6 2 .8 1 9 4 2 .2 9 8 3 2 .8 0 9 2 .8 9 5 6 5 1 .0 7 2 2 9 . 9 4 1 5 1 1 1 .6 6 9 .0 0 0 1 A d v a n c e d E n g l i s h 2 3 1 0 0 8 4 9 7 0 3 .2 0 5 0 2 .4 3 9 6 3 .1 2 3 8 .9 0 0 7 6 1 .0 3 3 3 0 .8 4 1 5 9 3 7 .3 9 8 .0 0 0 1 E n g l i s h T O T A L 2 3 1 3 5 1 3 5 2 1 1 8 2 .9 2 7 0 2 .3 6 4 5 2 .9 8 0 9 . 8 0 1 7 1 .9 3 8 3 2 .8 7 9 3 4 4 3 .2 6 6 .0 0 0 1 E S L 2 3 5 7 6 1 9 2 .7 0 3 3 2 .6 1 5 7 3 .1 6 6 7 1 .0 6 1 8 6 .8 0 5 5 6 .5 3 6 0 5 3 .8 3 8 .0 2 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 9 Appendix 13: (Continued). COURSE CATEGORY P o p u l a t io n 1 = C C C S 2 = H i s p a n ic 3 = W h i t e Group Statistics ANOVA N M e a n G P A S t d . D e v i a t i o n F S i g . 1 R e m e d i a l M a t h 2 3 8 5 1 8 2 6 2 .8 7 5 0 2 .3 0 0 0 2 .3 9 7 4 1 .6 4 2 0 8 1 .2 1 6 1 7 1 .4 8 7 7 9 .9 1 6 . 4 0 1 1 B a s ic M a t h 2 3 1 7 8 0 1 4 3 3 .5 2 9 4 2 .2 0 6 5 3 .1 3 9 5 .9 2 6 5 3 1 .1 4 4 9 3 1 .1 4 0 8 3 2 4 .0 5 2 .0 0 0 1 I n te r m e d i a te M a t h 2 3 4 0 5 6 5 4 0 2 .6 6 2 5 2 .2 5 0 1 3 .0 2 5 0 1 .3 2 7 1 7 1 .1 1 9 0 5 1 .0 9 1 6 3 1 0 .6 7 6 .0 0 0 1 A d v a n c e d M a t h 2 3 9 8 4 3 7 3 8 3 .1 4 5 9 2 .2 2 5 2 2 .6 2 2 8 .8 6 5 6 7 1 .0 4 9 8 6 .9 8 2 4 6 3 3 .7 3 6 .0 0 0 1 M a t h T O T A L 2 3 1 1 7 1 2 3 3 9 0 3 .0 2 3 0 2 .0 8 3 1 2 .6 9 5 8 1 .0 0 9 4 2 1 .0 4 7 3 9 1 .1 5 2 9 7 5 3 .4 7 8 .0 0 0 1 Y I N 2 3 1 4 4 1 5 4 9 1 3 0 3 .0 0 1 8 2 .5 0 3 5 3 .0 4 3 4 .7 0 3 3 7 .7 8 9 7 4 .7 3 1 5 2 5 1 .5 3 9 .0 0 0 1 Y A N G 2 3 1 3 4 1 4 4 0 1 2 4 3 .0 3 0 6 2 .1 4 1 3 2 .8 0 3 1 . 9 1 2 5 1 .9 4 9 4 2 .9 5 7 4 9 7 6 .0 5 2 .0 0 0 1 Y I N - Y A N G 2 3 7 9 8 7 8 6 6 3 .6 3 8 5 3 .3 8 7 7 3 .2 1 9 2 .7 3 7 9 8 .9 5 5 9 5 1 .1 8 3 0 9 3 .6 9 2 .0 2 5 1 T O T A L C O U R S E S 2 3 1 4 7 1 5 8 3 1 3 2 3 .0 0 2 3 2 .4 2 2 3 2 .9 7 6 1 .8 3 1 3 5 .8 8 9 8 4 .8 7 6 9 8 4 8 .8 6 9 .0 0 0 Note. 1 - CCCS, 2 - Hispanics, 3 - Whites. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 7 0 Appendix 14: NNSE Courses Attem pted and Courses Passed, by Population. Descriptive Statistics. C O U R S E C A T E G O R Y P o p u l a t i o n 1 = C C C S 2 = H i s p a n i c s 3 = W h i t e s N M e a n o f c o u r s e s A t t e m p t e d S t d . D e v i a t i o n C o u r s e s A t t e m p t e d M e a n o f c o u r s e s P a s s e d S t d . D e v i a t i o n C o u r s e s P a s s e d 1 1 4 8 1 8 .0 3 3 8 8 .8 7 5 1 1 1 5 .1 4 8 6 8 .2 7 1 2 2 c s u T r a n s f e r a b le 2 1 5 6 4 1 6 .3 5 0 4 1 0 .8 8 2 3 2 1 1 .9 2 7 7 8 .8 6 1 5 1 3 1 3 0 1 6 .3 0 0 0 1 0 .5 6 6 6 2 1 3 .6 0 0 0 9 .2 8 4 1 5 1 1 4 5 1 5 .4 5 5 2 7 .6 5 0 3 3 1 2 .8 2 0 7 7 .1 2 3 5 8 U C T r a n s f e r a b le 2 1 5 3 0 1 3 .4 