University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Factors affecting native Hawaiian student persistence in higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

Factors affecting native Hawaiian student persistence in higher education

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
FACTORS AFFECTING NATIVE HAWAIIAN
STUDENT PERSISTENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

by
Dolwin Haunani Keanu Matsumoto

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

May 2010

Copyright 2010 Dolwin Haunani Keanu Matsumoto

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES iv

ABSTRACT vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Theoretical Framework 2
Native Hawaiians 3
Methodology 5
Definition of Terms 5
Organization of the Study 6

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 7
Minority Undergraduate Students 7
Native Hawaiians 8
Post Western Contact 10
Native Hawaiian Education Act 11
Kamehameha Schools 12
Theoretical Framework 15
Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement 17
Kuh’s Theory of Student Engagement 19
Tinto’s Student Integration Model 20
Factors of Persistence 21
Residency 21
Peer Involvement 21
Commitment to Faculty 22
Native Hawaiian Sense of Belonging 22
Summary 23

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 24
Introduction 24
Research Questions 1-13 25
Variables 28
Dependent Variable 28
Independent Variables 28
Native Hawaiian Sense of Belonging Variable 30
Methodology 31
Sample 31
iii
Quantitative versus Qualitative Research 33
Survey 34
Data Collection 36
Instrumentation 36
Data Analysis 37
Summary 38

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 39
Respondents 39
Findings 41
Research Questions 41
Summary 52

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53
Overview 53
Purpose of this study 54
Research questions and groups 55
Summary of findings 55
Recommendation for practice 56

REFERENCES 58

APPENDIX Survey Instrument 64

iv
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Three theories of student retention.

Table 2: RQ 1-4. Respondents in Study

Table 3: RQ 5-8 Kamehameha High School Alumni

Table 4 :RQ-9 Kamehameha High School Alumni Boarders

Table 5: RQ 10-13 Other High School Alumni

Table 6: Description of variables

Table 7: All Respondents

Table 8: RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, RQ4 All Study Participants

Table 9: RQ1. Native Hawaiian college graduates vs. college non-completers

Table 10: RQ2. Native Hawaiian college graduates, males vs. females

Table 11 :RQ3 Native Hawaiian males, college graduates vs. college non-
completers

Table 12: RQ4 Native Hawaiian female college graduates vs. female college non-
completers

Table 13: RQ5 Kamehameha High School Alumni

Table 14: RQ5 Kamehameha High School Alumni college graduates vs. college
non completers.

Table 15: RQ6 Kamehameha High School alumni college graduates, males vs.
females.

Table 16: RQ7 Kamehameha High School male alumni college graduates vs.
college non completers.

Table 17: RQ8 Kamehameha High School female college graduates vs. female
college non-completers.

v
Table 18: RQ9 Kamehameha High School Boarders

Table 19: RQ10 KHS alumni Boarders vs. Commuters (Day Students)

Table 20: RQ11 KHS alumni college graduates vs. OHS alumni college graduates.

Table 21: RQ12 A-OHS alumni college graduates vs. OHS college non completers

vi

ABSTRACT

This study examined the educational outcomes of 515 Native Hawaiian
alumni who graduated between 1993 and 1995 from high schools throughout the
State of Hawaii. The majority of students graduated from Kamehameha Schools,
while the others received postsecondary financial aid from the Ke Alii Pauahi
Foundation. Respondents were separated into two sections, college graduates and
college non-completers. The entire population was divided into four groups, Native
Hawaiians, Kamehameha Alumni, Other High Schools Alumni and Kamehameha
Alumni Boarders. Research questions focused on the differences between college
graduates and college non-completers as they related to residency, peer
involvement and commitment to faculty. Astin’s theory of student involvement
provided the theoretical framework for this study. In addition, this study included
the Native Hawaiian sense of belonging variable.
Findings revealed that Native Hawaiian college completers were
significantly more likely than non-completers to reside on campus, engage with
their peers, and engage with faculty. The Native Hawaiian sense of belonging
variable did not significantly make a difference between college graduates and
college non-completers. Other findings indicated that Kamehameha enrollment
status, gender, and Kamehameha boarding vs non-boarding status did not make a
difference in college completion rate. Overall findings supported Astin’s theory of
vii
student involvement while providing evidence that was contrary to Tinto’s theory
of student integration.

1
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Completing college with a bachelor’s degree is the educational goal of most
incoming freshmen, regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, family background
or level of academic preparation. College graduates benefit from higher lifetime
incomes, higher levels of saving, increased personal mobility and an improved
quality of life (Leppel, 2005). A college degree is associated with a more stable
pattern of employment, an increase in social capital through participation in social
events and a heightened sense of learning (Day & Newburger, 2002). Societal
benefits of a college degree include greater civic involvement, a higher voting rate,
increased volunteerism, reduced crime rates and a reduced dependency on public
welfare (Baum & Milem, 2006).
Statement of the Problem
College completion to a bachelor’s degree is the desired goal for the
majority of college students. Higher education literature is replete with studies of
retention that identify factors of persistence for most college students. Native
Hawaiian college students do not complete their college education to a bachelor’s
degree at the same rate as other ethnicities. For example, the college completion
rate at the University of Hawaii at Manoa for native Hawaiian students was 17
percent, compared with Caucasian students at 31 percent and Chinese students at
43 percent (UH-Manoa, 1997). Results of this study will attempt to identify
2
significant factors of persistence for Native Hawaiian college students in order to
increase the percentage of native Hawaiian college graduates. In Hawaii, the
disparity between the high completion rate for Asians and the low college
graduation rate for native Hawaiians is the dilemma that is the focus of this study
and its results.
Theoretical Framework
This study highlights three prominent theories of retention to help guide the
focus of this examination. Vincent Tinto’s theory of student integration (1975,
1993) emphasized the concept of integration that involves a reciprocal relationship
between the student and the college campus.
George Kuh’s theory of student engagement was grounded in the concept of
three other student development theories. Grounded empirically in the indicators
of “good practice” from Chickering and Gamson (1987), student involvement
(Astin, 1984), and in Pace’s (1980) quality of effort measures, Kuh suggests that
student engagement is related to institutional improvement because it can be
influenced to improve student learning.
An examination of Astin’s theory of student involvement suggested that
three specific variables influenced the persistence of native Hawaiian college
students to college completion and a bachelor’s degree. The variables residency,
peer involvement and commitment to faculty were identified as strong predictors of
college completion to a bachelor’s degree. The results of this study will provide
useful information to administrators and policy makers at the secondary and
3
postsecondary levels of education.
Research Questions
The overall research question guiding this study is, how do native Hawaiian
college graduates differ from native Hawaiian college non-completers in the areas
of student involvement? The initial group was made up of all 515 participants,
native Hawaiian college students. The subgroups include Kamehameha High
School alumni, 410 participants; 69 of whom boarded at Kamehameha while a
student at the high school level; and participants who graduated from Other High
Schools in Hawaii and received postsecondary financial aid from the Ke Alii
Pauahi Foundation (105 participants).
For each group of participants, the following research questions were
applied: 1) how do college graduates differ from college non-completers?
2) How do male college graduates differ from female college graduates?
3) How do male college graduates differ from male college non-completers?,
4) How do female college graduates differ from female college non-completers?
Native Hawaiians
A Native Hawaiian is a descendant of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the
Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778 (OHA, 2002). In 600 A.D., the earliest Native
Hawaiians traveled in canoes between the islands of Tahiti, the Marquesas Islands,
the Northern Marianas Islands, and Easter Island before settling on the eight major
islands in the Hawaiian Island chain. The eight major islands include
Kahoolawe, Niihau, Kauai, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Oahu and the Big Island of
4
Hawaii. The population worked hard and flourished in an agricultural society with
farms, fishponds, taro fields and plentiful forest trees to build adequate shelters
(McDermott Jr., 1980).
In 1778, the arrival of Captain James Cook triggered the disintegration of
the Native Hawaiian population. At that time, there were close to a million Native
Hawaiians living on the eight major islands. Within a period of 100 years, the
number of Native Hawaiians dropped significantly to below 300,000. Westerners
had brought contagious diseases to Hawaiian shores and the Native Hawaiian
population had no immunity to these illnesses. Many Hawaiians perished rapidly
(Trask, 1993).
Native Hawaiians have a unique and distinctive history, culture, identity
and ethnicity that are subject to scrutiny and examination. They traditionally
embrace the practice of “aloha aina,” meaning “love of the land,” seeking to live in
harmony with nature. For many Native Hawaiians, the concept of “ohana,” or
“family values,” is commonly reflected in group-centered activities wherein group
goals and recognition are prized. The Western values of individual achievement
and independence are incongruent with traditional Native Hawaiian culture
(Kanahele, 1986).
In the area of higher education, Native Hawaiian college graduates are rare.
A growing body of research evidence documented the effects of minority students
who were unprepared academically, enrolled initially in the community college
system, lacked proper cultural role models and were first-generation college
5
students (Cabrera, A. & La Nasa, S., 2001; Choy, S., Horn, L., Nunez, A., & Chen,
X., 2000; Hu, S., 2003; Perna, L., 2000).
Methodology
This study utilized a secondary data analysis included under the
comprehensive project entitled Completion, Persistence, Transfer and Success of
Kamehameha Students (acronym CP-TASKS). Quantitative analyses’ using the
SPSS software package 14.0 was conducted. The numerical data were gleaned
from a 54-item survey developed by a team of researchers from the Rossier School
of Education at the University of Southern California and a team of researchers
from the Policy, Analysis and System Evaluation (PASE) Department of the
Kamehameha Schools. The survey covered demographics, Hawaiian culture, high
school experiences, college choice, college satisfaction and other areas. The CP-
TASKS (Completion, Persistence, Transfer and Success of Kamehameha Students)
subjects were Kamehameha graduates from the classes of 1993, 1994, and 1995.
The dataset also included graduates from other area high schools who received
college financial aid from the Ke Alii Pauahi Foundation.
Definition of Terms
1. Native Hawaiian/native Hawaiian-a descendant of the indigenous
peoples of the Hawaiian Islands (Interchangeable)
2. ‘Ohana-family or household
3. CP-TASKS-Completion, Persistence, Transfer and Success of
Kamehameha Students.
6
4. Ke Ali’i Pauahi Foundation-A foundation created to provide
postsecondary financial aid for Native Hawaiians students.
5. College non-completer-Those native Hawaiian high school alumni who
enrolled in college after graduation but did not complete to a degree.
6. Boarder-Kamehameha alumna who boarded at Kamehameha during the
high school years.
7. CIRP-Cooperative Institutional Research Program
8. HERI-Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of this study presented the introduction, background of the study,
the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions, the
significance of the study, a brief description of the methodology and the definition
of terms. Chapter 2 is a review of the literature. Chapter 3 presents the research
methodology, including the research design and sampling population.
Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study. Chapter 5 summarizes the findings
and provides conclusions as well as recommendations. References and an
appendix conclude this study.
7
CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter will review the research on factors impacting college
completion for minority undergraduate students, and in particular for Native
Hawaiian students. These findings are reviewed in the context of three theories of
college success, Astin’s involvement theory (1975, 1984), Kuh’s study of
engagement (1991) and Tinto’s theory of student integration (1975, 1982).
Minority Undergraduate Students

For minority undergraduate students, the importance of a college degree is
the key determinant of their futures. Although a college degree does not guarantee
employment, it may increase the graduate’s chances for a job (McLanahan &
Sandefur, 2000; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). According to the National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education’s Measuring Up (2004) publication,
when compared to a high school graduate, those with a college degree may benefit
from higher salaries, a reduced reliance on welfare, improved health and increased
civic priorities.
Findings in the literature indicate that although great strides have been made
for minority students’ postsecondary enrollment rates, they have not yet reached
the degree completion rates of other students, namely Caucasians and Chinese.
Research indicates that great strides have been made for postsecondary enrollment
rates for minority students but these rates have not reached the degree completion
8
rates of other students, mainly whites and Asians (Swail, 2000). Completion rates
for indigenous, minority students such as African Americans, Native Americans
and Native Hawaiians students continue to lag behind those for Caucasian and
Asian students (Gladieux & Swail, 1998).
Much of the historical research on college student development was focused
on traditional, White, upper middle-class, full-time residential students (Thomas,
2000). However, as the enrollment increased for minority undergraduate students,
research has examined those from other cultures, with different backgrounds and
socioeconomic status.
Hu and St. John (2001) found that immediate enrollment in a four-year
college right after graduating from high school may be the best path to the
educational attainment of a bachelor’s degree. Adelman (2004) noted that those
students who transferred from a community college to a 4-year college persisted to
a bachelor’s degree completion, when sufficient time was spent at the community
college prior to the transfer. Desjardins, Kim, and Rzonca (2003) found that college
academic performance, pre-matriculation academic achievement, and college major
were the most important variables in explaining college degree completion.