8 6 9 9 .3 2 8 4 0 9 .6 8 8 2 7 .5 2 6 9 9 3 1 2 7 1 2 .8 1 8 9 8 .9 6 7 6 8 1 0 .3 9 3 7 7 .4 6 8 6 2 1 1 4 0 1 1 .2 3 5 7 5 .7 0 9 5 3 9 .2 6 4 3 5 .2 8 8 2 5 I G E T C 2 1 4 3 6 9 .9 0 9 5 6 .8 9 5 2 5 6 .8 8 7 9 5 .4 7 3 0 9 3 1 1 6 9 .1 9 8 3 7 .0 8 2 4 0 7 .2 6 7 2 5 .7 1 0 9 5 1 1 3 8 6 .5 2 5 .3 7 1 5 .6 1 5 9 4 .8 9 6 4 8 O C C U P A T I O N A L 2 1 5 3 5 7 .2 6 6 .4 0 9 5 .1 2 1 8 5 .2 2 5 9 4 3 1 2 2 8 .2 0 8 .1 6 3 7 .1 3 1 1 7 .2 5 7 8 8 1 9 5 3 .3 1 5 8 4 .9 0 1 7 2 2 .4 6 3 2 3 .7 6 6 6 2 R E M E D I A L 2 1 2 8 1 4 .1 2 9 6 4 .5 1 9 6 2 2 .7 8 9 2 3 .2 3 1 8 1 3 9 8 5 .5 1 0 2 6 .0 0 5 5 7 4 .7 5 5 1 5 .3 2 2 7 0 1 2 4 3 .1 2 5 0 4 .4 5 5 7 0 2 .5 0 0 0 4 .0 7 5 3 8 R e m e d ia l 2 4 9 6 3 .0 1 4 1 3 .5 1 2 4 3 2 .0 7 0 6 2 .5 6 8 0 8 3 5 1 4 .1 7 6 5 4 .2 6 4 7 7 3 .5 4 9 0 3 .7 8 5 8 4 1 1 1 0 3 .1 9 0 9 2 .1 0 0 6 6 2 .5 8 1 8 1 .7 4 7 2 5 B a s ic E n g l i s h 2 1 1 1 9 2 .4 6 9 2 2 .2 0 6 4 1 1 .7 4 5 3 1 .6 5 5 0 5 3 8 8 2 .9 8 8 6 2 .4 1 4 0 1 2 .7 7 2 7 2 .3 4 2 6 4 1 3 9 1 . 2 0 5 1 .5 2 2 1 2 . 9 2 3 1 .3 5 4 2 7 I n te r m e d i a te 2 8 7 6 1 .3 8 7 0 .7 3 7 4 2 .7 8 6 5 .4 3 4 3 5 3 7 8 1 .0 3 8 5 .1 9 3 5 5 . 9 2 3 1 .2 6 8 1 9 1 1 0 3 1 .8 2 5 2 .8 0 9 5 9 1 .4 4 6 6 .6 6 7 5 7 A d v a n c e d 2 9 3 1 2 .0 1 4 0 1 .0 8 0 0 3 1 .2 7 9 3 .8 9 5 2 6 3 7 1 1 .6 0 5 6 .7 4 6 0 2 1 .4 2 2 5 .6 4 7 2 4 1 1 3 9 4 .7 5 5 4 3 .9 2 4 7 3 3 .8 0 5 8 3 .0 7 8 3 9 E N G L I S H T O T A L 2 1 4 9 5 4 .9 1 5 1 4 .0 8 5 9 4 3 .2 5 0 8 2 .9 7 0 9 6 3 1 2 4 5 .4 1 1 3 4 .8 6 9 0 4 4 .8 2 2 6 4 .5 3 7 2 0 1 7 4.2857 3.40168 3.2857 2.69037 E S L 2 1 1 9 5 .6 8 0 7 4 .2 6 8 4 0 4 .8 5 7 1 3 .9 5 8 0 1 3 2 0 8 .8 0 0 0 5 .1 1 5 5 1 8 .3 5 0 0 4 .8 4 7 9 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix 14: (Continued). COURSE CATEGORY Population 1 = C C C S 2 = H i s p a n i c s 3 = W h i t e s N M e a n o f c o u r s e s A t t e m p t e d S t d . D e v i a t i o n C o u r s e s A t t e m p t e d M e a n o f c o u r s e s P a s s e d S t d . D e v i a t i o n C o u r s e s P a s s e d 1 1 3 2 .2 3 0 8 2 .2 7 8 6 6 1 .3 0 7 7 1 .7 5 0 4 6 R e m e d i a l M a t h 2 6 9 6 1 .7 5 2 9 1 . 1 3 5 1 1 1 .0 8 7 6 .8 4 9 5 9 3 3 5 1 .6 2 8 6 1 .3 0 8 0 2 1 .1 4 2 9 .8 0 9 6 1 1 2 0 1 .3 5 0 0 .9 3 3 3 0 .8 5 0 0 .4 8 9 3 6 B a s ic M a t h 2 8 8 4 1 .7 1 4 9 1 .0 6 4 2 8 .8 9 5 9 .5 9 4 8 3 3 4 5 1 .2 4 4 4 . 5 7 0 3 1 .9 3 3 3 .4 4 7 2 1 1 4 2 1 .1 1 9 0 .3 9 5 2 4 .8 0 9 5 .3 9 7 4 4 I n te r m e d ia te M a t h 2 6 4 1 1 . 3 9 3 1 .7 7 7 5 5 .7 5 6 6 .4 5 0 7 5 3 4 3 1 .1 8 6 0 .5 4 5 8 0 .8 8 3 7 .4 9 8 0 6 1 1 0 0 2 .4 6 0 0 1 .6 3 5 5 9 2 .0 3 0 0 1 .3 1 3 9 1 A d v a n c e d M a t h 2 5 0 0 2 .0 4 0 0 1 .5 6 5 6 6 1 .1 7 0 0 1 .2 4 1 0 4 3 4 4 2 .2 9 5 5 1 .3 5 6 8 0 1 . 4 0 9 1 1 .0 6 3 5 2 1 1 1 9 2 .9 3 2 8 2 .0 0 7 3 2 2 .2 7 7 3 1 .5 7 8 0 5 M A T H T O T A L 2 1 3 4 0 3 .4 6 9 4 2 .2 0 3 2 2 1 .9 5 4 5 1 .6 0 2 8 9 3 9 7 2 .7 3 2 0 1 .8 7 9 2 5 1 .8 7 6 3 1 .4 3 0 7 5 1 1 4 4 1 3 .4 6 5 3 7 .6 1 2 9 4 1 1 .1 8 7 5 6 .4 6 0 1 7 Y I N 2 1 5 8 0 1 4 .9 2 6 6 9 .8 4 6 3 0 1 0 .7 8 7 3 7 .7 8 5 8 7 3 1 3 6 1 4 .6 3 9 7 1 1 .0 1 3 5 8 1 2 . 5 2 2 1 9 .9 1 5 1 7 1 1 3 6 9 .1 3 2 4 5 .4 9 9 9 1 7 . 5 4 4 1 5 .1 5 3 7 4 Y A N G 2 1 5 0 1 7 .3 3 7 8 5 .9 4 0 1 3 4 .7 4 2 2 4 .8 4 0 0 6 3 1 2 7 7 .2 1 2 6 6 .4 3 2 3 5 5 .7 8 7 4 5 .5 6 8 6 6 1 8 6 1 .6 9 7 7 1 .3 1 1 2 2 1 .4 0 7 0 1 .2 3 0 7 6 Y I N - Y A N G 2 9 3 3 2 .7 0 1 0 2 .9 7 9 8 3 2 .1 5 6 5 2 .7 7 0 0 0 3 6 9 2 .6 3 7 7 3 .4 2 9 8 5 2 .1 3 0 4 2 .8 4 8 7 0 1 1 4 8 2 2 .4 7 9 7 1 1 .6 6 4 5 1 1 8 . 6 3 5 1 1 0 .2 1 1 4 7 T O T A L C O U R S E S 2 1 6 0 8 2 3 .0 8 3 3 1 4 .2 1 1 7 7 1 6 .2 7 7 4 1 1 .1 6 6 9 0 3 1 3 7 2 2 .5 4 7 4 1 4 .6 0 7 0 9 1 8 .8 6 8 6 1 2 .9 3 7 5 3 T o t a l C o u r s e 1 1 4 8 .8 2 2 9 .2 1 0 3 9 .8 2 2 9 .2 1 0 3 9 C o m p l e t i o n R a t i o fC C R I 2 1 6 0 8 .6 7 7 7 .2 3 9 4 4 .6 7 7 7 .2 3 9 4 4 3 1 3 7 .7 9 2 5 .2 2 8 7 0 .7 9 2 5 .2 2 8 7 0 Note. 1 - CCCS, 2 - Hispanics, 3 - Whites. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 7 2 A PPENDIX J: Intersegm ental G eneral Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) The IGETC is a statewide articulation agreement between the California Comm unity Colleges, California State, and University o f California schools. W ith seven distinct areas, the IGETC is a complete description o f the course requirements to transfer. The descriptions o f each area are below and an example o f an IGETC program o f study is attached. Area 1, English composition, contains three divisions (A,B, and C). The California State Universities require three courses one in each division and the University o f California requires two courses in division A and B. Courses vary by school but typically include English 101 and Speech. Area 2, Mathematical Concepts and Quantitative Reasoning, requires the completion o f one course. Courses in area 2 include Math and Statistics. Area 3, Arts and Humanities, contains two divisions (A and B). Three courses are required with at least one course in division A and one course in division B. Common courses include Art, Music, Theater, and Foreign Language. Area 4, Social and Behavioral Sciences, requires three courses. Courses in A rea 4 include History, Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Geography, African- America and