Native Hawaiians
The Native Hawaiian population is reflective of the indigenous peoples of
the Hawaiian archipelago that stretches thousands of miles across the Pacific
Ocean. The earliest native Hawaiians traveled freely in canoes between the islands
9
of Tahiti, the Marquesas Islands, the Northern Marianas Islands, and Easter Island
before settling on the eight major islands in the Hawaiian Island chain in 700 A.D.
These islands were Kahoolawe, Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai and
the Big Island of Hawaii. The population worked hard and flourished in their
agricultural society of farms, fishponds, taro fields and plentiful forest tress to build
adequate shelters (McDermott Jr., 1980).
McDermott (1980) detailed five significant events of post-Western contact
that had a profound effect on Native Hawaiians. First, the direct trading of native
Hawaiian goods for those brought over by foreigners' ships, including iron
implements and tools, weaponry, and arms. The kingdom of Hawaii's economic
system changed dramatically from one of sustenance to a profit driven economy.
Dispossessed of their land, they had no power to govern or guide their own future
(Trask, 1993). Second, the foreigners who visited introduced new diseases to the
Native Hawaiians from different parts of the world. The Native Hawaiian
population had no immunity and was rendered helpless against these deadly social
diseases (Trask, 1993). Third, the influx of the American missionaries laid the
groundwork for changes in religion, music, finance, economics and education. The
educational policies implemented in the schools were never sensitive to cultural
differences and those differences were never reconciled. Nothing was done to
recognize or appreciate the traditional beliefs that the native Hawaiian child
brought to the formal educational setting. The missionaries banned the use of the
Hawaiian language in favor of the English language. The hula was forbidden and
10
native Hawaiians were forced to dress as the missionaries dictated (Kanahele,
1986). Fourth, King Liholiho, also known as King Kamehameha II, abolished the
kapu system, the Hawaiian kingdom’s system of governance for centuries. With its
eradication came the end of an era. The door was open for a western-influenced
governmental system to replace the kapu system (Trask, 1993). Fifth, the
overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 led to the formation of the Republic of Hawaii,
the Territory of Hawaii, and in 1959, the State of Hawaii. Native Hawaiians have
long acknowledged that their government was wrongly taken from them and in
1993; U.S. President Bill Clinton signed an order of apology from the United States
to the people of Hawaii for the wrongful overthrow of the native Hawaiian
government (Kanahele, 1986).
Post-Western Contact
Now, more than one hundred years after western contact, the impact on
native Hawaiian is seen as an over representation of native Hawaiian students in
special education (Yamauchi, 2003), and an under representation of Native
Hawaiian students in higher education (Makuakane, 2001). While Native
Hawaiians represent 26% of the total population in Hawaii, the native Hawaiian
student enrollment at the UH at Manoa, a four-year degree granting institution,
remains at less than 15% (UH, 2006). Given these statistics, it is not surprising that
college graduation rates for native Hawaiian students are lower than the national
average (Makuakane, 2001).
11
Native Hawaiian families have the highest percentage of the state's
population living at or below the poverty level. Native Hawaiians make up the
majority of homeless people living on the state's beaches. A disproportionately
large percentage of Native Hawaiians lack access to resources that can meet their
basic needs such as food, shelter, primary health care, employment and training. In
2006, Native Hawaiians continue to rank among the highest in negative social
indicators (Data Book, 2006)
Poverty contributes to other problems that afflict Native Hawaiians. It often
breeds despair, feelings of hopelessness, and desperation. These emotions can
trigger severe social deviance such as domestic violence, substance and alcohol
abuse, and criminal activity. For social service agencies, the statistics provide
justification that, while some gains have were made in improving the conditions of
Native Hawaiians over the past 20 years, much more needs to be done to
specifically improve their access to resources that meet basic needs, generally, to
root out the systemic causes of poverty (OHA Databook, 2006).
Native Hawaiian Education Act
In 1988, Senator Inouye was able to pass the Native Hawaiian Education
Act, which recognized the unique indigenous status of native Hawaiians. It was
designed to raise the educational status of native Hawaiian students, from pre-
school through college. Supplemental funds would provide native Hawaiian
students with the tools necessary to access educational opportunities leading to
gainful employment and subsequent self-support. The Act recognizes the unique
12
status of Native Hawaiians and their history, including the overthrow of the
Kingdom of Hawaii, the decline in the Native Hawaiian population after the arrival
of other peoples, and the special relationship between the United States and the
Native Hawaiians. The Act specifically states, "Congress does not extend services
to Native Hawaiians because of their race, but because of their unique status as the
indigenous people of a once sovereign nation as to whom the United States has
established a trust relationship." Several explanations were suggested for this
discrepancy in performance, including racism, stereotype vulnerability,
segregation, poor quality of schooling, inadequate resources in minority
communities and schools, lack of motivation on the part of students, and home
environments that are unable to fully support the goals of schooling due to low
education and income. There is evidence to suggest that all of these explanations
contribute to some portion of the variance in minority achievement patterns.
Kamehameha Schools
Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, the great-granddaughter of Kamehameha I,
is credited with creating a charitable trust in her will to finance the educational
opportunities needed for students of native Hawaiian ancestry. She saw it as her
birthright and cultural responsibility to provide the same opportunity for her people
as those given to children of the missionaries and the royal monarchy. This was the
beginning of the Kamehameha Schools. Without any children of her own, the
princess adopted the people of Hawaii to inherit her legacy. That legacy included a
substantial amount of land she inherited from her parents, her cousin Princess Ruth
13
Keelikolani and other various descendants of Kamehameha. Today, Kamehameha
Schools is one of the largest landowners in Hawaii and the school maintains an
endowment that rivals both Harvard and Princeton Universities (KSBE.edu, 2005).
Kamehameha Schools identifies its purpose as:
Kamehameha Schools admits children who show potential and
who are able, in a timely and satisfactory manner, to meet all
academic, physical and religious activities requirements that
together comprise the fundamental nature of a Kamehameha
education. Kamehameha admits children on the premise that they
have the intent and ability to graduate from Kamehameha.
[KSBE.edu/2003]

Kamehameha School for boys, a private institution, opened in 1887, three
years after the death of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop, with 35 students and 4
teachers. In 1894, the Kamehameha School for Girls, located on another campus,
opened with an enrollment of 27. From these modest beginnings, Kamehameha
Schools has grown to become a symbol of educational excellence for the Hawaiian
people. Kamehameha Schools is a system wide educational foundation with three
campuses on Oahu, Maui and Hawaii serving more than 5,000 students in
kindergarten through grade 12. In light of the need for preschool readiness skills,
Kamehameha also operates 32 preschool sites statewide, serving more than 1,400
preschoolers (KSBE.edu, 2006).
Between 1887 and 1998, Kamehameha Schools was located only on Oahu.
Students from all over the state of Hawaii attended school there and boarding
facilities were available for those students who came either from the outer islands
or from outlying rural areas on Oahu. Dorm advisors who accepted the role of
14
parental surrogates whenever the boarders were at school supervised the residential
students, also known as the boarders.
According to her will, the governance of Kamehameha Schools rests with
five individuals, the Board of Trustees, who are equally invested with the
responsibility and duty of collectively carrying out the testamentary will of Bernice
Pauahi Bishop. The sole purpose of the Board is to set policy. The day-to-day
management of the institution lies with a board appointed Chief Executive Officer
and his or her chosen managerial staff. Currently, that position belongs to 1971
Kamehameha Schools graduate Dee Jay Mailer (KSBE.edu, 2005).
In 1993, the Board of Trustees appointed two new trustees for what was
known then as the Bishop Estate, which included the Kamehameha Schools, as
well as the land trusts owned by the Bishop Estate. This was the start of a dark
period for Kamehameha's students, teachers, alumni and friends. According to King
and Roth (2006), members of the Board of Trustees for Bishop Estate almost
brought down the strong educational institution because they were consumed with
power. There were allegations of greed, mismanagement and political manipulation
at what has become known as America's Largest Charitable Trust (King and Roth,
Morale among the "Kamehameha Family," including students, teachers,
educational administrators and friends declined to the point that a grassroots effort
led to a demonstration of solidarity, a march of hundreds of supporters through the
city of Honolulu on May, 15, 1997. The demonstrators marched through downtown
Honolulu, past the governor's residence, through the state Capitol and onto the
15
grounds of Iolani Palace. As they marched, their numbers grew to more than a
thousand. There was no yelling, no outright animosity and no protest signs. The
group, consisting of mostly alumni, family and friends, sang those songs familiar to
them as students when they participated in the school's yearly song contest. The
group presented their concerns to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Hawaii. As news spread about what was happening in the offices of the Bishop
Estate trustees, five prominent leaders from diverse occupations, but united in their
love of Kamehameha Schools, authored an essay called, "Broken Trust," detailing
what was happening within the Bishop Estate trustees' offices. By May 1999, the
trustees were removed from their positions and the management of the Estate
underwent significant changes (King & Roth, 2006).
In 1996, Kamehameha opened their Maui campus and in 2001, the doors to
the West Hawaii campus welcomed their islands' first students. The Oahu campus
still welcomes boarders from the islands of Kauai, Niihau, Molokai and Lanai.
Kamehameha employs a number of personnel to run the private bus transportation
system utilized by most of the students. Despite the upheaval that almost destroyed
Pauahi's charitable trust, Kamehameha Schools remains committed to educational
excellence (KSBE.edu/2006).
Theoretical Frameworks
Student retention (to college completion) is one of the most highly
researched topics in higher education. Much of our understanding of retention has
16
been influenced by three researchers in particular: Astin, Kuh and Tinto. Table 1,
below, briefly describes their theories and what they contribute. Each researcher’s
contribution is described in greater detail following Table 1.
Table 1. Three theories of student retention
ASTIN-
INVOLVEMENT
1975, 1977, 1984
1993,1997
KUH-
ENGAGEMENT
1991
TINTO-
INTEGRATION
1975, 1982, 1993
Define Amount of student
physical and
psychological energy
devoted to the
academic experience
determines the level
of persistence.
Both institutions and
students provide
conditions for taking
advantage of
engagement
opportunities.
Sociological/Cultural
view Success means
that student departs
from past culture to
become integrated
into new campus
culture.
Basis Concept of
Involvement based on
CIRP Survey results.
Engagement is
based on empirical
research on best
practices, student
involvement and
good practices.
Theoretical concept
related to student
departure and
persistence.
How are
they
unique?
-Origins: Tinto’s theory was related to student departure and
persistence. Astin’s involvement theory was linked to CIRP findings
from HERI. Kuh’s engagement theory was based on empirical
research on best practices related to undergraduate education.
-Tinto’s theory explained voluntary and involuntary departure with
some responsibility on the HE institution.
-Astin’s involvement theory puts the entire responsibility on the
student to persist by choosing educationally relevant activities.
-Engagement encourages institutional improvement as it relates to
student learning.
Areas of
overlap
-The terms involvement and engagement are used interchangeably in
research. The origins of these concepts build on one another and may
be the basis for the overlap.
-All three concepts, involvement, engagement and integration must
respond to the challenge of predisposition.
-Idea development: When Astin, Kuh and Tinto initially developed
their ideas related to involvement, engagement and integration, they
17
had specific concepts in mind. It was the other researchers who
applied the concepts in ways that were not included.
Similarities -Tinto: Successful integration equals retention; unsuccessful
integration equals departure. Astin: Positive student involvement
equals persistence; noninvolvement equals non-persistence. Kuh: HE
institution that encourages student engagement equals persistence.

Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement
Alexander Astin (1984) examined the relationship between student
involvement and satisfaction with the college environment. He characterized
student involvement as the amount of physical and psychological energy devoted to
the college academic experience (1984). For example, a highly involved student
actively participates in class discussions, school related sports teams and study
groups. Highly involved students interact with their peers, faculty members and
teammates. Astin (1984) also described the uninvolved student who spends as little
time as possible on campus, chooses not to participate in extracurricular activities
and has intermittent contact with peers or faculty members.
Astin (1975) reported that the most important involvement factor was the
student’s residence. Living on campus was positively related to student persistence
in college. Astin described other involvement factors that were considered positive
influences during the college academic experience, such as joining fraternities or
sororities, working at a part-time job on campus, and helping another student
understand the class work (Astin, 1984).
18
Astin (1984) acknowledged basic principles inherent in the theoretical
framework of involvement. Involvement refers to the investment of physical and
psychological energy in various objects. Involvement has both quantitative and
qualitative features. For example, the extent of a student’s involvement in
academic work can be measured quantitatively, as in the hours spent studying or
qualitatively, as in reading comprehension vs. rote reading without comprehension.
Involvement occurs along a continuum. For example, different students may invest
their time and efforts through different degrees of involvement within a given
object such as preparing for a biology examination. In contrast, one student may
put forth different degrees of involvement in different objects at different times.
Astin (1984) indicated that the achievement of educational goals related to
the amount of time devoted to specific academic activities. He stated that the most
precious institutional resource on a college campus was the amount of time that
individual students devoted to the college experience, also known as, student
involvement.
Rendon (1995) criticized the theory of student involvement stating that just
offering opportunities for involvement would not work for nontraditional students
because they lack the cultural capital to utilize the same opportunities. He reiterated
that some students, being unprepared for college, may lack a sense of direction and
not recognize the opportunities for involvement (Rendon, 1995).