Chicano Studies, and Political Science. Area 5, Physical and Biological Sciences, contains two divisions (A and B). Two courses are required: one course in division A and one in division B including a laboratory course. Area 5 courses are commonly Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Geography, Anatomy, and Physics. Area 6, U.S. History, Constitution, and American Ideals, is not specifically part o f the IGETC but m ay be complete prior to transfer. Courses include History and African-American and Chicano Studies. Area 7, Language Other than English, is ONLY required by the University o f California. Courses include foreign languages, such as Spanish and French. Reproduced 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. APPENDIX K: Selective Students Characteristics (CCCS -Community College Chinese Students) by percent Student characteristics Num ber and (%) o f subjects* Transfer** (% within Transfer) Gender (% w ithin Gender) D esired Educational Degree (% w ithin Student Characteristics) Yes No M ale Female Class Only Voc. Cert. Assoc, or B.A. M aster D octoral M edical ^ H V © © 0 s w C hinese Population* 204 (100%) 74.1 21.3 39.6 60.4 61 .5 5.1 56.4 16.9 O O N ative Speakers o f English (NSE): YES NO 21 (10.3) 164 (80.4) 81.3 20 / / / / 9.5 61.9 28.6 O O 78.1 21.9 39.6 60.4 1.3 0.6 26.8 54.8 16.6 Total Number % o f Total NSE 185 (90.7) 134 (78.4) 37 (21.6) 2 (1.1) 1 (.6) 44 (24.7) 99 (55.6) 32 (18) 178 100 A verage Grades in H S: A (A, A-) B ( B + , B-) C (C + , C-) 58 (28.4) 107 (52.5) 34 (16.7) 31 3 20 15 6 37 9 1.8 0.5 16.1 55.4 26.8 52.1 62.5 63.6 48.3 1 / 25 58.7 14.4 o 16 17.5 20.8 12.9 / / 36.7 56.7 6.7 D and below 1 (0.5) .7% / / .9% / / / / 100 Total Number % o f Total HS Grade 200 (98%) 144 (78.3) 40 (21.7) 77 (39.9) 116 (60.1) 2 (1%) 1 (.5%) 46 (24.1) 109 (57.1) 33 (17.3) 191 100 Age: Below 30 30 and above 155 (76) 48 (23.5) 59.5 40.5 81.5 18.5 83.3 16.7 70.6 29.4 / / 23.6 58.8 17.6 4.3 2.1 29.8 48.9 14.9 O Total Number % o f Total Age 203 (99.5) 146 (77.7) 42 (22.3) 78 (39.6) 119 (60.4) 2 (1%) 1 (.5%) 49 (25.1) 110 (56.4) 33 (16.9) 178 1 0 0 to - j C O Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX K: (Continued) Student characteristics Number and (%) Transfer** (% within Transfer) Gender (% within Gender) Desired Educational Degree (% within Student Characteristics) of subjects* Yes No Male Female Class Only Voc. Cert. Assoc. or B.A. Master Doctoral Medical Total (%) Parental Education*** 6th G rade or less 14 (6.9) 1.4 7.1 / 4.2 / / 30 40 30 Junior High 15 (7.4) 23.3 21.4 17.9 26.1 2.3 2.3 27.3 54.5 13.6 Some HS 16 (7.8) 8.9 9.5 11.5 6.7 / / 35.3 41.2 23.5 " ■ o