19
Kuh’s Theory of Student Engagement
Kuh (1991) concurred with Astin’s theory of student involvement. In
addition, his concept of student engagement was grounded empirically in
Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) indicators of “good practice,” in undergraduate
education and Pace’s (1980) quality of effort measures. Kuh (2001) named two
critical features to student engagement: 1) The amount of time and effort that
students put into their studies as well as other educationally purposeful activities,
and 2) How the institution deploys its resources and support services to induce
students to participate in activities that lead to desired outcomes such as persistence
and graduation.
According to Kuh (2009), engaging in educationally purposeful activities
helps to level the playing field, especially for students from low-income family
backgrounds and others who have been historically underserved. As Kuh (2009)
stated, “Engagement is a two-way street” (p. 697). He noted that both the higher
education institution and the college student are responsible for creating the
reciprocal engagement opportunities.
In a report of an exploratory investigation, Farmer-Dougan and McKinney
(2001) examined the results of a student engagement survey. Results indicated that
class format impacts student engagement. For example, highly engaged students
preferred discussion format classes rather than lecture format classes. Students
who reported a high level of engagement also reported that their courses required
more computer use. Data showed a strong relationship between engagement and
20
the ability to deal with other students, indicating higher general social skills and
peer relationships.
Tinto’s Student Integration Model
Tinto’s theory of integration (1975, 1982) recognized the importance of
academic and social integration and its role in student persistence. His theory was
unique to the field of student development because it was one of the first theories
that focused on explaining voluntary departure from higher education with the
student and the institutions. Tinto’s integration theory adopted a cultural view of
the campus noting that students need to depart from their past cultural involvement
to become integrated into a new culture. Tinto noted that integration is about
students forming relationships with peers, faculty, and staff. It is also a measure of
student knowledge of campus cultural norms (Tinto, 1986).
Tinto (1993) identified academic integration as participating in classroom
activities, interacting with peers, faculty, and academic performance. Social
integration was described as the development of friendships and participation in
university social activities. Successful integration meant retention and unsuccessful
integration meant departure.
Tierney (1999) argued that the student integration theory did not take into
account college students from different cultural backgrounds and minority students.
According to Tierney (1999), the college student must integrate him or herself into
the new culture of the campus while suppressing their own background culture.
Tinto (1986) has since reevaluated the use of the term integration and may
21
introduce the concept of students developing a “sense of belonging,” to the higher
education institution through community membership. Tinto stated that higher
education institutions have many communities and it is important for students to
find community membership to help them feel connected to the campus.
Factors of Persistence
Using Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement (1984) as a guide, three
factors of persistence were identified as significant for college completion and a
bachelor’s degree. The variables residency, peer involvement and commitment to
faculty are the three independent variables used in this study.
Residency

Students who reside on campus have numerous opportunities to identify
with peers, including special interest student clubs that may meet in the evenings or
on the weekends. Research has found that residential students who are actively
involved with faculty and peers in various academic and social settings on campus
tend to perform better academically than less involved college students. Residing
on campus provided the basis for the involvement in academics, and with peers and
faculty. The positive effect of on-campus residency on academic achievement is
well documented (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Pascarella, Bohr, Nora, Zusman,
Inman, Desler, 1993).
Peer Involvement
Contact with peers supports a student’s academic involvement into the
university. A positive peer influence favorably influenced the study habits of
22
college students. Several studies concluded that peer relationships were important
in keeping students interested in the sciences (Capella, Hetzler, & MacKenzie,
1983; Matyas, 1991; Malcom, 1983).
Commitment to Faculty
The interaction between faculty and students was identified as a major
factor in the ability of students to persist in college (Astin, 1977; Beal & Noel,
1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979). Studies indicate that an informal interaction
between faculty members and their students has been found to increase the
student’s persistence (Ugbah & Williams, 1989; Griffen, 1992; Astin, 1984).
For minority students, the development of friendly relationships between students
and faculty members had a positive influence on students in terms of their personal,
social and academic involvement (Griffen, 1992).
Native Hawaiian Sense of Belonging
Tinto suggested that the term, “sense of belonging,” might be a better
substitute for, “integration,” because it best describes the reciprocal relationship
between the student and the campus (Wolf, 2009). For this study, the variable
scale, Native Hawaiian Sense of Belonging, was adapted from a scale of cultural
affiliation developed by Phinney (1992), and utilized by the CP-TASKS study.
Since all Kamehameha High School, students virtually had multiple ethnicities, the
original scale items were modified to ensure that when survey participants
responded to the items, it was in reference to their Hawaiian ancestry. Data
23
indicated that the modified seven-item scale was psychometrically sound when
administered to Kamehameha alumni.
Johnson, et al. (2007) found that specific college environments contribute to
a sense of belonging for different racial or ethnic groups. Sample items of the scale
were: (1) I have a strong sense of being Hawaiian; (2) I understand what it means
to be Hawaiian; (3) I have a clear sense of my Hawaiian background and what it
means to me; and (4) I feel a strong attachment toward Hawaiians.
Summary
In summary, this review of the literature introduced the native Hawaiian
population, Kamehameha School, three theories of student retention and the three
independent variables based on Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement. In
addition, a brief introduction to the concept of Native Hawaiian Sense of Belonging
was included to determine its influence on the dependent variable, college
completion to a bachelor’s degree. Chapter 1 introduced this study on native
Hawaiian college students and factors of persistence to college completion and a
bachelor’s degree. Chapter 2 was a review of literature. Chapter 3 revealed the
methodology, research design, data collection and an analysis of data. Chapter 4
includes results of the analyses and Chapter 5 includes the summary and
conclusions.

24
CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Introduction
The primary purpose of this study was to identify factors affecting Native
Hawaiian students’ persistence in higher education, specifically towards the goal of
college completion a bachelor’s degree. Drawing on Astin’s (1984, 1993)
framework of student involvement, this study examined the possible differential
effects of student involvement on the dependent variable, college completion to a
bachelor’s degree. .
The secondary purpose of this study was to contribute to the literature of
studies focused on indigenous minority students, particularly the Native Hawaiian
population. Using data from the CP-TASKS project, a series of independent
T-tests were used to analyze the effects of the independent variables on the
dependent variable, college completion to a bachelor’s degree.
This study was specific to native Hawaiian college students and included
both alumni from Kamehameha High School and other high schools from
throughout the State of Hawaii. The alumni from other high schools received
financial aid for postsecondary education from the Princess Pauahi scholarship
foundation, which is part of the governing body of the Kamehameha Schools.
25
The purpose of this chapter was to present a description of the research
methodology for this study including the research questions, data sample, and data
collection methods, instrumentation, and data analysis. This chapter is divided into
four sections: (1) presentation of the research questions; (2) description of the
variables used in the study; (3) illustration of the methodology, the data sample and
examination of the difference between quantitative and qualitative research; and
(4) revelation of survey data, data collection, instrumentation and data analysis.
Research Questions
Research questions 1-4 include the entire sample population of Native
Hawaiian college students totaling 515 from the CP-TASKS project that is
discussed in detail later on during this research study.
Table 2. RQ1-4. Respondents in Study
Gender Graduates Non-completers Total
Males 100 (32% of total) 53 (27% of total) 153 (30% of total)
Females 215 (68% of total) 147 (73% of total) 362 (70% of total)
Total 315 (61% of total) 200 (39% of total) 515 (100%)

Research question 1 — For the population of native Hawaiian college
students, how do college graduates differ from college non-completers in the areas
of student involvement?
Research question 2 — For the population of native Hawaiian college
graduates, how do males differ from females in the areas of student involvement?
26
Research question 3 — For the population of male native Hawaiian college
students, how do male college graduates differ from male college non-completers
in the areas of student involvement?
Research question 4 — For the population of female native Hawaiian
college students, how do female college graduates differ from female college non-
completers in the areas of student involvement?

Research questions 5-8 include only Kamehameha High School alumni.
Table 3. RQ: 5-8 Kamehameha High School Alumni
Gender Graduates Non-completers Total
Males 86 40 126
Females 184 100 284
Total 270 140 410

Research question 5 — For Kamehameha School alumni, how do college
graduates differ from college non-completers in the areas of student involvement?
Research question 6 — For Kamehameha School alumni college graduates,
how do males differ from females in the areas of student involvement?
Research question 7 — For Kamehameha School male alumni, how do
college graduates differ from college non-completers in the areas of student
involvement?
27
Research question 8 — For Kamehameha School female alumni, how do
college graduates differ from college non-completers in the areas of student
involvement?

Research question 9 — Within the Kamehameha School college graduates,
how do Kamehameha boarder students differ from commuter students in the areas
of student involvement?
Table 4. RQ-9 Kamehameha School Alumni Boarders
Gender Graduates Non-completers Total
Males 17 6 23
Females 24 22 46
Total 41 28 69

Research questions 10-13 include alumni from other high schools in Hawaii.
Table 5. RQ-10-13 Other High School Alumni
Gender Graduates Non-completers Total
Males 15 13 28
Females 30 47 77
Total 45 60 105

Research question 10 — How do Kamehameha alumni college graduates
differ from college graduates from other high schools in Hawaii in the areas of
student involvement?
28
Research question 11 — For alumni from other high schools in Hawaii,
how do college graduates differ from college non-completers in the areas of student
involvement?
Research question 12 asked, “How do OHS Alumni college graduates
(n=45) differ from OHS alumni college non-completers (n=60) in the areas of
student involvement?
Research question 13 asked, “For OHS alumni college graduates, how do
males (n=15) differ from females (n=30) in the areas of student involvement?

Variables
Dependent Variable - Bachelor’s College Degree

The dependent variable was college completion to a bachelor’s degree,
where a value of “1” denoted the acquisition of a college bachelor’s degree and a
value of “0” signified less than a college degree. Question 43c, the dependent
variable (college completion to a bachelor’s degree), was coded “1” for the 315
Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) or Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree graduates while the
200 students who did not complete their college to a degree were coded as “0” and
were considered non-completers.
Independent Variables
Residency-Alexander Astin described the residency domain as living on
campus, usually in a residence hall (Astin, 1984, 1993). He suggested that
29
residential students had a better chance of developing a strong affiliation to college
life, and other researchers agree (Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000). There were five
possible responses to the current survey Question 38i, “With whom did you live
while you were an undergraduate?” These were as follows: (1) a value of “0” =
never resided on campus; (2) a value of “1” = residing on campus during freshman
year; (3) a value of “2” = residing on campus during sophomore year; (4) a value of
“3” = residing on campus during junior year; and (5) a value of “4” = residing on
campus during senior year.
The next two variable scales, peer involvement and commitment to faculty
were based on the survey Question 39, “For the majority of time that you were an
undergraduate, how many hours per week did you spend talking with other
students, or studying with others, study in small groups outside of class?” There
were nine probable values for each composite variable, as follows: (1) a value of
“0” = no time or zero hours; (2) a value of “1” = less than one hour; (3) a value of
“2” = 1-2 hours; (4) a value of “3” = 3-5 hours; (5) a value of “4” = 6-10 hours; (6)
a value of “5” = 11-20 hours; (7) a value of “6” = 21-35 hours; (8) a value of “7” =
36-45 hours; and (9) a value of “8” = 46 hours or more.
Astin described the peer involvement domain as frequent interaction with
peers both in class and out of the classroom. Three questionnaire items represented
the peer involvement domain: (1) Question 39e, talking with other students; (2)
Question 39g, studying with others; and (3) Question 39o, studying in small groups
outside of class. Researchers suggested that most students benefited from learning
30
in small group settings where social interactions led to social adjustment and
academic development (Astin, 1984, 1993; Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Minority
students who were involved in cooperative learning groups were more likely to
persist in college compared with those students who chose not to be involved in
this type of learning setting (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005).
Astin (1993) described the commitment to faculty domain as students
interacting frequently with faculty members, both in class through active
participation and outside of the classroom during informal encounters. Students
formed ties to their professors by engaging in coursework, participating in class
actively and talking with their professors outside of the classroom. Three survey
items represented the commitment to faculty scale: (1) Question 39i, talked with
teacher before or after school; (2) Question 39j, talked with teacher during office
hours; and (3) Question 39p, spoke with an academic counselor.

Native Hawaiian Sense of Belonging Variable
Tinto suggested that the term, “sense of belonging,” might be a better
substitute for, “integration,” because it best describes the reciprocal relationship
between the student and the campus (Wolf, 2009). For this study, the variable
scale, Native Hawaiian Sense of Belonging, was adapted from a scale of cultural
affiliation developed by Phinney (1992), and utilized by the CP-TASKS study.
Since all Kamehameha High School, students virtually had multiple ethnicities, the
original scale items were modified to ensure that when survey participants
31
responded to the items, it was in reference to their Hawaiian ancestry. Data
indicated that the modified seven-item scale was psychometrically sound when
administered to Kamehameha alumni.
Johnson, et al. (2007) found that specific college environments contribute to
a sense of belonging for different racial or ethnic groups. Sample items of the scale
were: (1) I have a strong sense of being Hawaiian; (2) I understand what it means
to be Hawaiian; (3) I have a clear sense of my Hawaiian background and what it
means to me; and (4) I feel a strong attachment toward Hawaiians.

Methodology
Sample
In December 2001, Kamehameha Schools contracted with the Rossier
School of Education at the University of Southern California to begin a
comprehensive study of the achievement, success, and academic outcomes of
former students and financial aid recipients who were influenced by either their
schooling at Kamehameha Schools or the receipt of college Kamehameha financial
aid. Specifically, the project included the 1993, 1994, and 1995 graduates from
Kamehameha Schools and graduates from other high schools who were
beneficiaries of college financial aid from Kamehameha Schools.
This quantitative study utilized data collected through a project entitled the
Completion, Persistence, Transfer and Success of Kamehameha Schools (CP-
TASKS). In February 2002, researchers on the project sponsored a series of focus
32
groups with alumni, faculty, and administrators to gather unique perspectives on
the environment of Kamehameha Schools. The researchers used the resulting data
to create a final survey instrument (See Appendix). The final seven-part instrument
consisted of 54 multi-part items covering demographics, Hawaiian culture,
questions pertaining to junior and senior high school experiences, college
questions, college satisfaction, locus of control, and other areas.
The CP-TASKS sampling plan included a stratified procedure that selected
graduates from the classes of 1993, 1994, and 1995. A second stratified sample
was selected from the population of graduates of native Hawaiian ancestry from
other Hawaii high schools who received financial aid from Ke Alii Pauahi
Foundation in 1993, 1994, and 1995.
This was a secondary analysis of data gathered, analyzed, and validated
through the CP-TASKS project. The sample for this study consisted of 515 Native
Hawaiian college students who were alumni from either Kamehameha High School
or were alumni from other high schools in the State of Hawaii. These alumni were
graduates from the classes of 1993 (171 students), 1994 (192 students), and 1995
(149 students) who voluntarily participated by providing responses to our survey
and who had attended college. These specific alumni received financial aid for
higher education during the specified three years. By including those who attended
college during these years, these students had 8-10 years to achieve a college
degree.

33
Quantitative and Qualitative Research
While qualitative research was designed to provide the descriptive detail
that tells the story from the participant’s viewpoint, quantitative research was
focused on collecting numerical data on observable behavior and subjecting this
data to statistical analyses (Trochim, 2001). For the purpose of this study, a
qualitative approach would have required time to set up and conduct the individual
interviews, work with the interview transcripts and transcribe the documents.
Quantitative methodology was preferred in this study because researchers were able
to gather a large amount of data in a short amount of time.
The CP-TASKS database used in this study was previously validated and
refined. Hagedorn et.al (2006) found that for those students who began their
postsecondary experience at the community college level, significant factors in the
attainment of a bachelor’s degree were grade point average, socioeconomic status,
college financial aid and family support. The sampling plan maximized variation in
the independent variables in the sample to allow the researchers to make internally
valid comparisons of subgroups. Given the established validity of the CP-TASKS
data, generalizations can be made about the native Hawaiian students who were the
target population of this study.
The purpose of the CP-TASKS questionnaire was to collect data from these
participants regarding their characteristics, experiences and opinions in order to
generalize the findings to a population of native Hawaiian college students that the
sample was intended to represent. This focus on generalizing to a population is
34
characteristic of quantitative research. Questionnaires, in general, are standardized
and highly structured, which is also compatible with quantitative research. The use
of a structured response survey allowed for privacy because there was no personal
contact between the researcher and the respondent, keeping costs low, including
necessary staff and facilities. Respondents had sufficient time to formulate answers
while responding to online or hardcopy questionnaires, and there was usually a
quick response by those who completed the survey. This quantitative data was then
subjected to statistical analyses through descriptive statistics, correlation
coefficients, and independent t-tests. . To maximize the rate of participation,
respondents were provided with an online survey, which could be completed within
thirty minutes. Printed copies were sent upon request.
Survey
The term “survey” is frequently used to describe research that involves
administering questionnaires or interviews (Gall, 1999). Surveys gather
information including facts, knowledge, and subjective or abstract concepts or
constructs. Subjective or abstract concepts often cannot be measured directly.
Scales measure constructs where the relationship of items on a scale is logically
connected to relationships of items to a latent variable, reflecting that construct.
As with all survey questionnaires, the CP-TASKS relied on self-reports
from participants. An examination of the validity of self-reports (Baird, 1976;
Lowman & Willams, 1987; Pace, 1985; Pike 1989, 1995; Pohlman & Beggs, 1974;
35
Turner & Martin, 1984) indicated that they are generally valid by taking into
consideration these five conditions:
1. If the information requested is known to the respondents;
2. The questions are phrased clearly and unambiguously (Laing, Sawyer, &
Noble, 1988);
3. The questions refer to recent activities (Converse & Presser, 1989);
4. The respondents think the questions merit a serious and thoughtful response
(Pace, 1985); and
5. Answering the questions does not threaten, embarrass, or violate the privacy
of the respondent or encourage the respondent to respond in socially desirable
ways (Bradburn & Sudman, 1988).
This study utilized data collected through a comprehensive project known as
the Completion, Persistence, Transfer and Success of Kamehameha Schools
(CP-TASKS). It was a secondary analysis of data gathered, analyzed, and
validated through the CP-TASKS project. The specific goals of the project were to
explore the relationships among the factors of access, persistence and retention with
the completion of a college bachelor’s degree. Hagedorn, et al. (2004) found that in
addition to financial aid, native Hawaiian college students who persisted to a
bachelor’s degree were satisfied with their college experience, usually spoke
Standard English at home, earned a respective high school grade point average and
had one or two parents who graduated from college.

36
Data Collection
Beginning in April 2002, printed letters were sent to the last known address
of each of the graduates and financial aid recipients asking them to respond to an
internet questionnaire. Follow-up hard copies were sent to those not responding to
the online request. To enhance the response rate, follow-up included e-mail,
printed letters, and telephone inquiries.
Project data was collected via a questionnaire consisting of 54 multi-part
items including sections on demographics, high school experiences, college
questions, life satisfaction, and others. Questionnaire design was based on a
number of previous inquiries, studies, and conceptual frameworks. For the
purposes of identifying factors affecting success in academic outcomes, college
completion was used as the dependent variable indicating whether the respondents
earned a bachelor’s degree or not. To determine the relationship with college
completion, variables representing the three primary areas of involvement were
employed to predict student college completion.
Instrumentation
The final seven-part instrument consisted of 54 multi-part items covering
demographics, Hawaiian culture, questions pertaining to junior and senior high
school experiences, college questions, college satisfaction, self-efficacy, focus of
control, and other areas.

37
Data Analysis
This was a secondary analysis of data gathered, analyzed, and validated
through the CP-TASKS project. The final sample for this study consisted of 515
Native Hawaiian students who graduated from several high schools throughout the
State of Hawaii. The majority of students (n=410) graduated from Kamehameha
High School in 1993, 1994, or 1995. The rest of the students (n=105) graduated
from other public and private high schools in Hawaii and received postsecondary
financial aid from the Ke Alii Foundation in the years 1993, 1994, or 1995. Sixty-
nine of the 515 of the Kamehameha High School alumni respondents boarded at the
school during their high school years. Differences in their responses compared to
non-boarder students was also considered in the analysis.
The independent variables were entered in four scales.
Table 6. Description of variables
Scale Name
Alpha Reliability
N
Description of Items
Mean, SD,
Variance
Native Hawaiian-
Sense of
Belonging
.88
n= 515
• Q19c I have a clear sense of my Hawaiian
background,
• Q19e I am happy that I am Hawaiian
• Q19f I have a strong sense of being Hawaiian
• Q19g I understand what it means to be
Hawaiian
• Q19i I have a lot of pride in the Hawaiian
people
• Q19m I feel a strong attachment toward
Hawaiians
• Q19o I feel good about my Hawaiian culture
and language
Mean = 31.38
S.D. = 4.043
Variance = 16.34
Residency
.79
n= 515
Dormitory or residence hall
• Q38i1 Freshman year
• Q38i2 Sophomore year
• Q38i3 Junior year
• Q38i4 Senior year
Mean = 1.09
S.D. = 1.32
Variance = 1.73
38
Peer Involvement
.79
n= 474
• Q39e Spend time talking with others
• Q39g Study with others
• Q39o Studied in small groups outside of class
Mean = 10.89
S.D. = 3.96
Variance = 15.72
Commitment to
Faculty
.75
n= 487
• Q39i Talked with teacher before or after class
• Q39j Talked with a teacher during office hours
• Q39p Spoke with an academic counselor
Mean = 6.52
S.D. = 2.35
Variance = 5.52

Summary
This chapter began with an introduction to this study. Alexander Astin’s
theory of student involvement provided the theoretical framework from which this
study derived its variables for analysis. The research questions were presented
along with a short discussion about quantitative methodology. Numerical data
collected from the sample participants’ responses on the survey questionnaire was
analyzed using the SPSS software. Chapter 4 reveals the results of the quantitative
study. Chapter 5 is a discussion about these results.

39
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to identify factors affecting Native Hawaiian
students’ persistence in higher education, specifically towards the goal of college
completion to a bachelor’s degree. Drawing on Astin’s (1984, 1993) framework on
student involvement and using data from the CP-TASKS project, a series of
independent t-tests analyzed the effects of the independent variables on the
dependent variable, college completion to a bachelor’s degree. This chapter
includes the research questions and data analysis results.
Respondents
Five hundred fifteen Native Hawaiian individuals voluntarily responded to
and returned completed surveys for the CP-TASKS project (Table 7). These
individuals graduated from high school or received postsecondary financial aid in
1993, 1994, or 1995. Their average chronological age was 26 years. There were
315 college graduates (61%), and 200 college non-completers (39%). There were
362 female respondents (70% of total), and 153 male respondents (30% of total).
Although there was a gender bias (i.e. 70 percent of the survey respondents were
female), due to the voluntary nature of the survey, gender proved to be a non-
significant factor in predicting college completion to a bachelor’s degree. The
majority of respondents (n=410), graduated from Kamehameha High School.
40
Remaining individuals (n=105) graduated from other high schools in the State of
Hawaii and received postsecondary aid from the Ke Alii Pauahi Foundation.
Table 7. All Respondents

Gender Graduates Non-completers Total
Males 100 (32% of total) 53 (27% of total) 153 (30% of total)
Females 215 (68% of total) 147 (73% of total) 362 (70% of total)
Total 315 (61% of total) 200 (39% of total) 515 (100%)

Research questions one through four include the entire sample population of
Native Hawaiian college students (515) (See Table 8, below). The population for
research questions five through nine includes Kamehameha High School alumni
only (410). Research questions ten through thirteen include the subgroup OHS-
Other High School alumni (105).
Table 8. RQ-1, RQ-2, RQ-3, RQ-4 All Study Respondents
Gender College
Graduates
College Non--
completers
Total
Males 100 53 153
Females 215 147 362
Total 315 200 515

41
Findings

Research Questions

Research question 1 asked, “How do native Hawaiian college graduates
differ from native Hawaiian college non-completers in the areas of student
involvement? An independent samples t-test revealed that for this population of
Native Hawaiian college students, there was a significant difference in the mean
scores of graduates vs. non-graduates in three areas of student involvement (See
Table 9): Residency [t(508)= -8.68p<.001], Peer Involvement [t(485)= -6.91,
p<.001], and Commitment to Faculty [ t(486= -4.42, p<.001]. There was no
significant difference in the area of Native Hawaiian sense of belonging (See
Tables 9).