Finish H S (GED) 32(15.7) 16.4 19 23.1 12.6 / / 27.3 66.7 6.1 Some Cmty Col. 14(6.9) 6.2 14.3 9% 7.6 / / 31.3 50 18.8 O Compl.Cmty Col. 19 (9.3) 4.1 4.8 1.3 5.9 / / / 87.5 12.5 O Some 4-year col. 9 (4.4) 4.8 4.8 3.8 5% / / 11.1 66.7 22.2 4-year college 28(13.7) 15.1 2.4 9% 13.4 / / 13 60.9 26.1 Some graduate 5 (2.5) .7% 2.4 1.3 .8% / / 50 / 50 Graduate degree 15(7.4) 6.8 2.4 7.7 5% / / 8.3 75 16.7 Total number 167 165 165 170 170 1 1 43 101 31 177 % o f Total Parent. Edu. (81.9%) (87.8) (88.1) (84.7) (86.3) 1% .5% (25.1%) (56.4%) (16.9%) 100 Generation in College: First (1s t ) 98 (48) 50 40.5 39.8 60.2 / / 19.6 59.8 20.7 o Second (2n d ) 106 (52) 50 59.5 42.1 57.9 1.9 1% 30.1 53.4 13.6 Employment Status: Full-time 56 (27.5) 24 40.5 38.5 41.5 3.7 1.9 27.8 55.6 11.1 Part-tim e 62 (30.4) 32.2 21.4 37.2 28 / / 30.6 50 19.4 o Not em ployed 84(41.2) 41.8 38.1 24.4 30.5 / / 19.2 61.5 19.2 Total number 202 (99.1) 146 48 78 118 2 1 49 109 33 194 % o f Total Employ. Status (77.7) (22.3) (39.8) (60.2) 1% .5% (25.3%) (56.2%) (17%) 100 to 4^ Reproduced w ith permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX K: (Continued) Student characteristics Number and (%) Transfer** (% within Transfer) Gender (% within Gender) Desired Educational Degree (% within Student Characteristics) of subjects* Yes No Male Female Class Only Voc. Cert. Assoc, or B.A. Master Doctoral Medical Total (% ) Academic Status: Parent/student 15 (7.4) 7.6 10 3.9 10.2 6.7 / 40 40 13.3 Student 66 (32.4) 33.8 30 35.5 30.5 I / 19.4 59.7 21 o Employee/student 54 (26.5) 22.1 45 26.3 28 1.9 1.9 22.8 53.8 13.5 Student/Employed 64 (31.4) 36.6 15 34.2 31.4 / / 22.2 60.3 17.5 Total Number 199 (97.5) 145 40 76 118 2 1 47 109 33 192 % o f Total Acad. Status 100 100 100 100 1% .5% 24.5 56.8 17.2 100 Education Abroad: Elementary 138 (67.6) 66.4 69 62.8 70.6 1.5 .8% 26.5 55.3 15.9 Junior High 125 (61.3) 58.2 66.7 51.3 67.2 1.7 .8% 25.2 57.1 15.1 o o High School 104 (51.0) 45.2 64.3 38.5 58.8 2 1% 22.2 59.6 15.2 College 43 (21.1) 19.2 19 11.5 26.1 2.6 / 20.5 66.7 10.3 Note: *The reported values are based on the data collected from the TRUCCS questionnaire. However, Transcripts included less data on new subjects due to the continuous nature of enrollment and late updates at community college. ** Transfer has been defined by a person’s willingness (ql 0 08 = ‘probably’ or ql0_08 = ‘definitely’) to transfer to a 4-year college or university. *** Chinese Population refers to all Chinese subjects who marked the “Chinese” category/ethnicity item, question 30 1 in the TRUCCS questionnaire. ***Parental Education included mother’s or father’s formal education. to U \