Table 9. RQ-1 A-Native Hawaiian college graduates vs. college non-completers

College Completion Non-completers
Measure M SD N M SD N

Gender 1.68 .47 315 1.74 .44 200
Native Hawn sense 4.50 .58 315 4.45 .57 200
Residency** .36 .35 315 .14 .24 200
Peer Involvement** 3.92 1.27 312 3.10 1.23 175
Commitment to Faculty** 2.28 .84 312 1.99 .62 176

** p< .001

Research question 2 asked, “How do Native Hawaiian male college graduates (100)
differ from Native Hawaiian female college graduates (215) in the areas of student
involvement? An independent samples t-test (Tables 10) revealed for this
42
population of Native Hawaiian college graduates, there was a significant difference
in means scores between males and females in the area of:
Residency [t(313)= 2.36, p<.05].
Table 10. RQ-2 A- Native Hawaiian college graduates, males vs. females.

Male college graduates Female college graduates
Measure M SD N M SD N

Gender 1.68 .47 100 1.74 .44 215
Native Hawn sense 4.50 .58 100 4.45 .57 215
Residency* .36 .35 100 .14 .24 215
Peer Involvement 3.92 1.27 100 3.10 1.23 215
Commitment to Faculty 2.28 .84 100 1.99 .62 215

** p< .05

Research question 3 asked, “For this cohort of native Hawaiian males, how
do college graduates (100) differ from Native Hawaiian male college non
completers (53) in the areas of student involvement? An independent samples t-test
(Table 11). revealed for this population of Native Hawaiian males there was a
significant difference in means scores in the areas of: Residency [t(127)= 4.37,
p<.001], and Peer Involvement [t(144)=2.96, p<.05] There were no significant
differences in mean scores for Native Hawaiian sense of belonging, and
Commitment to faculty.
Table 11. RQ-3 Native Hawaiian male college graduates and male college non-
completers

Male college graduates Male college non-completers
Measure M SD N M SD N

Native Hawn sense 4.46 .53 100 4.42 .63 53
Residency** .43 .35 100 .20 .28 53
Peer Involvement* 3.93 1.27 100 3.28 1.16 53
Commitment to Faculty 2.30 .94 100 2.03 .60 53
** p< .001
** p<.05

Research question 4 asked, “For this cohort of native Hawaiian females, how do
college graduates (215) differ from college non-completers (147) in the areas of
student involvement. An independent samples t-test (See Table 12) revealed for
this population of Native Hawaiian female college students, there was a significant
difference in means scores between college graduates and college non-completers
in three areas: Residency [t(359)= 7.32, p<.001], Peer Involvement [t(339)=6.22,
p<.001], and Commitment to Faculty [t(339)=3.70, p<.001].
Table 12. Native Hawaiian female college graduates and female college non-
completers

Female Graduates Female Non-completers
Measure M SD N M SD N

Native Hawn sense 4.52 .60 215 4.47 .56 147
Residency** .33 .34 215 .11 .22 147
Peer Involvement** 3.92 1.27 212 3.04 1.24 129
Commitment to Faculty** 2.28 .79 212 1.97 .63 129

** p< .001

Results from research questions 1-4 suggest that for this cohort of native
Hawaiian college students, residency, living on campus, was a positive predictor
43
44
for college persistence to degree completion. The subgroups native Hawaiian
college graduates and female native Hawaiian college graduates were both
influenced by all three variables of student involvement, residency, peer
involvement and commitment to faculty. Native Hawaiian male college graduates
were not as highly influenced by the variable, commitment to faculty. These
results were expected as findings in the literature support Astin’s theory of student
involvement (1984). Research question two asked the difference between male and
female college graduates. Results suggested that gender did not play a significant
role between college graduates and college non-completers. The variable, Native
Hawaiian sense of belonging, did not appear to be influential in the pursuit of a
college degree, suggesting that the student does not need to suppress his or her
cultural beginnings in order to persist through college completion and a bachelor’s
degree. This result may be in direct opposition to Tinto’s theory of student
integration (1993).

Research Questions 5-10 include Kamehameha High School Alumni (n=410).

Table 13 Kamehameha High School Alumni
Gender College
Graduates
College Non--
completers
Total
Males 86 40 126
Females 184 100 284
Total 270 140 410

Research question 5 asked, “For Kamehameha High School alumni how do
college graduates differ from college non-completers in the areas of student
involvement?” An independent samples t-test (Table 14).revealed that for this
population of Kamehameha High School alumni, there was a significant difference
in mean scores between college graduates and college non-completers in three
areas: Residency [t(354)= 7.08, p<.001], Peer Involvement [t(385)= 5.75, p<.001],
and Commitment to Faculty [ t(386)= 3.45, p<.001] There was no

Table 14. A-Kamehameha High School college graduates vs. college non-
completers

College Completion Non-completers
Measure M SD N M SD N

Gender 1.69 .47 270 1.71 .45 140
Native Hawn sense 4.53 .54 270 4.51 .59 140
Residency** .37 .34** 270 .16 .26 140
Peer Involvement** 3.94 1.27** 269 3.17 1.19 118
Commitment to Faculty ** 2.29 .84** 269 1.99 .64 119

** p< .001

` Research question 6 asked, “For Kamehameha High School alumni college
graduates, how do male college graduates (n=86) differ from female college
graduates (n=185) in the areas of student involvement?” An independent samples t-
test (Table 15) revealed that for this population of Kamehameha High School
alumni college graduates, there was a significant difference in mean scores in
45
Residency [t(124)= 3.39, p=.001]. There were no significant differences in mean
scores between male college graduates and female college graduates in Native
Hawaiian sense of belonging [t(124)=.36, p=.72], peer involvement [t(119)=1.85,
p=.07], and commitment to faculty [t(120)=1.60, p=.11].

Table 15. Kamehameha High School alumni college graduates males vs. females.

Males Females
Measure M SD N M SD N

Native Hawn sense 4.48 .52 86 4.44 .55 185
Residency** .43 .34 86 .34 .34 185
Peer Involvement 3.90 1.28 86 3.97 1.27 184
Commitment to Faculty 2.30 .94 86 2.29 .80 184

** p< .001

Research question 7 asked, “For Kamehameha High School male alumni,
how do male college graduates (n=86) differ from male college non-completers
(n=40) in the areas of student involvement?” An independent samples t-test (Table
16) revealed that for this population of Kamehameha High School male alumni,
there was a significant difference between male college graduates and male college
non-completers in mean scores in Residency [t(124)= 3.39, p=.001]. There were
no significant differences in mean scores between male college graduates and male
college non-completers in Native Hawaiian sense of belonging [t(124)=.36, p=.72],
peer involvement [t(119)=1.85, p=.07], and commitment to faculty [t(120)=1.60,
p=.11].
46

Table 16. Kamehameha High School male alumni college graduates vs. non-
completers (N = 125)

College graduates Non-completers
Measure M SD N M SD N

Native Hawn sense 4.48 .52 86 4.44 .64 40
Residency** .43 .34 86 .23 .28 40
Peer Involvement 3.90 1.28 86 3.44 1.19 40
Commitment to Faculty 2.29 .94 86 2.02 .64 35

** p< .001

Research question 8 asked, “For Kamehameha High School alumni, how do
female college graduates (n=184) differ from female college non-completers
(n=100) in the areas of student involvement and engagement?” An independent
samples t-test (Table 17) revealed that for this population of Kamehameha High
School female alumni, there was a significant difference in means scores between
female college graduates and female college non-completers A-in three areas:
Residency [t(259)=6.01, p<.001]. Peer involvement [t(264)=5.50, p<.001], and
commitment to faculty [t(264)=3.11, p<.001]. There was no significant difference
in means scores (Table 25) between female college graduates and female college
non-completers in Native Hawaiian sense of belonging [t(282)=.11, p=.91].

47
Table 17. A-Kamehameha High School female college graduates vs. female college
non-completers

College Completion Non-completers
Measure M SD N M SD N

Native Hawn sense 4.55 .55 184 4.54 .57 100
Residency** .34 .34 184 .13 .24 100
Peer Involvement** 3.96 1.27 183 3.06 1.18 83
Commitment to Faculty ** 2.28 .80 183 1.97 .64 83

Research question 9 asked, “For KS boarders (while in high school), how
do college graduates differ from non-completers in the areas of student
involvement?” Results of an independent samples t-test (Table 18) revealed that
for this population of Kamehameha alumni boarders, there was a significant
difference in mean scores between college graduates (41) and college non-
completers (28) in the areas of Residency [ t(64)=3.45, p<.001], and Peer
Involvement [t(60)=3.35, p<.001]. There was no significant difference in Native
Hawaiian sense of belonging (Table 27): [t(67)= -.08, p>.001], or commitment to
faculty [t(62)= 1.85, p>.001]. “Residency” refers to living on campus while
enrolled and “Peer involvement” refers to spending time talking or studying with
other students outside of class. College completers were significantly more likely to
have lived on campus and spent more time studying and interacting with peers
compared to non-completers.

48
Table 18. Kamehameha High School Boarders

College Graduates Non-completers
Measure M SD N M SD N

Native Hawn sense 4.66 .43 41 4.67 .45 28
Residency** .32 .32 41 .12 .17 28
Peer Involvement** 4.18 1.50 41 3.14 .97 23
Commitment to Faculty 2.57 1.23 41 2.06 .66 23

** p< .001

Research question 10 asked, “For KS college graduates, how do students
who boarded in high school differ from commuter students in the areas of student
involvement? “ Results of an independent samples t-test (Table 19) revealed that
for this population of KS alumni college graduates there were no significant
differences in mean scores between boarders and commuters in the areas of student
involvement or the variable, native Hawaiian sense of belonging.

Table 19. KS alumni college graduates, boarders vs. commuters

Measure M SD N M SD N
Gender 1.70 .46 229 1.59 .50 41
Native Hawn sense 4.50 .55 229 4.66 .43 41
Residency .38 .34 229 .32 .32 41
Peer Involvement 3.90 1.23 228 4.18 1.49 41
Commitment to Faculty 2.23 .75 228 2.57 1.23 41

49
Results from research questions 5-10 suggest that for this cohort of
Kamehameha High School Alumni, one independent variable, residency, was
identified as a positive predictor for college persistence to degree completion in
support of Astin’s theory of student involvement (1984). On the other hand,
Kamehameha female college graduates were influenced by all three variables of
student involvement, residency, peer involvement and commitment to faculty.
Research question 11 asked, “For NH college graduates, how do KS alumni
differ from OHS alumni in the areas of areas of student involvement?” Results of
an independent sample t-test (Table 20) revealed that for this population of native
Hawaiian college graduates, KS alumni differed from OHS alumni in the areas of
Gender [t (313)=.25, p>.001], NH sense of belonging [t (313) = 2.14, p>.001]
Residency [t (313)=1.14, p>.001] Peer Involvement [t (310)=.81, p>.001]
Commitment to faculty [t (310) =.10, p>.001].

Table 20. KHS alumni college graduates vs. OHS alumni college graduates

Measure M SD N M SD N
Gender** 1.69 .47 270 1.67 .48 45
Native Hawn sense** 4.53 .54 270 4.33 .75 45
Residency** .37 .34 270 .31 .39 45
Peer Involvement** 3.94 1.28 269 3.78 1.23 43
Commitment to Faculty** 2.29 .84 269 2.27 .84 43

** p<.001

50
There was a significant difference in the means for all key independent variables
between those college completers who attended KS and those who attended other
high schools. KS graduates were more likely to live on campus, had a stronger
sense of Native Hawaiian belonging, were more likely to be female, and reported
greater contact with peers and faculty while in college.

Research question 12 asked, “How do OHS Alumni college graduates
(n=45) differ from OHS alumni college non-completers (n=60) in the areas of
student involvement?” Results of an independent samples t-test (Table 21) revealed
that for this population of OHS alumni, there was a significant difference in means
scores between college graduates and college non-completers in the area of
Residency [ t(60)=3.53, p<.001].
Table 21. OHS alumni college graduates vs. college non-completers

College graduates College non-completers
Measure M SD N M SD N
Gender 1.67 .48 45 1.78 .42 60
Native Hawn sense 4.33 .75 45 4.31 .51 60
Residency** .31 .39 45 .08 .19 60
Peer Involvement 3.78 1.23 43 2.96 1.29 57
Commitment to Faculty 2.27 .84 43 1.99 .60 57
** p<.001
Research question 13 asked, “For OHS Alumni college graduates, how do
males (n=15) differ from females (n=30) in the areas of student involvement?”
There was no significant difference (Table 34) between OHS Alumni college
graduate males and females in the areas of student involvement.
51
52

Summary
In conclusion, there were differences between Native Hawaiian college
completers and non-completers, differences that aligned with much of Astin’s
research on college persistence. Living on campus emerged as one critical
difference between persisters and non-completers, and, depending on the sub-
population, so did interaction with faculty and peers. Interestingly, having a
stronger sense of Native Hawaiian belongingness mattered only for female KS
alumni.
In addition, there were some distinctions even within the college graduate
sample, distinctions that were not related to likelihood to graduate from college, but
that did characterize those who had completed high school at KS versus those who
attended other high schools. KS alumni who completed college were also more
likely than those from other high schools to have lived on campus, have a solid
sense of Native Hawaiian belongingness and interacted more with peers and
faculty. Implications of these findings are discussed in the next chapter.

53
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter includes an overview of the study, the purpose of this study,
research questions and groups, summary of findings, conclusion and a
recommendation for practice.
Overview
The number of native Hawaiian college students has increased in higher
education. Enrollment of native Hawaiians at the University of Hawaii in Manoa
increased by 21 percent from 2004 to 2008 (UH-Manoa, 2008). However, the
literature paints a depressing picture for this underserved minority group. Many of
them are first generation college students who lack the parental support or cultural
capital needed to navigate through the barriers of transitioning to college
(Makuakane-Drechsel & Hagedorn, 2000; Hagedorn, Tibbets, Moon & Lester,
2003a).
Although the enrollment numbers have increased for native Hawaiian
college students, their graduation rate with a four year degree has not changed
significantly within the past three decades, between nine and twelve percent (State
Databook, 2006). This discrepancy between enrollment numbers and graduation
rates warrants an examination by college administrators so that they can provide
the appropriate type of assistance necessary for this marginalized group to persist
through college completion and a bachelor’s degree.
54
Purpose of this study
As part of the CP-TASKS project, Native Hawaiian high school graduates
voluntarily responded to a 54-item survey. The specific goals of that project were
to explore the relationships among the factors of pre-college characteristics,
financial aid, college experiences, persistence and retention with the completion of
a college bachelor’s degree. This study was a secondary analysis of data gathered,
analyzed, and validated through the CP-TASKS project. The goals of this study
were to determine if the variables of student involvement, specifically: Residency,
Peer Involvement and Commitment to faculty, along with the Native Hawaiian
sense of belonging, make any significant difference in college completion to a
bachelor’s degree.
There were 515 voluntary respondents in this study, 315 were college
graduates and 200 were college non-completers. There were 362 female
respondents and 152 male respondents. Although there was a gender bias (i.e., 70
percent of the survey respondents were female), due to the voluntary nature of the
survey, gender proved not to be a significant factor in predicting college
completion to a bachelor’s degree and weighting the sample was not required. The
majority of survey respondents (n =410), graduated from Kamehameha High
School (KHS). The remaining individuals (n =105), graduated from other high
schools (OHS), in the State of Hawaii and received postsecondary aid from the Ke
Alii Pauahi Foundation. Sixty-nine respondents were alumni from Kamehameha
and boarded at the school during their high school experience.
55
Research Questions and Groups
This study generated 13 research questions about the following groups:
Native Hawaiians, Kamehameha High School (KHS) alumni, Kamehameha High
School alumni boarders, and Other High School (OHS) alumni. The dependent
variable was college completion to a bachelor’s degree. The four independent
variable scales were Native Hawaiian sense of belonging, residency, peer
involvement, and commitment to faculty.
Summary of Findings
The primary focus of this study was native Hawaiian college students.
Results revealed that college completers are significantly more likely to live on
campus during the college experience. Female completers were more likely to
engage with peers and faculty than female non-completers. The findings also
revealed that the native Hawaiian sense of belonging variable was of no particular
influence in completing a college education and earning a four-year degree.
Results revealed other significant findings. First, enrollment in
Kamehameha did not differentiate college completers from non-completers.
Second, gender made no difference in completing college as males and females
retained approximately the same graduation rates. Third, for Kamehameha High
School Alumni, it did not matter if they boarded at Kamehameha during their high
school experience or not. Fourth, the native Hawaiian sense of belonging had no
bearing on whether a student would or would not graduate from college.
56
These findings supported Astin’s theory of student involvement, in that
living on campus and engaging with faculty and peers are variables his work has
identified as mattering for college completion. The findings related to Tinto’s
theory of integration, Native Hawaiian belongingness, are less clear. Native
Hawaiian belongingness, another way of saying “strength of cultural
identification,” did not distinguish completers from non-completers, generally. This
study did not have a measure of students’ sense of connectedness to their college
campus. Having such a measure might have given us more insight into the role (or
lack thereof) of one’s strength of Native Hawaiian cultural identification, if one
conceives of the college environment as being different from or even in opposition
to Native Hawaiian values. However, given that most of the students enrolled in
colleges in state, perhaps there wasn’t the expected contract in cultures.
Conversely, perhaps thinking of the institutional culture and Native Hawaiian
culture as being in opposition (that one needs to subsume one’s culture to integrate
into the institution’s culture) is faulty.
Recommendation for Practice and Implications for Future Studies
Upon revisiting his work in 1996, Astin noted that the concept of student
involvement continued to have a powerful impact on students. Findings in this
study suggest that academically prepared students, who reside on campus, interact
with peers, participate with faculty members both in and outside the classroom
environment, will experience positive outcomes of college attendance and
57
persistence. Pike and Kuh (2005) concur and recommend that higher education
institutions require first-year college students to reside on campus.
Native Hawaiian college students who are already marginalized and
represent an underserved minority since 1893 during the overthrow of the Hawaiian
monarchy deserve a chance at succeeding in higher education. College
administrators and policy makers may want to consider providing native Hawaiian
college students with tuition and student fee waivers to the three public universities
in Hawaii. A work-study program would allow for students become familiar with
campus activities and involved with others, creating a positive college experience,
enhancing college persistence to college completion and a bachelor’s degree.
Further studies could explore Native Hawaiians’ sense of integration into
the college campus, and compare their sense of Native Hawaiian belongingness to
their sense of integration, looking at how that relationship and the student’s
persistence varies (if at all) by campus demographics. Many Native Hawaiians
attend predominantly white institutions on the mainland, so securing larger samples
with greater institutional variety could help us explore the relevance of Tinto’s
theory more deeply.
Ultimately, we want to create environments and programs that facilitate
student learning and retention in U.S. colleges. This study suggests that while
Native Hawaiians are a unique group with unique cultural values and experiences,
some of the well established research findings about student retention, derived from
samples with few Native Hawaiians in them still apply and can guide our practice.
58
REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the Toolbox: Academic Intensity, Attendance
Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. Washington, DC: Office of
Education Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

Astin, A.W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Development 40(5), 518-529.
Astin, A.W. (1993). What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited.
Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series.
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Development .
Bank, B.J., Biddle, B.J., & Slavings, R.L. (1992). What do students want?
Expectations and undergraduate persistence. The Sociological Quarterly
33(3), 321-335.
Bank, B.J., Biddle, B.J., & Slavings, R.L. (1990). Effects of peer, faculty, and
parental influences on student persistence. The Sociological Quarterly 63,
208-225.
Baum, E. & Milem, J. (2006). Student success in college: Creating conditions
that matter. Review of Higher Education 29(2).

Beil, C., Resien, C A., et al. (1999). A longitudinal study of the effects of
academic and social integration and commitment on retention. NASPA
Journal 37(1), 376–385.

Benham, M. & Heck, R. (1998). Culture and Educational Policy in Hawaii.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bennett, C. & Okinaka, A.M. (1990). F actors related to persistence among Asian,
Black, Hispanic, and White undergraduates at a predominately-white
university: Comparisons between first and fourth year cohorts. Urban
Review 23, 33–60.

Braxton, J.M. (Ed.). (2004). Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle. Nashville,
TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
59
Braxton, J.M., Milem, J.F., & Sullivan, A.S. (2000). The influence of active
learning on the college student departure process. The Journal of Higher
Education 7(5).
Brown, L.L. & Robinson Kurpius, S.E. (1997). Psychosocial factors influencing
academic persistence of American Indian College Students. Journal of
college student development 38(1), 3-12.
Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., & Casteneda, M.B. (1993). College persistence:
Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student
perstistence. 64(2). (Mar.-Apr).
Carter, D.F. (2002). College students' degree aspirations: A Theoretical model
and literature review with a focus on African American and Latino
Students. In Smart, John C. (Ed.). (2002). Higher Education: Handbook of
Theory and Research. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity (Rev. ed.).
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Day, J.C. & Newburger, E.C. (2002). The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment
and Synthetic Estimates of Work-life Earnings. Current Population Reports.
Census Bureau: Washington, D.C.
Gall, M.., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational Research: An Introduction,
Sixth Edition. White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Publishers.
Gladieux, L.E. & Swail, W.S. (2000, May). Beyond access: Increasing the odds
of college success. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 688–692.

Guthrie, J.P. (1999). High involvement work practices, turnover and productivity:
Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal (In Press).

Hagedorn, L.S. (2004). Center Stage, Center For Higher Education Policy
Analysis, Urban Ed, The magazine of the USC Rossier School of Education.
University of Southern California, p. 37.

Hagedorn, L.S., Lester, J., Moon, H S., & Tibbetts, K. (2006). Native Hawaiian
Community College Students: What Happens? Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 21–39. 2006 Copyright # Taylor &
Francis, Inc.

60
Hagedorn, L.S., Tibbetts, K., Moon, H.S. & Lester, J. (2003a). Factors
Contributing to College Retention in the Native Hawaiian Population.
Presented at the September 2003 Kamehameha Schools Research
Conference in Honolulu, HI. Submitted for publication to Hulili
Kamehameha Schools' Multidisciplinary Journal on Hawaiian Well-being.

Hagedorn, L.S., Tibbetts, K., Moon, H.S., Matsumoto, D.H.K., & Makuakane-
Lundin, G. (2003b). The Academic and Occupational Outcomes of
Residential High School Student Instruction. Presented at the April 2003
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL.

Hagedorn, L.S. (2006). Native Hawaiian community college students: What
happens?. Community Collete Journal of Research and Practice 30, 21-39.
Hall, C. (1999). African American College Students at a Predominantly White
Institution: Patterns of Success. Paper prepared for an annual meeting of
the Association for Institutional Research, May 30–June 2, Seattle, WA.

Himelhoch, C.R., Nichols, A., et al. (1997). A Comparative Study of the Factors
which Predict Persistence for African-American Students at Historically
Black Institutions and Predominantly White Institutions. Paper prepared for
an annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
November 6–9, Albuquerque, NM.

Horn, L.J. (1998). Undergraduates Who Work. A Postsecondary Education Data
Analysis Report using data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid
Study (NPSAS: 96). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics, U.S. Department of Education
Just, H.D. (1999). Minority retention in predominantly white universities and
colleges: The importance of creating a good “fit.” (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 439 641)

Kanahele, G.H.S. (1986). Ku Kanaka, Stand Tall. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii Press.

Kennedy, P.W., Sheckley, B.G., et al. (2000). The Dynamic Nature of Student
Persistence: Influence of Interactions between Student Attachment,
Academic Adaptation, and Social Adaptation. Paper prepared for the
annual meeting of the Association for International Research, May 21–24,
Cincinnati, OH.

61
King, Samuel, P., & Roth, R.W. (2006). Broken Trust: Greed, Mismanagement,
and Political Manipulation at America's Largest Charitable Trust.
Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Kuh, G.D. & Love, P.G. (2000). A Cultural perspective on student departure. In
Braxton, J.M. (2004), (Ed.), Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle.
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Kuh, G.D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom.
American Educational Research Journal 30(2), 277-304.
Kuh, G.D., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J., & Associates. (1991). Involving Colleges:
Successful Approaches to Fostering Student Learning and Development
Outside the Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie,, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J., & Associates. (2005). Student
Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.

Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J., & Associates. (2008). Unmasking
the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and
persistence. The Journal of Higher Education 79(5) (Sept/Oct).

Leppel, K. (2005). College persistence and student attitudes toward financial
success. College Student Journal 39(2).
Makuakane-Drechsel, T. and Hagedorn, L. S. (2000). Correlates of retention among
Asian Pacific Americans in community colleges: The case for Hawaiian
students. Community college journal of research and practice. 24: 639-655.
Maramba, D.C. (2008). Understanding campus climate through the voices of
Filipina/o American college students. College Student Journal 42(4), pp.
1045-1060.
Nagda, B.A., Gregerman, S.R., et al. (1998). Undergraduate student-faculty
research partnerships affect student retention. Review of Higher Education
22(1), 55–72.

Native American Higher Education Consortium. (2000). Creating Role Models for
Change: A Survey of Tribal College Graduates. Alexandria, VA: Native
American Higher Education Consortium.

62
Okamura, J.Y. (1990). Ethnicity and Stratification in Hawaii, Operation Manong.
University of Hawaii at Manoa: Honolulu, HI.

Pascarella, E.T. ( 1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes.
Review of Educational Research 50(4), 545-595.
Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How College Affects Students:
Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco, CA:
Josssey-Bass.
Pavel, D.M., Skinner, R.R., et al. (1999, Spring). Native Americans and Alaska
Natives in postsecondary education. Education Statistics Quarterly 1(1),
67–74.