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Adult urban community college student success: Identifying the factors that predict course completion and goal attainment for students aged 25 years and older

PDF

Course-taking patterns of Latina community college students: On the transfer path

PDF

Community college English courses: The road less traveled by community college students

PDF

A cultural study of shared governance at two community colleges

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

Border crossing: the experience of international students from Latin America in a California community college

PDF

Academic performance and persistence of Asian American students in the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

A typological history of non-heterosexual male college students in the United States, 1945 to the present

PDF

Community college students and achievement in mathematics: Predictors of success

PDF

Gender, learning, and trafficking: Helping vulnerable Thai women through NGO and government non -formal education programs

PDF

Academic success for African -American male community college students

PDF

Course completion and older adult students: The effects of self-efficacy, self -regulation, and motivation

PDF

Academic success and student-parents in the Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

A qualitative examination of the nature and impact of three California minority engineering programs

PDF

Community college students: The effect of parenthood and selected variables on degree -seeking aspirations

PDF

Examining the factors that predict the academic success of minority students in the remedial mathematics pipeline in an urban community college

PDF

Asian students in community colleges: A study of intersecting effects of student characteristics, construct models of retention, social reproduction and resulting variables as applied to the stud...

PDF

AIDS knowledge and education for South Korean-born college students attending Korean colleges and United States-born Korean American and South Korean-born students attending United States college...

PDF

English phoneme and word recognition by nonnative English speakers as a function of spectral resolution and English experience

PDF

Faculty characteristics: What are their relationships with academic outcomes of community college students?

Asset Metadata

Creator Chlebek, Andrew Zdzislaw (author)

Core Title Course -taking patterns of Chinese students native and non -native speakers of English at community college

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, community college,language, linguistics,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hagedorn, Linda Serra (committee chair), Cheung, Dominic (committee member), Rideout, William M. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-567296

Unique identifier UC11335813

Identifier 3155394.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-567296 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3155394.pdf

Dmrecord 567296

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Chlebek, Andrew Zdzislaw

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