Pike, G.R. & Kuh, G.D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A
comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal
of Higher Education 76(3) (May-Jun.), pp. 276-300.

Reyes, M.E. (2000). What Does It Take? Successful Alaska Native Students at
the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice 2(2), 141-160
Seidman, A. (Ed.). (2005). College Student Retention: Formula for Student
Success. Westport, CT: Praeger publishers.
Smart, J.C. (Ed.). (2002). Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research.
Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
St. John, E.P., Paulsen, M.B., et al. (1996). The nexus between college choice and
persistence. Research in Higher Education 37(2), 175–220.

Strage, A.A. (1999). Social and academic integration and college success:
Similarities and differences as a function of ethnicity and family
educational background. College Student Journal 33(2), 198–205.

Swail, W.S. (2000). Preparing America’s disadvantaged for college: Programs
that increase college opportunity. In Cabrera and S.M. La Nasa (Eds.),
Understanding the College Choice of Disadvantaged Students. New
Directions for Institutional Research, No. 107. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.

63
Swail, W.S. & Perna, L.W. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: A national
perspective. In W. Tierney and L. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing Access to
College. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Terenzini, P.T., Cabrera, A.F., et al. (2001). Swimming Against the Tide: The
Poor in American Higher Education. New York, NY: College Entrance
Exam.

Terenzini, P.T., Springer, L., et al. (1996). First-generation college students:
Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development. Research in
Higher Education 37(1), 1–22.

Thayer, P.B. (2000). Retention of students from first generation and low income
backgrounds. Opportunity Outlook..

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of
recent research. Review of Higher Education 45(1), 89–125.

Trask, H.K. (1993). From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in
Hawaii. Common Courage Press.
Trochim, W.M.K. (2001). Research Methods Knowledge Base (Second edition).
Cincinnati, Ohio: Atomic Dog Publishing.
Tsai, J.L., Ying, Y-W., Lee, P.A. (2000). The meaning of “being Chinese” and
“being American” — variation among Chinese American young adults.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31(3), 302-332.

64
Completion, Persistence, Transfer and Success of
Kamehameha Students
A collaborative project between the Kamehameha Schools and the University of Southern California

Researchers from the University of Southern California and Kamehameha Schools are collecting this information as
part of a large study of both Kamehameha Secondary School (KSS) graduates and postsecondary financial aid
recipients. You have been selected as a participant in a multi-year project. Your cooperation will assist researchers
and the Kamehameha Schools in their efforts to increase college enrollment and graduation rates. Your assistance is
crucial to the project; we thank you for your participation in this important research.

Full Legal Name: ____________________________________________________________________________
FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL LAST MAIDEN NAME

Mailing Address:_____________________________________________________________

City, State, Zip: _______________________________________________________

Year of High School Graduation

Name of High School ___________________________________________________

Social Security Number (to be used to link your survey data with your KS data)

__ __

Your email address: ____________________________________________________

Telephone Numbers (daytime) ____________________(evening) ___________________________________

We want to follow your progress for the next two years; yet we realize that many people will move from time to
time. Please provide the names of two people who are likely to know your address even if you move. We request
the name, address, and telephone 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 all
times:

Name: __________________________________

Address: ________________________________

City, State, Zip: ___________________________

Phone Number: ___________________________

Email address: ____________________________

Relationship: _____________________________
Contact 2: A relative or friend who does not live with
you and who is likely to know your address at all
times

Name: __________________________________

Address: _________________________________

City, State, Zip: ___________________________

Phone Number: ___________________________

Email address: ___________________________

Relationship: ____________________________

Direction

Please answer all questions as completely and accurately as possible. Because your response will be read by a
machine, your careful observance of these few simple rules will be most appreciated.

- Use only black lead pencil (No. 2 is ideal).
- Make heavy black marks that fill the ovals EXAMPLES:
- (Do not circle or check the ovals).
- Erase cleanly any answer you wish to change. Correct Mark: Incorrect Mark:
- Make no stray markings of any kind. { { { { { { { {

65
PART 1: Demographics

1. Your Gender

Male {
Female {

2. Your present marital status?

Single {
Married { Æ Date of current marriage: __________/___________/_________
Month Day Year
Living with a
partner
{
Widowed {
Separated {
Divorced {

3. Please list the names and birthdates of all your children. Also include stepchildren who permanently live in
your household:

Name Date of Birth Stepchild

{

{

{

{

{

{

4. How old will you be on December 31 of this year?

21 or less {
22-24 {
25-26 {
27-older {

66
5. Indicate the approximate proportion of Hawaiian of your BIOLOGICAL GRANDPARENTS. Mark “FULL”
if one of your biological grandparents is ‘pure’ Hawaiian.

Full

Less than full
but more than
half

Half

Less than half
but more than
one-quarter

One
quarter or
less

None

Not
sure

Paternal Ancestry
-----------------------------

Your Father’s Father

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

Your Father’s Mother

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

Maternal Ancestry
-------------------------------

Your Mother’s Father

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

Your Mother’s Mother

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

6. While you were a high school student, how many children, not including yourself (under 18 years of age) lived
in your household?

None {
1-2 {
3-4 {
5 or more {

7. Indicate with whom you lived while in high school as well as who was (were) the primary wage earners.
(Mark all that apply.)

Living in my household Primary Wage Earner

Lived Alone

{

{
Mother / Step-Mother

{

{
Father / Step-Father

{

{
Grandparent(s)

{

{
Uncles/Aunts

{

{
Siblings or cousins over age 18

{

{

Other:__________________________

_______________________________

_______________________________

{

{

67

8. At the time of your high school graduation did
your parents or guardians own…?
(Mark one in each column.)

Yes No

Home

{

{
Car--5 years or newer

{

{
Car--older than 5 years

{

{
Computer

{

{
Big Screen TV

{

{

9. What is the highest level of formal education obtained by
your parents either in the U.S. or in another country?
(Mark one in each column.)

Mother Father

6th grade or less

{

{
Junior high or middle school

{

{
Some high school

{

{
Finished high school or GED

{

{
Some community college

{

{
Completed community college

{

{
Completed trade school

{

{
Some four-year college

{

{
Completed four-year college degree

{

{
Some graduate school

{

{
Graduate degree

{

{
I do not know

{

{

We are interested in the main jobs held by your parents WHILE YOU WERE IN HIGH SCHOOL (not the
name of their employers). If your parent was deceased prior to high school graduation, please write in
“deceased.” If you do not know your parent’s occupation please write in “unknown”. If your parent was
retired, please write in their main job prior to retirement.

10. Write in your father’s main job while you
were in high school

___________________________________

11. Write in your mother’s main job while
you were in high school

_________________________________

12. Do you have a disability?
(Mark all that apply.)

Hearing

{
Speech

{
Mobility impaired

{
Attention deficit disorder

{
Psychological disorder

{
Learning disability

{
Vision problem that cannot
be corrected by glasses or
contact lenses

{
Other

{
No disabilities

{

13. While growing up, did you/your family
receive any of the following?

Yes

No

WIC

{

{
Med-QUEST

{

{
Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC)

{

{
Welfare Benefits

{

{
Social Security Benefits

{

{
Food stamps

{

{
68
14. How well are you able to do the following in English? (Mark one for each item.)

Not at all With
difficulty
Fairly Well Very Well

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

{

{

{

{

PART 2: Hawaiian Culture

15. While you were growing up, what family
members were able to carry on a conversation
in Hawaiian? (Mark all that apply.)

{ Yourself
{ Mother/Stepmother
{ Father/Stepfather
{ Aunt(s)
{ Uncle(s)
{ Grandmother(s)
{ Grandfather(s)
{ Others _____________ Please specify
{ None
16. While you were growing up, what
language was primarily spoken in your
home?

{ Standard English
{ Pidgin English
{ Hawaiian
{ Other _______________ Please specify

17. How well are you able to do the following in the Hawaiian Language? (Mark one for each item.)

Not at all With
difficulty
Fairly Well Very Well

Read

{

{

{

{
Write

{

{

{

{
Understand a college lecture

{

{

{

{
Read a college text book

{

{

{

{
Write an essay exam

{

{

{

{
Write a term paper

{

{

{

{
69
18. For each of the following items, mark the column that best describes your own experience.

Rarely or never As occasional
words and
phrases
Sometimes as the
language of
conversation
As the primary
language
While growing up, I spoke
Hawaiian in my home

{

{

{

{
I speak Hawaiian to my
family/relatives

{

{

{

{
I speak Hawaiian to my
friends

{

{

{

{

19. Indicate your agreement with the following statements.

Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Not
Sure/
Neutral
Somewhat
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I have spent time trying to find out more
about Hawaiian history, traditions, and
customs

{

{

{

{

{
I am active in organizations or social groups
that include mostly Hawaiians

{

{

{

{

{
I have a clear sense of my Hawaiian
background and what it means to me

{

{

{

{

{
I think a lot about how my life will be
affected by my Hawaiian ethnicity

{

{

{

{

{
I am happy that I am Hawaiian

{

{

{

{

{
I have a strong sense of being Hawaiian

{

{

{

{

{
I understand what it means to be Hawaiian

{

{

{

{

{
In order to learn more about my Hawaiian
heritage, I have often talked to other people
about my Hawaiian ethnicity

{

{

{

{

{
I have a lot of pride in the Hawaiian people

{

{

{

{

{
I don’t try to become friends with non-
Hawaiians

{

{

{

{

{
I participate in Hawaiian cultural practices
such as special food, music, or customs

{

{

{

{

{
I am involved in activities with people from
ethnic groups other than Hawaiian

{

{

{

{

{
I feel a strong attachment toward Hawaiians

{

{

{

{

{
I enjoy being around people from ethnic
groups other than my own

{

{

{

{

{
I feel good about my Hawaiian culture and
ethnic background

{

{

{

{

{

70
20. For each of the following statements, mark the response that best describes your beliefs.

Strongly
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Not Sure/
Neutral
Somewh
at Agree
Strongly
Agree
My skin-color does not limit
my ability to succeed in life

{

{

{

{

{
My gender does not limit my
ability to succeed in life

{

{

{

{

{
Society does not limit my
ability to succeed in life.

{

{

{

{

{

PART 3: Junior and Senior High School Questions

21. Please provide the following information about your Junior High and High School attendance. (Mark all that
apply for each grade.)

Grade

Attended
Kamehameha
Attended
public
school
Attended
private school
other than
Kamehameha
Boarded (live-in student)
at Kamehameha or
other school
Attended
school on the
Mainland
Received Financial
Aid (does NOT
include free or
reduced price lunch
only)

7
th

{

{

{

{

{

{
8
th

{

{

{

{

{

{
9
th

{

{

{

{

{

{
10
th

{

{

{

{

{

{
11
th

{

{

{

{

{

{
12
th

{

{

{

{

{

{

22. Indicate which of the following courses you took in high school? (Mark all that apply.)

Basic math, Business
math, or Pre-algebra

{
Algebra I

{
Geometry

{
Algebra II

{
Trigonometry

{
Pre-calculus

{
Calculus

{
General Biology

{
Chemistry

{
Physics

{
Biology specialty (i.e.,
microbiology, genetics,
botany, cell biology,
marine biology, etc.)

{
Other Earth science
(i.e., geology,
meteorology, etc.)

{
71
23. What was your GPA in high school?
(Mark one.)

A or A+ (Extraordinary)

{ A- (Superior Quality)

{ B+ (Excellent)

{ B (Very Good)

{ B- (Good)

{ C+ (Above Average)

{ C (Average)

{ C- (Below Average)

{ D or lower (Poor)

{
24. How many AP (Advanced Placement) courses
did you take while in high school?

25. How many honors courses did you take
while in high school?

Not sure {
0

{
1-2

{
3-4

{
5 or more

{

26. At the time of high school graduation,
how many people were you financially supporting?

None

{
Only myself

{
Myself plus one more

{
Myself plus 2 more

{
Myself plus 3 more

{
Myself plus 4 or more

{

27. IF YOU ATTENDED HIGH SCHOOL AT KAMEHAMEHA, below are some reasons that might have
influenced your decision to attend your high school. How important was each reason in your decision to
attend? (Mark one for each statement.)

Very
Unimportant
Unimportant Slightly
Unimportant
Not Sure/
not
applicable
Slightly
Important
Important Very
Important

My parents wanted me to go there

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
My grandparent(s) wanted me
to go there

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
My aunts/uncles wanted me
to go there

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
The high school has a good
reputation

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
I wanted to go to a different high
school than many of my friends

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
The high school has good social
activities

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
The high school is affordable

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Not sure {
0

{
1-2

{
3-4

{
5 or more

{
72
Other family members attended

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
The high school graduates go to
good colleges

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
My friends attended

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Very
Unimportant
Unimportant Slightly
Unimportant
Not Sure/
not
applicable
Slightly
Important
Important Very
Important
The high school offers educational
programs of special interest to me
that other high schools do NOT
have

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
I want to get a college degree

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
To learn about the Hawaiian culture

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
To learn about the Hawaiian
language

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
I was already enrolled in that
school

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

28. Have any of the following people attended Kamehameha? (Mark all that apply.)

Grandparents

{
Parents

{
Aunts/Uncles

{
Cousins

{
Brothers/Sisters/Step-
siblings/etc.

{
Close friends

{
Neighbors

{

29. Have any of the following people received college financial aid from Kamehameha? (Mark all that apply.)

Grandparents

{
Parents

{
Aunts/Uncles

{
Cousins

{
Brothers/Sisters/Step-
siblings/etc.

{
Close friends

{
Neighbors

{

30. While you were in high school, what did the following people think about Kamehameha?
(Mark one for each statement.)

An excellent
school
A good
school
An average
school
A poor
school
Does Not
Apply

You

{

{

{

{

{
Your closest friends

{

{

{

{

{
Your parents or guardians

{

{

{

{

{
73
Your grandparents

{

{

{

{

{
Your aunts/uncles

{

{

{

{

{
Your high school teachers

{

{

{

{

{
Others

{

{

{

{

{
74

31. While in the 7
th
and 8
th
grade, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following
statements.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

My teacher(s) encouraged me to go to college

{

{

{

{
My guidance counselor encouraged me to go
to college

{

{

{

{

32. While in High School, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements.

Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Does Not
Apply

My father encouraged me to go
to college

{

{

{

{

{
My mother encouraged me to go
to college

{

{

{

{

{
My father stressed the
importance of having a college
education

{

{

{

{

{
My mother stressed the
importance of having a college
education

{

{

{

{

{
My high school teacher(s)
encouraged me to go to college

{

{

{

{

{
My high school guidance
counselor encouraged me to go
to college

{

{

{

{

{

33. My high school had workshops and/or classes on the college application process.

{ Yes
{ No

34. While you were in high school, how many others living in your household were in college or considering
college? (Mark all that apply.)

None 1-2 3-4 5 or more

In College

{

{

{

{
Considering
College

{

{

{

{

35. Did you attend college?

{ Yes
{ No (Go to question #51)
75

PART 4: College Section

36. For each year in college, which of the following best described your status as a student? We know that
some students may take longer than four years to complete college. However, please respond as
accurately as possible with respect to college classification. (Mark all that apply.)

College, State (write in) Full
time
Part
time
Applied for
Aid from
Kamehameha
Received
Financial aid
from
Kamehameha
Other
Scholarships
Other
Loans
Freshman

___________________

{

{

{

{

{

{
Sophomore

___________________

{

{

{

{

{

{
Junior

___________________

{

{

{

{

{

{
Senior

___________________

{

{

{

{

{

{
Master
Level

___________________

{

{

{

{

{

{
Doctoral
Level
___________________

{

{

{

{

{

{

37. If while an undergraduate you attended more than one institution, please tell us why you transferred.

38. With whom did you live while you were an undergraduate? (Mark all that apply.)

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

I lived alone

{

{

{

{
With my parents or guardians

{

{

{

{
With a roommate(s) or a friend(s)

{

{

{

{
In a fraternity/sorority house

{

{

{

{
With aunts/uncles

{

{

{

{
With siblings (brother(s) and/or sister(s))

{

{

{

{
With grandparents

{

{

{

{
With my spouse or partner

{

{

{

{
In a dormitory or residence hall

{

{

{

{

76

39. For the majority of time that you were an undergraduate, how many hours per week did you: (Mark one
for each statement.)?

No time Less
than 1
hour
1-2
hours
3-5
hours
6-10
hours
11-20
hours
21-35
hours
36-45
hours
46 hours
or more
Work at a job

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Do housework or childcare

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Watch TV

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Spend on campus (including
time in class)

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Spend talking with students

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Study alone

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Study with others

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Participate in athletics

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Talked with a teacher before
or after class

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Talked with a teacher during
office hours

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Participated in volunteer or
community service projects

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Participated in religious
clubs/groups

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Helped another student
understand homework

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Participated in intramural
sports

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Studied in small groups
outside of class

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
Spoke with an academic
counselor

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

40. Did you take remedial college courses as a college freshman?

{ Yes
{ No
{ Not
Sure

If yes, please list:

77

41. How large a problem was each of the following while attending college? (Mark one for each statement.)

Not a problem Small
problem
Medium
problem
Large
problem
Not applicable

Paying for college

{

{

{

{

{
Difficulty of classes

{

{

{

{

{
Scheduling classes for the next semester

{

{

{

{

{
Family responsibilities (e.g. child care,
parent care)

{

{

{

{

{
Job related responsibilities

{

{

{

{

{
Homesickness

{

{

{

{

{
Living with roommate(s)

{

{

{

{

{
College food

{

{

{

{

{
Transportation (access to public
transportation, sharing cars, etc.)

{

{

{

{

{
Socializing and/or making friends

{

{

{

{

{

42. From the time you started college as a freshman, how many semesters did you NOT take courses during
your undergraduate experience? (Note: Do NOT include summers. If you did not take any semesters off,
mark 0).

None

{
1 to 2 semesters off

{
3 or more semesters off

{

43. Indicate all degrees as well as the year that they were earned.
(Mark all that apply.)

Year Earned
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________

___________________________

{
None

{
2 year Associates Degree.

{
Bachelor’s degree (B.S., B.A., etc).

{
Master’s degree (M.A., M.S., etc.).

{
Ph.D. or Ed.D.

{
M.D., D.O., D.D.S., or D.V.M

{
L.L.B. or J.D. (Law)

{
B.D. or M.Div. (Divinity)

{
Other (please specify):
___________________________
78

Part 5. College Satisfaction

44. Please rate your satisfaction with the quality of the following facilities and services available at the
undergraduate institution you last attended. If you did not use the service or facility, mark “no
experience”.

Very Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied No Experience

College library

{

{

{

{

{
Computer labs

{

{

{

{

{
Other laboratory facilities
and equipment

{

{

{

{

{
Classroom facilities (non-
laboratory)

{

{

{

{

{
Computer assistance

{

{

{

{

{
Other academic assistance

{

{

{

{

{
Academic advising

{

{

{

{

{
Career center

{

{

{

{

{
Student housing facilities

{

{

{

{

{
Financial aid services

{

{

{

{

{
Student health center
services/ facilities

{

{

{

{

{
Psychological counseling
services

{

{

{

{

{
Recreational facilities

{

{

{

{

{
Child care services

{

{

{

{

{
Opportunities to participate
in Hawaiian clubs or
organizations

{

{

{

{

{

45. While you were an undergraduate, how many of your closest personal friends in college were Hawaiian?
(Mark one.)

None of my closest friends { One of my closest friends { A few of my closest friends { About half of my closest friends { Most of my closest friends { All of my closest friends {
79
46. As an undergraduate, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements:

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

I worried about paying for tuition

{

{

{

{
My parents worried about paying for
tuition

{

{

{

{
I was knowledgeable about the types
of financial aid available to me

{

{

{

{
I knew where to find information
about financial aid

{

{

{

{
There was a lack of financial aid
information available to me

{

{

{

{
Without financial aid, I could NOT
have continued to go to school

{

{

{

{
I did not need financial aid

{

{

{

{

Part 6.General Questions.

47. As an undergraduate, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements.

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

I found it easy to make new friends

{

{

{

{
I was not able to talk to my high
school friends about college

{

{

{

{
My high school friends did not
understand the demands of college

{

{

{

{
I chose my college major because I
was good at it

{

{

{

{
I chose my college major because I
found the work challenging

{

{

{

{
I believed I would be successful at
my college major

{

{

{

{
I considered myself a good college
student

{

{

{

{
I had the power to achieve my
educational goals

{

{

{

{
I felt that each person had control of
his/her own fate

{

{

{

{
No matter how hard I worked, I was
unable to succeed at anything I did

{

{

{

{
I had no control of my future

{
{
{
{

48. Using a scale from 1-5, how well did you like college when you were an undergraduate?

49. On a scale from 1 to 5, if you could do it over again, would you attend the same undergraduate college? Note:
if you went to more than one college, please answer for the last institution attended.

I hated it ……………………………...……………….…...I loved it
1 2 3 4 5

{

{

{

{

{
Definitely not………..………..Not sure…….…….……….Definitely
1 2 3 4 5

{

{

{

{

{
80
50. In your lifetime, what is the highest degree you intend to earn? (Mark one.)

{
High School Diploma

{
2 year Associates Degree

{
Bachelor’s degree (B.S., B.A., etc.)

{
Master’s degree (M.A., M.S., etc.)

{
Ph.D. or Ed.D

{
M.D., D.O., D.D.S., or D.V.M

{
L.L.B. or J.D. (Law)

{
B.D. or M.Div. (Divinity)

{
Other (please specify):
______________________________

51. If you have not earned a bachelor’s degree, do you plan on attending (or returning) to college?

{ Yes,
When? ________________________
{ No

52. Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements.
(Mark one for each statement.)

Strongly
Agree
Agree Slightly
Agree
Neither Agree nor
Disagree
Slightly
Disagree
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
In most ways my life
is close to my ideal.

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
The conditions of
my life are excellent.

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
I am satisfied with life.

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
So far, I have gotten
the more important
things I want in life.

{

{

{

{

{

{

{
If I could live my
life over, I would
change almost nothing.

{

{

{

{

{

{

{

53. Indicate if you are currently working full or part time.

{ Fulltime
{ Part-time
{ I am NOT working at this time

54. Write in your current occupation.

______________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the educational outcomes of 515 Native Hawaiian alumni who graduated between 1993 and 1995 from high schools throughout the State of Hawaii. The majority of students graduated from Kamehameha Schools, while the others received postsecondary financial aid from the Ke Alii Pauahi Foundation. Respondents were separated into two sections, college graduates and college non-completers. The entire population was divided into four groups, Native Hawaiians, Kamehameha Alumni, Other High Schools Alumni and Kamehameha Alumni Boarders. Research questions focused on the differences between college graduates and college non-completers as they related to residency, peer involvement and commitment to faculty. Astin’s theory of student involvement provided the theoretical framework for this study. In addition, this study included the Native Hawaiian sense of belonging variable.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship of a culturally relevant and responsive learning environment to achievement motivation for Native Hawaiian secondary students

PDF

Persistence interventions for Native Hawaiian students

PDF

From cultural roots to worldview: Cultural connectedness of teachers for native Hawaiian students

PDF

Who do we tell? School violence and reporting behavior among native Hawaiian high school students

PDF

Strengthening Kamehamehaʻs Hawaiian identity: the faculty perspective

PDF

Native Hawaiians and college success: Does culture matter?

PDF

Factors related to college graduation among private and public secondary school students

PDF

Kū i ke ao: Hawaiian cultural identity and student progress at Kamehameha Elementary School

PDF

Raising cultural self-efficacy among faculty and staff of a private native Hawaiian school system

PDF

Self-efficacy beliefs and intentions to persist of Native Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors

PDF

Reading comprehension of children of Hawaiian ancestry: a study of motivational and sociocultural factors

PDF

Native Hawaiian student success in the first-year: the impact of college programs and practices

PDF

Persistence among low income community college students

PDF

Factors inhibiting application for financial aid by low-income students at the University of Hawaii at Manoa

PDF

Ma ka hana ka ike perpetuating excellence in Native Hawaiian education: Native Hawaiian Education Council members' approaches to supporting the needs of Native Hawaiians

PDF

Hawaiian language and culture in the middle level math class

PDF

What factors influence student persistence in the community college setting?

PDF

A study of student affairs administration professional preparation in Chinese higher education

PDF

Perceptions of Hawai`i TRIO Talent Search staff and target high school administrators of college access factors and project effectiveness

PDF

Impact of culturally responsive education on college choice

Asset Metadata

Creator Matsumoto, Dolwin Haunani Keanu (author)

Core Title Factors affecting native Hawaiian student persistence in higher education

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 02/05/2010

Defense Date 01/22/2010

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

Tag Higher education,Native Hawaiian,OAI-PMH Harvest,student persistence

Place Name Hawaii (states)

Language English

Advisor Sundt, Melora A. (committee chair), Baca, Reynaldo R. (committee member), Picus, Lawrence O. (committee member)

Creator Email jesstarr@usc.edu,thesised1@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2834

Unique identifier UC1461314

Identifier etd-Matsumoto-3483 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-292598 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2834 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Matsumoto-3483.pdf

Dmrecord 292598

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Matsumoto, Dolwin Haunani Keanu

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu