Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist
(USC Thesis Other)
U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
U.S. Filipinos in Higher Education: Sense of Belonging, Validation, Well-Being, and
Campus Culture as Predictors of GPA and Intent to Persist
by
Maria Corazon Reano
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2020
Copyright 2020 Maria Corazon Reano
ii
Dedication
To my Nanay Domy...
To my Lolo Ido...
To my Tatay Monching...
I know true love, sacrifices, kindness, and courage because of you.
To my nanay and lolo, there is not a day that passes by that I don’t miss you. Salamat po for
raising me and for providing me with the best, most wonderful, loving childhood memories.
Thank you for watching over our family and for keeping us safe always.
To my tatay, mahal na mahal ko po kayo. I have the best, kindest dad in the world. This
achievement is for you. I hope I make you proud.
iii
Acknowledgments
To my dissertation committee members:
Dr. Ruth Chung, where do I even begin? The first day I met you, I knew that if you
taught in the EdD program, I would want you as my dissertation chair. You have been more than
a mentor and a source of support to me throughout this process. Thank you for inspiring me and
pushing me not only to be a better student but a stronger, more confident career woman. Thank
you for opening doors for me. This emotional but fulfilling journey wouldn’t have been the same
if you weren’t my chair. Thank you for helping me create a dissertation I am truly proud of.
Dr. Shaun Harper, I believe that there are key decisions we make that impact our lives for
the better. And for me, enrolling in your class was one of them. Because of you, I discovered my
need to learn more about my history and culture, and I’ve been more intentional about that ever
since. Through your teaching, I learned how to center Filipino experiences in my writing, and I
will forever be grateful. It is an honor to have you as part of my dissertation journey, and thank
you for all your encouragement and support.
Dr. Dina Maramba, when you agreed to be part of my dissertation committee, it all felt
complete. The first time we met, and you told me it’s possible to become a professor and
continue the work that I do with students, it opened my eyes to new possibilities. Your simple
encouragement of “You can do both” meant more to me than I could explain. Thank you for
sharing your work, which has been instrumental in developing my dissertation, knowing my
history, and bettering myself. I am so humbled to have you as part of my dissertation committee
and honored knowing you read my work. I hope to get the chance to collaborate with you again
in the near future.
iv
Special acknowledgments:
I give immense respect and gratitude to all those who paved the way and made it possible
for me to experience and complete this journey – to my ancestors, to my Reaño Family back
home in the Philippines, to the rest of my family, friends, and mentors, maraming salamat po!
Lahat po ng ito ay dahil sa inyo.
To all the members of USC Rossier community – from all the faculty who I had the
honor of working with and learning from, to staff members who I had the pleasure of working
with (DSC, especially Dr. Evelyn Felina Castillo, for being my companion for many, long
weekends), to amazing students who have inspired me – thank you for such a wonderful
experience. I am so proud to have completed the EdD program.
To my Fall 2016 Wednesday Night Cohort who I started this journey with, and to my
thematic group, Debbie, Veronica, La Shawn, Andre, and Juan, you all will always have a
special place in my heart for going through this roller coaster of a journey with me. A special
shoutout to Greg Akai, my writing partner/accountability buddy/emotional support. Thank you
for your support during this marathon. I would also like to thank all the students who participated
in my research. I wish I can thank each of you in person. I am forever grateful.
Finally, and most especially, to my loving partner, Kit Tsui, who made sure I was always
fed when I would spend hours in front of my computer, and who would walk with me outside so
I can get some fresh air and much-needed break. I love you, Kitkat. Thank you for your love,
patience, and support, and I can’t wait to build our lives together.
v
Table of Contents
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... x
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Overview of Study .................................................................................................... 1
Aggregation of Data on Asian Americans .......................................................................... 2
The Model Minority Myth .................................................................................................. 3
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 5
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................... 9
Significance and Purpose of the Study ............................................................................. 11
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 11
Chapter Two: Review of Literature .............................................................................................. 14
Who are the U.S. Filipinos? .............................................................................................. 14
Sense of Belonging ........................................................................................................... 18
Sense of Validation ........................................................................................................... 22
Psychological Well-Being ................................................................................................ 23
Culturally Engaging Campus Environments .................................................................... 26
Summary of the Literature Review ................................................................................... 29
Purpose of the Study, Research Questions, and Hypotheses ............................................ 29
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 32
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 32
Instruments ........................................................................................................................ 36
Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 45
Preliminary Analyses ........................................................................................................ 45
Analysis of Research Question 1 ...................................................................................... 47
Analysis of Research Question 2 ...................................................................................... 57
Analysis of Research Question 3 ...................................................................................... 58
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 60
Discussion of Results ........................................................................................................ 60
Limitations of the Study.................................................................................................... 67
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 68
Directions for Future Research ......................................................................................... 71
vi
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 72
References ..................................................................................................................................... 74
Appendix A: List of Majors .......................................................................................................... 83
Appendix B: List of Career Aspirations ....................................................................................... 85
Appendix C: Study Survey with Consent Form and Questions .................................................... 86
vii
List of Tables
Table 1. 9 Elements of Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model and
Definitions …………………………………………………………….......………………......... 28
Table 2. Characteristics of Participating Public Post-Secondary Institutions ………....…..…… 33
Table 3. Frequency Distribution of Student Participants ………………………………....……. 35
Table 4. Items Used for Sense of Belonging Scale …………………………………………….. 37
Table 5. Mental Health Inventory-18 (MHI-18) Key Variables, Definition and Sample Questions
………………………………………………………………………………….……………….. 39
Table 6. Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model Key Variables, Total Items,
Alpha Scores, and Sample Statements ………………………...……………………………...... 41
Table 7. Items Used for Intent to Persist Scale ………………...………………………………. 42
Table 8. Means, Standard Deviations, and Person Product Correlations for Measured Variables
……………………………………………...…………………………………………………… 46
Table 9. Means for GPA by Institution Types ……………………….…………………………. 48
Table 10. Means for Intent to Persist by Interactions of Gender and College Generation …..… 49
Table 11. Means for Academic Validation by College Generation …………………………….. 49
Table 12. Means for Academic Validation by Institution Types ……………………………….. 50
Table 13. Means for Academic Validation by Interactions of Gender, College Generation, and
Institution Types ………………………………………...……………………………………… 51
Table 14. Means for General Interpersonal Validation by Institution Types ……………..……. 52
Table 15. Means for Mental-Health Subscales by Gender ………………………….…………. 53
Table 16. Means for Mental-Health Subscales by College Generation …………...…………… 53
Table 17. Means for CECE Model Subscales by Institution Types ………...………………….. 55
viii
Table 18. Means for Holistic Support by Interactions of Gender, College Generation, and
Institution Types …………………………………...………………………………………….... 56
Table 19. Summary of Linear Regression Statistics for Variables Shown as Significant Predictors
of GPA among U.S. Filipino College Students ………………………………………………… 58
Table 20. Summary of Linear Regression Statistics for Variables Shown as Significant Predictors
of Intent to Persist among U.S. Filipino College Students …………………………......……… 59
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1. Kim’s (1999) Theory of Racial Triangulation ................................................................ 4
Figure 2. The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) model of college success .... 9
Figure 3. The CECE Model (Museus, 2014) as adopted for this study ....................................... 10
x
List of Abbreviations
AA Asian Americans
AAPI Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
CCC California Community Colleges
CECE Culturally Engaging Campus Environments model of college success
CSU California State University
GPA Undergraduate Grade Point Average
MMM Model Minority Myth
NHPI Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders
UC University of California
xi
Abstract
U.S. Filipinos are one of the largest immigrant groups in the United States. However, they are
often invisible in the discussion of race and education. Using quantitative research design, this
study examined various environmental and individual factors that influence U.S. Filipino college
students' educational experiences and success. More specifically, using the Culturally Engaging
Campus Environments (CECE) model of college success (Museus, 2014), this study explored the
influence of sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-being, and campus
culture on the undergraduate GPA and intent to persist of U.S. Filipinos in California.
Participants included 220 undergraduate students who self-identify as of Filipino descent and
attended the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), California
Community Colleges (CCC), or private post-secondary institutions in California. Results of the
study showed sense of belonging, psychological well-being, and campus culture as significant
predictors of GPA, while sense of validation and campus culture showed as significant predictors
of intent to persist. In addition, this study found significant main effects and interactions for
gender, college generation, and institution types. The findings of this study have practical
implications for educators and practitioners seeking to improve the academic success and college
experiences of U.S. Filipinos.
Keywords: Filipino, College Students, GPA, CECE Model, Sense of Belonging, Sense of
Validation, Intent to Persist, Psychological Well-Being, Campus Culture.
1
Chapter One: Overview of Study
The Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas is considered one of the most
significant legal decisions made by the Supreme Court (Moore & Lewis, 2014). Held on May
17, 1954, the Supreme Court banned the racial segregation of children in public schools,
announcing that there should be equal access to education for all students. The decision of
the Supreme Court represented a step closer towards achieving racial justice and civil rights
for all, no matter what the color of one’s skin may be. However, over sixty years later,
students of color continue to face ongoing invisibility, racial prejudice, and discrimination
within their institutions (Moore & Lewis, 2014). Inequality in funding, poor living
conditions, and scarcity in resources available have become more prevalent than ever before.
For examples, many African American students live and attend schools located in low-
income and under-funded neighborhoods (Moore & Lewis, 2014); Latinx students often face
segregation and racial biases in schools because of their ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and
language (Gándara & Aldana, 2014); and experiences of Asian American students are often
aggregated and oversimplified in higher education research (Buenavista, Jayakumar, & Misa-
Escalante, 2009). Despite six decades after the case of Brown v. Board of Education, ongoing
institutionalized racism and inequitable distribution of opportunities continue to persist,
leaving too many students of color helpless in failing educational systems (Pendakur, 2016;
Pérez & Solorzano, 2014).
This chapter begins with an overview of the educational barriers commonly faced by
Asian American and Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander college students due primarily to the
reporting of aggregated data and the Model Minority Myth (MMM). It is then followed by
examining more closely the experiences of U.S. Filipino college students, who fall under the
Asian racial category and are the primary focus of this study.
2
Aggregation of Data on Asian Americans
Asian Americans are the second fastest-growing racial group in the United States,
with Latinos as the largest (U.S. Census, 2017). By 2050, it is estimated that the Asian
American population will increase from 15.5 million to 40.6 million (Kim & Gasman, 2011).
However, despite the increase in representations, Asian Americans continue to be one of the
most misunderstood and under-researched racial groups (Museus & Park, 2015). The culture
and experiences of Asian American groups are often oversimplified and aggregated, failing
to take into account the complexity and diversity of various Asian American subpopulations
(Buenavista et al., 2009).
While there are over fifty Asian American subpopulations, many reports and research
studies highlighting the success and achievements of Asian American communities are often
dominated by East Asian groups, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans (Kim & Gasman,
2011). Additionally, the history and experiences of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and
Pacific Islanders are distinct from one another, but their complex history and experiences are
often conflated in various research and data reported on Asian American population (Poon,
Squire, Kodama, Byrd, Chan, Manzano, Furr, & Bishundat, 2016). For example, Filipinos
are rich in culture, language, socioeconomic status, and colonial history that are different
from other Asian American ethnic groups, which need to be further examined and recognized
in higher education (Maramba & Bonus, 2013). Another example is the college demographic
reports highlighting Asian American students' success, with high percentages graduating with
a bachelor’s degree within four to six years. However, disaggregation of these reports would
show failure in reporting the diversity of Asian American subpopulations, in that most Asian
American presence on college campuses are from the East Asian ethnic groups, while
representations from other AA and NHPI subgroups are sparse (Kim & Gasman, 2011; The
3
Campaign for College Opportunity, 2015). Aggregation of data on AA and NHPI students is
a disservice to the students and perpetuates the feeling of invisibility and erasure among
many other AA and NHPI subgroups (Kim & Gasman, 2011; Museus & Chang, 2009). It
undermines the students’ individual experiences and overshadows their need for additional
support, access, and resources provided to other students of color (The Campaign for College
Opportunity, 2015). Because aggregated data also often portray a racial stereotype of AA and
NHPI communities as hardworking and high achieving, it then leads to the distorted
perceptions of reality and lives of many AA and NHPI subpopulations, as well as undermines
the systemic racism expressed by other historically marginalized groups (Buenavista et al.,
2009; Poon et al., 2016).
The Model Minority Myth
The Model Minority Myth (MMM) is another contributing factor that influences the
racial stereotypes and discriminations faced by Asian American students (Museus & Kiang,
2009). It is a false notion that all Asian Americans achieve academic and occupational
success despite being faced with challenges also experienced by other people of color
(Buenavista et al., 2009). The MMM is a tool that exploits Asian Americans as middleman
minority, placing them in a racial bind between Whites and other people of color to uphold
White supremacy (Poon et al., 2016). According to the Theory of Racial Triangulation (Kim,
1999), Asian Americans have been racially triangulated since the mid-1800s through
“relative valorization” and “civic ostracism.” Relative valorization is where the dominant
race (Whites) gives validity to one race (Asian Americans) in comparison to another race
(Blacks) to dominate both groups ultimately. Civic ostracism is when the dominant group
(Whites) excludes another race (Asian Americans) from gaining political power and civic
membership. Kim’s (1999) Theory of Racial Triangulation is demonstrated in Figure 1.
4
Figure 1. Kim’s (1999) Theory of Racial Triangulation
Note. Reproduced from Kim, C. J. (1999). The racial triangulation of Asian
Americans. Politics & Society, 27(1), 105-138.
Understandably, many scholarly projects on Asian Americans have focused on
countering the MMM. However, a recent critical review of the MMM discovered key
limitations of the counter MMM framework, including focus on deficit thinking when calling
for disaggregation of data and equitable access and support; centralizing MMM rather than
focusing on the cultural values and perspectives that can be offered by the group; and the
neglect of accounting for its original purpose of maintaining anti-Black racism and White
supremacy when defining and understanding MMM (Poon, et al., 2016). Therefore, two
critical goals of this study are 1) to understand that the MMM is not simply a false notion of
hardworking and high-achieving model minorities, but a tool to continuously uphold
5
systemic racism and White supremacy, and 2) to centralize the history, values, and
experiences of U.S. Filipinos in understanding what factors help them persist, and ultimately
succeed, in college.
Statement of the Problem
U.S. Filipinos are one of the largest immigrant groups in the United States (U.S.
Census, 2017). However, they are often invisible within the discussion of race and education
(Buenavista, 2010). This study examines environmental and individual factors that influence
the undergraduate grade point average (GPA) and intent to persist among U.S. Filipino
college students across different types of public and private post-secondary institutions.
Additionally, this study provides a deeper examination of the complexity of Filipino history
and culture and how they shape and influence the students’ academic dispositions and
psychological well-being.
Educational Experiences of U.S. Filipinos
As mentioned earlier, experiences of U.S. Filipinos have rarely been examined or
documented, especially within the discussion of race and education (Buenavista, 2007;
Buenavista, 2010; Maramba & Bonus, 2013). In most studies on AAPI, especially in the
social sciences and education, Filipinos are often placed within larger racial group
assignments (e.g., minorities, Asian Americans). Moreover, studies on AAPI tend to have a
larger representation of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean American subgroups. The large
representations of these major groups often overshadow other AAPI subgroups, such as U.S.
Filipinos, and create misrepresentations that all AAPIs are similar, and therefore data can be
aggregated (Vea, 2013). Aggregated reports and continued racialization of U.S. Filipinos as
model minorities are problematic because they perpetuate the invisibility and false
generalization often experience by U.S. Filipinos (Buenavista, 2010). The stereotypes and
6
underrepresentation they encounter obscure their specific needs and the institutional barriers
and cultural obstacles they often face that influence their academic achievement and success
(Vea, 2013).
A disaggregated review of the state of higher education in California for Asian
American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander students showed lower admission and
achievement rates of Filipino students than other major Asian American ethnic groups (The
Campaign for College Opportunity, 2015). In the review of enrollments across the different
types of public, post-secondary institutions in California, Filipino students are overly
represented in the community college system, with 28.2% of the population than Chinese
students who only make up 17.4%. Conversely, Filipino students represent only 13.4% of
students in the University of California (UC) system, while Chinese students make up 30.5%
of the student population. For community college completion rates, only 50% of Filipino
students graduate within six years, while the graduation rate of Asian Americans, including
Japanese, Korean, and Chinese students, was 60%, 61%, 64%, and 73%, respectively. In
fact, the report showed that only 56% of Filipino students, the largest among the Asian
American subgroups, complete their A-G course requirements, leaving almost half of the
Filipino student population ineligible to transfer to California’s public four-year universities.
Interestingly, the report also showed that the community college completion rates of
Filipinos and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (NHPI) students were relatively similar
not to those of East Asian students, but those of Black and Latino students. Examining the
institutional factors, social contexts, and social identities that influence the college
experiences of U.S. Filipinos is crucial in creating the opportunities necessary for them to
feel supported, motivated, and ultimately complete their degrees.
7
Psychological Well-being of U.S. Filipinos
One of the many difficulties in promoting cultural competence when working with
cultural groups is that many, including Filipinos, are often overlooked and misrepresented,
not only in education but also in mental health services (Nadal, 2013). Literature written on
the mental health of Asian Americans show disproportionately less literature on the mental
health of Filipinos in comparison to any of the other major Asian American ethnic groups.
And when looking specifically at higher education, there is even less literature focusing on
U.S. Filipino college students (David, 2010; Nadal, 2013). Many academic and counseling
practices are based on other Asian American ethnic groups, predominantly of East Asian
Americans. Scarce literature on U.S. Filipino college students' mental health is problematic
because certain counseling and academic practices that work for other Asian American ethnic
groups may not be applicable and effective when working with U.S. Filipino college students
(Nadal, 2013).
The Philippines' unique colonial history, which significantly differs from the histories
and experiences of other Asian American ethnic groups, has greatly influenced the identity
development and cultural values of Filipinos living in the Philippines and the United States
(Leonardo & Matias, 2013; Nadal, 2004). For example, the Filipino cultural value of hiya
(shame) has important implications for mental health services. Because of the cultural stigma
associated with receiving mental health counseling, Filipinos may avoid seeking the help
they need to not be seen as weak or prevent the possibility of bringing embarrassment to their
family (David, 2010). Or if Filipinos seek help, it may be too late, and the problem has
become too severe (Nadal, 2013). Moreover, the type of counseling practices that are found
to be effective and helpful for other Asian American ethnic groups may not be the same for
U.S. Filipinos. According to Nadal (2011), rather than receiving directive counseling, such as
8
receiving practical advice, that may be effective for other Asian American ethnic groups,
Filipinos are more likely to respond to forming emotionally close relationships with their
counselors. Therefore, the generalized practices used for all Asian American college students
should not be assumed as also effective for U.S. Filipinos. Counselors and student affairs
professionals have ethical responsibilities to demonstrate cultural competence through
knowledge, awareness, and skills when working with different Asian American ethnic
groups, such as U.S. Filipinos (Nadal, 2013).
Factors that Influence Academic Success of U.S. Filipinos
Several pieces of literature have shown the influence of sense of belonging (Hurtado
& Carter, 1997; Maramba & Museus, 2013; Strayhorn, 2008, 2018; Strayhorn, Bie, Dorime-
Williams, & Williams, 2016), sense of validation (Hurtado, Cuellar, & Wann, 2011; Hurtado,
Ruiz Alvarado, & Guillermon-Wann, 2015), psychological well-being (David, 2010; Nadal,
2013), and campus climate (Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Pendakur, 2016) on the educational
experience and academic success of students of color. Other studies, though scarce, have also
looked at the influence of sense of belonging and campus climate (Maramba & Museus,
2013; Museus & Maramba, 2011), as well as psychological well-being (David, 2010; Nadal,
2004, 2011), specifically on U.S. Filipino college students. Using the Culturally Engaging
Campus Environments (CECE) model of college success by Museus (2014), the influences
of sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-being, and campus culture are
examined together in this study to gain a deeper understanding of various internal and
external factors that may be influencing the academic success and educational experiences of
U.S. Filipino college students.
9
Conceptual Framework
The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) model of college success by
Museus (2014) is a new theoretical model of student success designed to explain how
particular aspects of the institutional environments influence students’ individual factors and
other academic outcomes. The CECE Model proposes that culturally engaging campus
environments are associated with a higher level of sense of belonging for students and a
higher likelihood of success in college (Museus, 2014; Museus, Yi, & Saelua, 2017). The
CECE Model also recognizes the importance of external influences and precollege inputs on
shaping college success outcomes (Museus et al., 2017). See Figure 2.
Figure 2. The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) model of college success
by Museus (2014).
10
For this study, the CECE model has been adapted to examine more directly the
factors that have been shown to influence the educational experiences of U.S. Filipino
college students (See Figure 3). For individual influences, this study examines sense of
belonging, as well as sense of validation and psychological well-being. Adding sense of
validation and psychological well-being is a highlight of this study because these variables
have been shown to significantly influence the academic experiences of students of color, but
have yet to be examined together when examining the experiences of U.S. Filipino college
students specifically.
Figure 3. The CECE Model (Museus, 2014) as adopted for this study. Green boxes indicate
the modifications from the original CECE Model.
11
Significance and Purpose of the Study
To understand the complex histories, cultures, and current conditions faced by U.S.
Filipino college students, Maramba and Bonus (2013) pinpoints five key areas of focus: 1)
colonial pasts and presents; 2) migration and immigration patterns; 3) differing racialization
and identity development; 4) connections between diaspora and community belonging; and
5) acknowledging the different ethnic perspectives centered in multicultural projects. This
study examines several of the key areas mentioned above. First, this study adds to the
literature on how the colonization of the Philippines for over 300 years continues to influence
Filipinos, both living in the Philippines and the United States. Second, by examining various
individual and environmental factors that influence the GPA and intent to persist of U.S.
Filipino college students across different institutions, this study hopes to provide a more in-
depth understanding of the academic experiences and needs of U.S. Filipino college students
across different contexts. Lastly, with current research on the educational experiences of U.S.
Filipino college students predominantly based on qualitative inquiry (Maramba & Bonus,
2013), this study offers information on U.S. Filipino college students’ academic experience
and success through quantitative inquiry. While qualitative studies give a much-needed voice
to U.S. Filipinos who are often invisible in higher education research, the support of
quantitative studies help provide substance to those voices (Vea, 2013).
Organization of the Study
This study aims to investigate the following research questions:
Research Question 1: Do GPA, intent to persist, sense of belonging, sense of validation,
psychological well-being, and campus culture differ by gender, generation levels, college
generation, and institution types among U.S. Filipino college students?
Research Question 2: Do sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-being,
12
and campus culture predict U.S. Filipino college students’ GPA?
Research Question 3: Do sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-being,
and campus culture predict U.S. Filipino college students’ intent to persist?
The remaining chapters have been organized as follows:
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the colonial history of the Philippines and the
racialization and educational experiences of Filipinos in the United States. It is then followed
by an analysis of current research on sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological
well-being, and campus culture in higher education in relation to U.S. Filipino college
students' academic experiences.
Chapter 3 provides the methodology used for this study, including the participants'
demographics, instruments used, and data collection procedures.
Chapter 4 provides the main results of this study, including preliminary analyses,
research questions, and post-hoc analyses.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion on the results of the study, its limitations,
implications for practice, and directions for future research for researchers and practitioners
who wish to better understand the academic experiences and success of U.S. Filipino college
students.
Key Terms and Definitions
The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding of these
terms throughout the study.
U.S. Filipinos: People of Filipino descent residing in the United States, including
those who do not identify as Americans or are undocumented (Buenavista, 2010).
13
Colonial Mentality: A form of internalized oppression by Filipinos characterized by a
perception of ethnic or cultural inferiority believed to be a consequence of centuries of
colonization under Spain and the United States (David & Okazaki, 2006).
Sense of Belonging: In terms of higher education, sense of belonging represents the
students’ perceived social support and connection on campus, as well as feeling that they
matter, are accepted, cared about, respected, and valued by their campus community
(Strayhorn, 2018).
Sense of Validation: The involvement of institutional agents (e.g., faculty, staff,
administration) in actively reaching out and engaging students (Hurtado, Cuellar, & Wann,
2011).
Psychological Well-Being: Psychological factors that influence how students adjust
to college. The specific factors examined in this study are anxiety, depression, behavior
control, positive affect.
Campus Culture: Characteristics, norms, and actions of the institutional environments
that influence and shape students’ college experience and outcomes.
Kapwa: Can be translated as “fellow being.” An indigenous and core value that drives
Filipino culture, defined as the unity of “self” and “others” (Enriquez, 1994, as cited in
David, Sharma, & Petalio, 2017).
14
Chapter Two: Review of Literature
U.S. Filipinos are one of the largest immigrant groups in the United States. However,
they are often invisible within the discussion of race and education (Buenavista, 2010).
Chapter Two begins with a comprehensive overview of the colonial history of the Philippines
and the racialization and educational experiences of Filipinos in the United States. It is then
followed by an extensive review of the literature on the relevance of the variables used in this
study: 1) sense of belonging, 2) sense of validation, 3) psychological well-being, and 4)
campus culture. The Culturally Engaging Campus Environment (CECE) Model of college
success by Museus (2014) is the conceptual model used to examine the relationships of these
variables and their influence on U.S. Filipino college students’ GPA and intent to persist. The
chapter concludes with the specific research questions and corresponding hypotheses that
guide this study.
Who are the U.S. Filipinos?
U.S. Filipinos are people of Filipino descent residing in the United States, including
those who do not identify as Americans or are undocumented (Buenavista, 2010). According
to the U.S. Census Bureau (2017), U.S. Filipinos are one of the largest immigrant groups in
the United States, as well as the second-largest among the Asian American and Native
Hawaiian Pacific Islander ethnic groups. U.S. Filipinos fall under the Asian racial category,
which comprises of over 50 different ethnic groups. Similar to other ethnic groups that fall
within the Asian racial category, U.S. Filipinos have complex historical and cultural
experiences in comparison to other Asian American ethnic groups. For centuries, the
Philippines was a subject of colonization – first by Spain for nearly 400 years, then was
occupied by Japan for over three years, and finally was colonized by the United States for 50
years (Leonardo & Matias, 2013). The centuries of colonization of the Philippines influenced
15
the construction of Filipino identity, and led to the history of racial discrimination, social
injustices, and inequity in education that Filipinos living in the Philippines and the United
States continue to experience even today (Andresen, 2013; Leonardo & Matias, 2013; Nadal,
2004, 2011).
Colonialism in the Philippines
Filipinos have been subject to a long history of colonization. The use of English as
one of the Philippines’ national languages (Nadal, Pituc, Johnston, & Esparrago, 2010) and
the favoring of having lighter skin, straighter hair, and anything that pertains to American
culture (Leonardo & Matias, 2013) are among the influences of colonization on Filipino
culture and beliefs. One of the less known impacts of colonization is the lack of historical
self-identity of Filipinos outside the lens of its colonizers (Leonardo & Matias, 2013). For
example, the Philippines islands, which was where the term, Filipino, was derived from, was
named after King Felipe (Philip) II of Spain. The name of the nation and the word used to
identify its people are in of themselves results of colonization. Identifying oneself as Filipino
overshadows the existence of indigenous people who lived in the islands before Spanish
colonial rule. However, many still identify as Filipinos or Filipino Americans because there
are no other alternatives that bear no marking of colonialism.
Roman Catholicism, as a predominant religion in the Philippines, is another
consequence of colonialism (Nadal et al., 2010; Leonardo & Matias, 2013). Religion was
used to manipulate Filipinos into believing that their native culture is inferior to the Spanish
culture and that they needed Christian redemption to be saved. Through religion, Spain set
the stage of using education as a form of colonial subjugation towards Filipinos.
Consequently, when the United States took control of the Philippines in the early 20
th
century, they also used education to coerce Filipinos into subjectivity.
16
The Thomasites and the Pensionado Programs were two programs used by the United
States to institute colonial education among Filipinos (Leonardo & Matias, 2013). 600 White
teachers, called Thomasites – named after the U.S. Thomas ship they traveled in – came to
the Philippines to educate the people about the superiority of the American democracy. After
years of Thomasite teaching and internalizing the ideology of American superiority, the
Pensionado Program was then created in 1903. It allowed Filipinos to attend school in the
United States and return to the Philippines. It helped generate “highly trained, U.S-educated
Filipinos who embodied American ideals” (p.10) and institute a “formal” American
education in the Philippines (Leonardo & Matias, 2013). At first, the Pensionado Program
was available to the wealthy class only. Eventually, it was made available to those who were
not necessarily wealthy to further spread the toxic mentality of American superiority and
meritocracy.
After years of being told of their inferiority, fear and admiration towards their
“superior” colonizers developed in the minds of Filipinos, which eventually resulted in the
development of colonial mentality, influencing many U.S. Filipinos even today (Andresen,
2013; Leonardo & Matias, 2013). David and Okazaki (2006) define colonial mentality as a
form of internalized oppression by Filipinos characterized by the perception of ethnic or
cultural inferiority believed to be a consequence of centuries of colonization under Spain and
the United States. Colonial mentality “involves an automatic and uncritical rejection of
anything Filipino and an automatic and uncritical preference for anything American” (p.241).
It may be manifested in several ways, including feeling shame or inferiority about being a
person of Filipino-descent, regarding anything White to be more superior, attractive, and
beautiful, or discriminating against less-Americanized Filipinos. It is important to understand
and acknowledge the colonial history of the Philippines and the influence of colonial
17
mentality in the development of Filipino identity. They play major roles in the current social
and political structure and conditions faced by many U.S. Filipinos today.
U.S. Filipinos and Higher Education
In the United States, U.S. Filipinos experience what is referred to as dichotomous
racialization, which is the struggle of being considered model minorities but simultaneously
also feeling invisible (Buenavista, 2010). Being racialized as Asian Americans, U.S.
Filipinos are often considered “model minorities,” which stereotypes all Asian Americans as
academically and socioeconomically successful and do not need additional support and
resources, unlike other historically marginalized groups (Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal & Torino,
2007). The Model Minority Myth also exploits Asian Americans, including U.S. Filipinos, as
middleman minority, placing them in a racial bind between Whites and other people of color
to uphold White supremacy (Poon et al., 2016). For example, U.S. Filipinos are not qualified
or overlooked for resources available to other historically marginalized groups for being
racialized as model minorities (Buenavista, 2010; Nadal et al., 2010). However, depending
on the geographical locations, where U.S. Filipinos are largely concentrated, they are often
criminalized and overlooked for academic and social support services (Buenavista, 2010).
Because of this, the experiences, needs, and challenges of U.S. Filipinos are often
overshadowed or underrepresented. Therefore, it is essential to more clearly and more widely
examine the performance and needs of U.S. Filipinos to make sure that they feel supported
and motivated to persist and ultimately succeed in college (Maramba & Bonus, 2013).
The next sections provide additional information on environmental and individual
factors that influence U.S. Filipinos’ academic experiences in college. More specifically,
literature review on sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-being, and
18
campus culture and how they relate to U.S. Filipino college students’ educational experiences
and academic success are discussed.
Sense of Belonging
Several research studies have shown the influence of students’ sense of belonging on their
adjustment to college and subsequent educational outcomes (Hurtado & Carter, 1997;
Museus & Maramba, 2011; Maramba & Museus, 2013; Strayhorn, 2008, 2018; Strayhorn et
al., 2016). Belongingness is a fundamental motive that affects our behavior and influences
and supports our psychological and physical well-being (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Human
beings seek positive interactions and work towards sustaining those relationships. The way
we form relationships with others and how we present ourselves, and the extent to which we
put ourselves out there, are all motivated by our need to belong (Leary & Cox, 2008). In
terms of higher education, sense of belonging represents the students’ perceived social
support and connection on campus, as well as feeling that they matter, are accepted, cared
about, respected, and valued by their campus community (Strayhorn, 2018). By looking at
the students’ sense of belonging, institutions can better understand how particular forms of
social and academic experiences affect the students. In the next section, Tinto’s (1987, 1993)
Integration Theory is described to understand the early studies on student integration and
educational experiences, leading to future studies on sense of belonging (Hurtado & Carter,
1997; Maramba & Museus, 2013; Museus & Maramba, 2011; Strayhorn, 2008, 2018;
Strayhorn et al., 2016).
Tinto’s Integration Theory
Tinto’s (1987, 1993) Integration Theory states that students’ involvement in their
college community increases their academic integration and positively enhances their
educational experiences and academic success. Students who can demonstrate a higher level
19
of academic and social integration and ability to adjust to their college campuses' new
normative rules and cultures have a higher chance of persisting and completing their college
degrees. Tinto’s seminal work was influential in understanding students’ educational
experiences and challenges and leading educators to rethink student retention and degree
completion issues.
However, it is important to note that Tinto’s Integration Theory has also been highly
criticized for not accounting for the growing population of students from racially and
ethnically diverse backgrounds. Tierney (1992) criticized that Tinto’s (1993) Integration
Theory does not account for historically marginalized groups of students and privileges
students from Eurocentric backgrounds. Tanaka (2002) argued that the process of integration
for students does not have to proceed in only one direction, with Tinto’s process of
promoting more integration into the existing culture of the institutions. Overall, several
studies have criticized Tinto’s (1997) Integration Theory to promote assimilation and imply
that students’ college success is more dependent on the students' individual factors rather
than on the institutions' structural and cultural factors. It is important to note, however, that in
a recent interview, Tinto has acknowledged the importance of substituting “integration” with
“sense of belonging” (Wolf-Wendel, Ward, & Kinzie, 2009). The next section highlights
valuable work on sense of belonging and higher education (Hurtado & Carter, 1997;
Strayhorn, 2008, 2018; Strayhorn et al., 2016).
Sense of Belonging and Higher Education
Hurtado and Carter (1997) introduced the concept of students’ membership, or sense
of belonging, which captures whether they feel included and valued in their institutions. In
response to Tinto’s (1987, 1993) Integration Theory, they assert that students are able to feel
that they belong within their institutions without needing to assimilate to the dominant
20
group’s values and beliefs. In fact, students’ sense of belonging increases when they engage
more in meaningful academic and social activities (e.g., going to faculty office hours).
However, if students perceive a more hostile campus racial climate, it weakens their sense of
belonging.
Hurtado and Carter’s (1997) Sense of Belonging Scale was based on Bollen and
Hoyle’s (1990) Perceived Cohesion Scale, comprised of two dimensions: sense of belonging
and feelings of morale associated with group membership. For their study, Hurtado and
Carter (1997) focused on the dimension of sense of belonging and their influence on
students’ persistence. Studying students’ sense of belonging during the pivotal stages of their
development is important to assess their engagement and persistence in college and help
make visible the value of their experiences and culture within higher education.
Strayhorn’s (2018) work on sense of belonging also supports its critical importance
on college students’ healthy development, mental health, well-being, and academic success.
According to Strayhorn (2018), in terms of higher education, sense of belonging represents
the students’ perceived social support and connection on campus, as well as feeling that they
matter, are accepted, cared about, respected, and valued by their campus community. He also
emphasizes that students' sense of belonging is experienced differently based on their social
identities, including their race, gender, sexual orientation, or the various campus conditions.
Depending on the social contexts, some students may be more prone to feeling lonely,
unwelcome, or unsupported. Although sense of belonging is highly known as a basic human
motivation and connected to achievement, not enough is known about the social identities
and campus environments that help create a sense of belonging for various students.
Strayhorn et al. (2016) studied the influence of interactions with faculty and diverse
peers on the sense of belonging of 144 Native American undergraduate students attending
21
predominantly White universities in the United States. Their study is significant in learning
about the involvement and success of Native American college students, who are also often
invisible in higher education research. The phrase “Moving beyond the asterisk” has been
created to challenge researchers and practitioners to avoid using the asterisk symbol (*) as a
way to exclude data on Native Americans due to small representation or “statistically
nonsignificant” results (Shotton, Lowe, & Waterman, 2013, as cited in Strayhorn et al.,
2016). Strayhorn et al. (2016) showed that Native American students who engaged with
faculty and diverse peers felt stronger sense of belonging. Grades received also showed as
significant predictor of their sense of belonging. A previous study by Strayhorn (2008) on the
sense of belonging of Latino college students also showed similar results. Grades received
and interactions with diverse peers also influenced Latino college students’ sense of
belonging, emphasizing the role sense of belonging plays on college students' engagement,
well-being, and educational success.
Sense of Belonging and U.S. Filipino College Students
Maramba and Museus (2013) conducted the very first quantitative study that looked
at factors that influence the sense of belonging of a specific Asian American ethnic subgroup,
Filipino American college students. They discovered that campus climate, ethnic group
cohesion, and cross-cultural interactions significantly impacted Filipino American college
students’ sense of belonging, with the campus racial climate as having the most significant
influence. They also discovered an inverse relationship between campus racial climate and
ethnic group cohesion, suggesting that the more hostile students perceive their campus racial
climate to be, the stronger their attempt and desire to identify with their ethnic groups.
Another study using a structural equation model (Museus & Maramba, 2011) surveyed 143
Filipino American college students and found that students had more difficulties adjusting to
22
college and feeling a sense of belonging when they felt pressure from their college campuses
to sever ties with their cultural communities.
Although studies like Maramba and Museus (2013) and Museus and Maramba (2011)
have begun examining the influence of sense of belonging on students’ educational
experiences, there remains room for further research. A better understanding of how sense of
belonging influences U.S. Filipino college students’ academic experiences and outcomes,
especially within various contexts, is needed. Therefore, this study expands on the literature
by looking at the influence of sense of belonging on U.S. Filipino college students’ GPA and
intent to persist across four different types of post-secondary institutions in California. The
results have significant implications on understanding students’ diverse identities and
emphasizing institutions’ responsibilities to maximize students’ sense of belonging and
making them salient within their policies and practices.
Sense of Validation
In addition to looking at the sense of belonging of U.S. Filipino college students, this
study also examines their sense of validation. Sense of validation and sense of belonging are
both because they are two distinct theories and internal psychological processes that
influence students’ interactions with others within their educational settings (Hurtado et al.,
2015). Furthermore, both sense of validation and sense of belonging have been shown as
precursors of persistence in college (Hurtado et al., 2015). Sense of belonging is the students’
overall feeling of attachment and having a place within their college community. On the
other hand, sense of validation focuses on the involvement of institutional agents (e.g.,
faculty, staff) in recognizing and valuing the students. There are two types of validation,
academic validation and general interpersonal validation, to provide a holistic model of
student development.
23
Academic Validation and General Interpersonal Validation
Rendon (1994) defines validation as “an enabling, confirming, and supportive process
initiated by in- and out-of-class agents that foster academic and interpersonal development”
(p.44). Students’ sense of validation occurs when an individual within the institution (e.g.,
faculty, staff) actively reaches out and engages students. There are two types of validation:
academic validation and general interpersonal validation (Hurtado et al., 2011). Academic
validation means the actions of institutional agents (e.g., faculty, staff) that fosters academic
development and student engagement. An example is a faculty who shows genuine concerns
for students or who extends opportunities to work with students individually. General
interpersonal validation are actions that promote the personal and social adjustments of
students. A staff acknowledging students’ achievements and expressing interests in the
students’ development is an example of general interpersonal validation.
Sense of Validation and U.S. Filipino College Students
After a thorough review of the literature, no studies have been found that have used
the sense of validation instrument (Hurtado et al., 2011) on the college experiences of U.S.
Filipino college students. It is important to examine the influence of sense of validation on
U.S. Filipino college students because sense of validation has been shown as a prerequisite
for college students' development and involvement as they transition into the culture and
environments of their institutions (Hurtado et al., 2015). Additionally, it is critical to examine
to what extent institutional agents (e.g., faculty, staff) play a role in creating welcoming and
inclusive campus environments for U.S. Filipino college students.
Psychological Well-Being
Previous research on college students’ retention rates showed that approximately
57% of students would leave their first college without receiving a degree, and that 43% of
24
college students altogether would end up dropping out of college without receiving their
degree (Pritchard & Wilson, 2003). In looking at variables that influence students’ decision
to leave school, studies have shown that emotional and social factors, more so than
academics, influence students’ decisions to stay in school. Lee, Olson, Locke, Michelson,
and Odes (2009) examined the influence of counseling experience on the academic
performance and retention rates of freshmen and transfer students. Their study showed that
several of the problems commonly experienced by students during their transition to college
are often the reasons for poor academic performance and dropping out. Some of these
challenges include adjustment difficulties, depression, identity, and relationships. A study by
Pritchard and Wilson (2003) showed that college students' emotional health is significantly
related to their GPA and intentions to stay or drop out of college. Reynolds & Weigand
(2010) found that the psychological attitudes, college resiliency, is significantly related to
first-semester GPA. Many other psychological factors, such as resiliency, anxiety, and
depression, also influence how students adjust to college (Reynolds & Weigand, 2010).
Hence, it is critical that college programs, such as counseling services, offer support and
services that effectively and appropriately ensure their students' psychological well-being.
In addition to social and emotional factors that influence college students’
experiences, underutilization of mental health services is another major concern for college
students, especially for racial and ethnic minority college students. The Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has identified the underutilization of
mental health services among college campuses as a national crisis. Substance abuse is
associated with an increased prevalence of depression and suicide attempts among college
students, especially among racial and ethnic minority college students (Miranda, Soffer,
Polanco-Roman, Wheeler, & Moore, 2015).
25
There are several barriers students of color face when seeking professional mental
health services, including cultural beliefs and stigmas (David, 2010; Eisenberg, Downs,
Golberstein, & Zivin, 2009; Han & Pong, 2015; Miller, Yang, Hui, Choi, & Lim, 2011); low
socioeconomic status (Broman, 2012; Han & Pong, 2015; Hunt & Eisenberg, 2010); and the
need for culturally sensitive and effective programs (Abe-Kim, Takeuchi, Hong, Zane, Sue,
Spencer, Appel, Nicdao, & Alegria, 2007; Arria, Winick, Garnier-Dykstra, Vincent,
Caldeira, Wilcox, & O’Grady, 2011). It is crucial for educators, student affairs professionals,
and service providers to collaborate and help identify and address barriers behind the
underutilization of mental health services among students. Ensuring students' psychological
wellness will help them have better chances of succeeding in higher education and
successfully transition into healthy adults (Han & Pong, 2015; Miranda et al., 2015). Finally,
understanding the psychological variables that influence college students' academic
achievements could have significant implications not only on achieving the missions and
goals of college counseling and outreach programs but also of the institutions as a whole
(Reynolds & Weigand, 2010).
Psychological Well-Being and U.S. Filipino College Students
Although U.S. Filipinos are projected to become the largest Asian American
population, there is disproportionately less literature on Filipinos' mental health than any
other Asian American ethnic group (David, 2010). Several studies in psychology that
highlight Asian Americans tend to focus more on East Asian Americans’ experiences, mainly
Chinese, Japanese, and Korean Americans, leaving many other Asian American groups, such
as Filipinos, as overlooked or falsely misrepresented (Nadal, 2011). Moreover, because of the
Model Minority Myth, many Asian Americans are often stereotyped as not needing
26
additional support or having mental health problems, further adding to the scarcity of
research on their specific mental health needs.
The differences in Filipinos’ cultural history and values also influence the
misrepresentation of their specific needs. With the centuries of colonization of the
Philippines, the beliefs and stigma around seeking mental health services still lingers,
resulting in many Filipinos not seeking help or dropping out of mental health services sooner
than other Asian American groups (David, 2010). The Filipino cultural value of hiya (shame)
may prevent a Filipino from seeking help, afraid that if others in their community find out,
they would seem weak and bring shame to their family. Consequently, more Filipinos may
require help than are actually receiving them, or they may be seeking help only when their
health problems are already at the highest.
In addition to the differences in cultural values and understanding of mental health
services, the type of services effective for Filipinos may also be different compared to other
Asian American groups (Nadal, 2011). Filipinos respond more to emotionally close and
warm relationships with professional counselors and share more about their personal and
emotional problems than details about school or work (Nadal, 2011). U.S. Filipino college
students experience distinct emotional and psychological barriers that influence their success
in school, including racial discrimination, microaggression, and concerns with identity
development, familial piety (Nadal, 2010), and gender roles (Maramba, 2008). For these
reasons, the psychological well-being of U.S. Filipino college students is included in this
study, to understand better how to work and help this population.
Culturally Engaging Campus Environments
The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) model of college success by
Museus (2014) is a new theoretical model of student success designed to explain how
27
particular aspects of the institutional environments influence students’ individual factors and
other academic outcomes. It also incorporates several of the cultural critiques of Tinto’s
(1987, 1993) Integration Theory and has been designed specifically for racially and
ethnically diverse student populations. The CECE Model proposes that culturally engaging
campus environments are associated with a higher level of sense of belonging for students
and a higher likelihood of success in college (Museus, 2014; Museus et al., 2017). The CECE
Model also recognizes the importance of external influences and precollege inputs on
shaping college success outcomes.
There are nine different elements divided into two categories that make up the CECE
Model (Museus, 2014; Museus et al., 2017). The first category, cultural relevance, is the
degree to which students’ learning environments are relevant to their cultural backgrounds
and identities. There are five elements under this category: cultural familiarity, culturally
relevant knowledge, cultural community service, cross-cultural engagement, and culturally
validating environments. The second category of the CECE model, cultural responsiveness,
is the extent to which the campus programs and practices effectively respond to the needs of
their culturally diverse student populations. Cultural responsiveness consists of four
elements: collectivist cultural orientations, humanized educational environments, proactive
philosophies, and holistic support. Table 1 includes the definition for each of the nine
elements of the CECE Model.
28
Table 1. 9 Elements of Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model and
Definitions
Cultural Relevance
1. Cultural
Familiarity
The extent to which students were able to connect with people from
similar backgrounds
2. Culturally
Relevant
Knowledge
The extent to which students had opportunities to learn and exchange
knowledge about their own cultural communities
3. Cultural
Community
Service
The extent to which students had opportunities to give back and
positively transform their cultural communities
4. Cross-Cultural
Engagement
The extent to which students had opportunities to engage in
meaningful discussions with people from different cultures to solve
real social and political problems across
5. Cultural
Validation
The extent to which students feel like they are valued by the campus
community
Cultural Responsiveness
6. Collectivist
Cultural
Orientations
The extent to which students had felt like the culture of the campus
was more collectivist and less individualistic
7. Humanized
Educational
Environments
The extent to which students felt like faculty and staff cared about
them and were committed to their success
8. Proactive
Philosophies
The extent to which students felt like faculty and staff proactively
ensured that they had access to information, opportunities, and support
9. Holistic
Support
The extent to which students had access to one or more campus agents
who they were confident would provide the information or support
they need
29
The CECE model is a promising conceptual model to address the ongoing challenges
faced by historically marginalized groups of students. However, it is important to also
recognize some of its limitations. The CECE Model does not expand on the importance of
contextual variables (e.g., financial influences, family influences). In addition, the CECE
model provides nine indicators to help create more culturally engaging campus
environments, but it does not explicitly outline how to do so and how they may affect
different types of student involvement and engagement (Museus, 2014).
Summary of the Literature Review
The academic experiences and challenges faced by U.S. Filipino college students
have not been given enough attention due greatly to the racialization of U.S. Filipinos as
model minorities, and the aggregation of data often reported (Buenavista, 2010). With the
invisible marginalization that U.S. Filipino students often face, it is important to pay closer
attention to the environmental and individual factors contributing to their college experiences
and success. In particular, sense of belonging (Maramba & Museus, 2013; Strayhorn, 2008,
2018), sense of validation (Hurtado et al., 2015), psychological well-being (David, 2010;
Nadal, 2011), and campus culture (Museus, 2014) are important influences to consider to
help U.S. Filipinos succeed and ultimately attain their degrees.
Purpose of the Study, Research Questions, and Hypotheses
The purpose of this study is to explore the sociocultural experiences of U.S. Filipino
college students and examine the environmental and individual factors that influence their
educational experiences and academic success. The primary objective is to investigate the
influence of students’ sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-being, and
campus culture on their GPA and intent to persist. Secondarily, this study examines group
differences based on gender, generation levels, college generation, and institution types. In
30
this study, academic experience and success have been operationally defined as GPA and
intent to persist because both variables have been used extensively as criterion variables in
studying college students. Undergraduate grade point average (GPA) is a commonly used
measure in educational research and serves as a primary measure of undergraduate academic
performance (Westrick, 2017). Intent to persist has been shown to have the largest total effect
on students’ actual persistence and success in college (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993).
The research questions that guide the design of this study are listed below.
Research Question 1: Do GPA, intent to persist, sense of belonging, sense of
validation, psychological well-being, and campus culture differ by gender, generation levels,
college generation, and institution types among U.S. Filipino college students?
Hypothesis 1.1. There will be group differences in GPA.
Hypothesis 1.2. There will be group differences in intent to persist.
Hypothesis 1.3. There will be group differences in sense of belonging.
Hypothesis 1.4. There will be group differences in sense of validation.
Hypothesis 1.5. There will be group differences in psychological well-being.
Hypothesis 1.6. There will be group differences in campus culture.
Research Question 2: Do sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-
being, and campus culture predict U.S. Filipino college students’ GPA?
Hypothesis 2.1. Sense of Belonging will predict students’ GPA.
Hypothesis 2.2. Sense of Validation will predict students’ GPA.
Hypothesis 2.3. Psychological well-being will predict students’ GPA.
Hypothesis 2.4. Campus culture will predict students’ GPA.
Research Question 3: Do sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-
being, and campus culture predict U.S. Filipino college students’ intent to persist?
31
Hypothesis 3.1. Sense of Belonging will predict intent to persist.
Hypothesis 3.2. Sense of Validation will predict intent to persist.
Hypothesis 3.3. Psychological well-being will predict intent to persist.
Hypothesis 3.4. Campus culture will predict intent to persist.
32
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study investigated the relationship between sense of belonging, sense of
validation, psychological well-being, and campus culture on U.S. Filipino college students’
GPA and intent to persist across different types of post-secondary institutions. The following
chapter includes information on the demographic characteristics of participants, the
instruments used, and procedures for data collection and analysis.
Participants
Undergraduate students who self-identify as of Filipino descent and attend a public or
private post-secondary institution in California were recruited during a three-month period in
the spring semester of 2020. There are three types of public, post-secondary institutions in
California where data were collected: the University of California (UC), the California State
University (CSU), and California Community Colleges (CCC). The different types of
institutions were included in this study because there is great variability in terms of college
access and opportunities, transfer and enrollment in four-year universities, and college-
degree attainment among the Filipino community, as well as other AA and NHPI
communities (The Campaign for College Opportunity, 2015). California is also among the
two states, including Hawaii, with the greatest number and percentage of the Filipino
American populations (Okamura, 2013). Table 2 shows some of the characteristics of
California public, post-secondary institutions.
33
Table 2.
Characteristics of Participating Public Post-Secondary Institutions
UC CSU CCC
Total campuses 10 23 115
Total Students 285,216 481, 929 2,100,000+
Sex
Male 133,230 (47%) 207,764 (43.1%) 53.6%
Female 150, 256 (53%) 274,165 (56.9%) 45.2%
Ethnicity
Asian/Pacific Islander 75,676 (33.5%) 75,672 (15.7%) 14.66%
African American 9,371 (4.1%) 19,384 (4.0%) 5.9%
Native American 1,065 (0.5%) 1,015 (0.2%) 0.43%
Hispanic 55,971 (24.8%) 207,441 (43.0%) 44.54%
White 48,433 (21.4%) 107,932 (22.4%) 25.88%
Multi-Ethnicity N/A 20,864 (4.4%) 3.82%
Note. Data came from the most recent reports available on the institution’s central websites. UC and CSU
reported data from 2019, while CCC reported data from 2017. CCC reported enrollment of more than 2.1
million students, and frequency distribution for gender and ethnicity of the student population were reported in
percentages only.
Disaggregated data reported on the CCC central website reported 2.69% of students
attending identify as of Filipino descent. There are no disaggregated data reported on the UC
and CSU central websites on the total percentages of U.S. Filipinos attending.
In this study, a total of 244 undergraduate students volunteered to participate. Of the
244 survey responses, 24 could not be included in the study due to incomplete responses or
respondents indicated that they were not of Filipino descent. A total of 220 survey responses
were used in the final data analyses. Participants in the sample ranged in age from 18 to 45
years old (M = 21.01 years, SD = 3.701). Female undergraduate students comprised 71.4% (n
= 157) of the sample, while male undergraduate students comprised 28.2% (n = 62) of the
sample. Majority of the participants reported their GPA ranging between 3.0 to 3.5 (n = 82,
34
37.3%), while the second-largest group reported their GPA ranging between 3.51 to 3.99 (n
= 71, 32.3%). Two participants (0.01%) did not provide their GPAs. The largest group of
study participants were enrolled in a UC (n = 93, 42.3%), second was CSU (n = 60, 27.3%),
third was from private institutions (n = 44, 20.0%), and the smallest group was from CCC (n
= 23, 10.5%). Table 3 shows the complete demographic breakdown of the study participants.
35
Table 3. Frequency Distribution of Student Participants (N = 220)
N Percentage
Sex
Male 62 28.2
Female 157 71.4
Age
18-19 82 37.3
20-21 77 35.0
22-24 44 20.0
25-30 7 3.3
31-40 7 3.4
41-45 2 1.0
Year in School
1st year 55 25.0
2nd year 48 21.8
3rd year 45 20.5
4th year 50 22.8
5th year or more 21 9.5
Transfer Students 51 23.2
First-Generation College Students 81 36.8
Generation Level
1st-generation immigrant 17 7.7
1.5-generation immigrant 43 19.5
2nd-generation immigrant 138 62.7
3rd-generation immigrant 17 7.7
Above 3rd-generation 5 2.3
Employment Status
Full-time 9 4.1
Part-time 69 31.4
Student worker (Work Study) 30 13.6
Not employed 112 50.9
Institutions
University of California (UC) 93 42.3
California State University (CSU) 60 27.3
CA community college (CCC) 23 10.5
Private 44 20.0
Undergraduate GPA
4.0 or higher 7 3.2
3.51 - 3.99 71 32.3
3.0 - 3.50 82 37.3
2.50 - 2.99 42 19.1
2.0 - 2.49 12 5.5
Below 2.0 4 1.8
36
Students’ major and career aspirations were also collected. The majority of the
participants indicated an undergraduate major in the STEM field (n = 116, 55.8%), while the
second-largest group have undergraduate majors in social sciences and humanities (n = 86,
40.6%). The most common career aspirations were in medicine (n = 46, 22.5%), education (n
= 31, 15.2%), and engineering (n=15, 7.3%). Appendix A shows the complete list of majors
indicated in the study, and Appendix B shows the complete list of study participants’ career
aspirations.
Instruments
Prior to the start of the survey, students were provided an informed consent form and
were notified that all survey responses would remain confidential. The survey itself was
divided into six sections: 1) demographic information and instruments to measure 2) sense of
belonging, 3) sense of validation, 4) psychological well-being, 5) campus culture, and 6)
intent to persist. Appendix C shows a complete copy of the consent form and study survey.
Detailed information on the instruments used for this study is described below.
Sense of Belonging
Sense of belonging is defined as the extent to which college students’ feel that they
are part of their campus culture (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). The instrument used to measure
sense of belonging in this study was originally based on Bollen and Hoyle's (1990) three-
item scale and had an internal reliability score of .94. Hurtado and Ponjuan (2005) later
included two more items, for a total of five items, and the updated instrument had an alpha
coefficient of .88. For this study, sense of belonging had an alpha coefficient of .90.
The five-item scale was measured using an 11-point, Likert-type scale, where
0=strongly disagree, and 10=strongly agree. Mean scores were calculated by dividing the
total score by 5. For the purpose of this study, the original questions were adapted to
37
accommodate the different types of institutions where data were collected. Table 4 shows the
instrument adapted for this study.
Table 4.
Items Used for Sense of Belonging Scale
Items from Hurtado & Carter (1997)
and Hurtado & Ponjuan (2005)
Items as Adapted for This Study
1. I see myself as a part of this
university community.
2. I feel that I am a member of
the university community.
3. I feel a sense of belonging to
this university community.
4. I am enthusiastic about this
university.
5. If asked, I would recommend
this university to others.
1. I see myself as a part of this
university/college community.
2. I feel that I am a member of the
university/college community.
3. I feel a sense of belonging to this
university/college community.
4. I am enthusiastic about this
university/college.
5. If asked, I would recommend this
university/college to others.
The Sense of Belonging Scale (Hurtado & Carter, 1997; Hurtado & Ponjuan, 2005)
was chosen for this study because it is a more culturally-sensitive tool to help assess to what
extent students feel that they are part of their campus community. The original, 3-item scale
was also used by Maramba and Museus (2013) to study Filipino American college students.
Their study showed that sense of belonging influences the college experience and
engagement of Filipino American college students.
38
Sense of Validation
The instrument used to measure sense of validation in this study was based on
Rendón’s (1994) qualitative research on validating culturally diverse students and was later
empirically validated by Hurtado et al. (2011). The Sense of Validation Scale is divided
between two constructs: academic validation and general interpersonal validation. The
academic validation construct consists of six items measured using a five-point, Likert-type
scale, where 1 = never to 5 = very often. Mean scores were calculated by dividing the total
scores for the subscale by 6. A sample statement from this subscale include “Instructors were
able to determine my level of understanding of the course material.” The original academic
validation construct had a high reliability score of 0.87. For this study, the academic
validation subscale had a Cronbach alpha of .92.
For the general interpersonal validation construct, the scale consists of six items
measured using a four-point, Likert-type scale, where 4 = strong agree and 1 = strongly
disagree. Mean scores were calculated by dividing the total scores for the subscale by 6. A
sample statement from this subscale includes, “At least one staff member has taken an
interest in my development.” The original general interpersonal validation construct had a
high reliability score of 0.87. For this study, the general interpersonal validation subscale had
a Cronbach alpha of 0.90.
The Sense of Validation Scale was chosen because it has been empirically validated
and has been widely used in the Diverse Learning Environments Survey conducted by the
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at the University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA). A review of literature has also shown that there is yet a study that uses this
instrument to look at the academic validation and interpersonal validation experiences of
U.S. Filipino college students.
39
Psychological Well-Being
The Mental Health Inventory-18 (MHI-18) by McHorney, Ware, Rogers, Raczek, and
Lu (1992) was used to measure the students’ psychological well-being in this study. The
MHI-18 was based on the original, 38-item Mental Health Inventory created by Veit and
Ware (1983) and has a Cronbach’s alpha of .93. The scale is divided between four different
subscales: 1) Anxiety, 2) Depression, 3) Behavioral Control, and 4) Positive Affect. It is
measured using a six-point, Likert-type scale, where 1 = all of the time to 6 = none of the
time. Table 5 shows the total items, Cronbach’s alpha from the original study, definition, and
sample question for each of the four subscales.
Table 5.
Mental Health Inventory-18 (MHI-18) Key Variables, Definitions and Sample Questions
Variables Total
Items
α Definitions Sample Questions
Anxiety 5 .80 Apprehensive anticipation of future
danger or misfortune accompanied
by a feeling of dysphoria or somatic
symptoms of tensions
“In the past 4 weeks, have
you been a very nervous
person?”
Depression 5 .87 Feeling sad, helpless, or
demoralized to grief, poor self-
esteem, or a major depressive
episode
“In the past 4 weeks, did
you feel depressed?
Behavior
Control
4 .78 Emotional stability and control of
behavior or thoughts and feelings
“In the past 4 weeks, have
you felt emotionally stable?
Positive
Affect
4 .83 Feelings of energy and zest for life,
active engagement, interest, pride,
or delight
“In the past 4 weeks, were
you a happy person?
Note. Definitions from McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and
questionnaires. Oxford University Press, USA.
40
The MHI-18 instrument was chosen for this study because of its high reliability score.
For this study, MHI-18 had the following reliability scores for each of the subscales: Anxiety
(α = .79), Depression (α = .85), Behavior Control (α = .73), and Positive Affect (α = .77).
The MHI-18 has also been used extensively to assess a person’s mental health and well-
being. For example, Nadal, Wong, Sriken, Griffin, and Fujii-Doe (2015) used the MHI-18
instrument to explore the within-group differences and mental health among Asian
American’s experiences with racial microaggressions, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of .91.
Culturally Engaging Campus Environments
For this study, campus culture was measured using the 29-item, Culturally Engaging
Campus Environments (CECE) model of college success by Museus (2014). The CECE
Framework of College Success was created to 1) address all of the shortcomings of
traditional perspectives of college student success (e.g., Tinto’s theory of student departure),
2) offer a comprehensive model derived from substantial literature on experiences of diverse
college student populations, and 3) provide a set of quantifiable and testable hypotheses.
According to the CECE model, there are nine different indicators, organized under cultural
relevance and cultural responsiveness, that help facilitate academic success and engagement
among diverse groups of students. Table 6 lists the different indicators along with their alpha
scores, number of items, and sample questions (Museus et al., 2017). All subscales are
measured using a 5-point, Likert-type scale, where 1=strongly disagree, and 5 =strongly
agree. Mean scores were calculated by dividing the total scores by the number of items for
each of the subscales.
41
Table 6.
Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model Key Variables, Total Items,
Alpha Scores, and Sample Statements
The CECE model was selected for this study because of its high reliability scores and
for being specifically designed for diverse student populations. In addition, Museus et al.
(2017) recommended the CECE model for studying specific racial groups of color across
different types of institutions, which was part of this study's design. For this study, the
Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale are as follow: Cultural Familiarity (α = .85), Culturally
Relevant Knowledge (α = .92), Cultural Community (α = .89), Cross-Cultural Engagement (α
= .88), Cultural Validation (α = .89), Collectivist Cultural Orientations (α = .87), Humanized
Educational Environments (α = .91), Proactive Philosophies (α = .80), and Holist Support (α
= .90).
42
Intent to Persist
The students’ intent to persist was measured for this study using the Institutional
Commitment subscale of Davidson, Beck, and Milligan’s (2009) College Persistence
Questionnaire (CPQ). The subscale consists of four items measured using a five-point,
Likert-type scale, where 1 = very likely to 5 = very unlikely. The subscale has a reliability
score of 0.78. Table 7 shows how the original questions were adapted for the purpose of this
study to accommodate for the different types of institutions where data were collected.
Table 7.
Items Used for Intent to Persist Scale
Items from CPQ’s Institutional
Commitment subscale by Davidson, Beck,
and Milligan’s (2009)
Items as Adapted for this Study
1. How likely is it that you will earn a
degree from here?
2. How confident are you that this is the
right university for you?
3. How likely is it that you will re-enroll
here next semester?
4. How much thought have you given to
stopping your education here perhaps
transferring to another college, going to
work, or leaving for other reasons?
1. How likely is it that you will earn a
degree?
2. How confident are you that this is the
right university/college for you?
3. How likely is it that you will re-enroll
next semester?
4. How much thought have you given to
stopping your education here perhaps
transferring to another college, going to
work, or leaving for other reasons?
Intent to persist was selected for this study because research has shown that students’
intent to persist, in comparison to other factors, such as academic integration, social
integration, institutional commitment, and financial attitudes, has the largest total effect on
students’ actual persistence and success (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993).
43
Procedure
The researcher for this study utilized various avenues to identify participants for the
study. First, several Asian American and Filipino American student organizations at different
institutions in California were contacted to request that the online survey be sent out via
email to their members. A brief description and link to the survey and a notice of
confidentiality were included in the email. Two student organizations invited the researcher
to present in their upcoming monthly meeting before sending the survey to their members.
The researcher participated via Zoom web conferencing for one of the student groups and
submitted a video recording describing the study to the other student group.
Student affairs professionals and offices at different institutions throughout California
were also contacted requesting for the online survey to be sent out to their undergraduate
students. Finally, invitations to complete the survey were also posted on various social media
platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. The researcher targeted various
online groups related to higher education to gather additional participants.
The research survey was created and administered via the Qualtrics online platform.
Students who participated were provided with an informed consent form notifying them of
the purpose of the study, procedures for completion, potential of risks and benefits,
confidentiality, and rights as participants. The average time to complete the survey was
approximately fifteen minutes. To maintain the confidentiality of the participants, only the
primary investigators were granted access to the dataset.
As an incentive for completing the survey, students were given the opportunity to
enter a raffle to win one of the four $50 Amazon gift cards. At the end of the survey,
participants were provided with an external link to a separate form, where they could enter
their email address for the raffle. The email address of the participants was stored separately
44
from the survey responses. 53.3% of the participants (n = 130) provided an email address to
be eligible for the gift card raffle. At the completion of the study, four students were
randomly selected to win the gift cards. The gift cards were awarded via email, and the
names of the winners were never revealed to the researcher.
45
Chapter Four: Results
The following chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the study results,
including preliminary analyses, analyses of the research questions, and results of post hoc
analyses. Prior to analysis, data were cleaned, coded, and examined to ensure accuracy
and completeness. Mean substitution was used to replace missing data on scored items of
instruments used to measure Sense of Belonging, Sense of Validation, Culturally
Engaging Campus Environments (CECE), Psychological Well-Being, and Intent to
Persist. Mean substitution was only used for cases that had one missing response. For
cases that had two or more missing responses, the case was excluded from the analyses.
For data analyses, GPA and Intent to Persist were the main dependent variables. The
other variables, Sense of Belonging, Sense of Validation, Culturally Engaging Campus
Environments (CECE), and Psychological Well-Being, were both independent and
dependent variables depending on the hypothesis being tested. The SPSS software
program was used for all the data analyses.
Preliminary Analyses
Pearson product correlation analyses were conducted to examine the relationships
between the main variables measured in this study: GPA, intent to persist, sense of
belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-being measured using MHI-18, and
campus culture measured using the CECE model. Table 8 shows the correlations along
with the means and standard deviations for each of the variables.
47
The two main dependent variables in this study, GPA and intent to persist, showed significant
correlations with several of the other variables. GPA was significantly correlated with sense of
belonging (p < .05) and with mental health subscales, anxiety (p < .01) and behavior control
(p < .01). However, GPA was not associated with sense of validation and campus culture. On
the other hand, the other dependent variable, intent to persist, was significantly correlated with
academic and general interpersonal validations (p < .01) and had inverse correlations with
mental health subscales, depression, behavior control, and positive affect (p < .05). However,
intent to persist was not associated with sense of belonging and campus culture. Finally, the
independent variable, sense of belonging, was a significant variable and highly correlated with
all the other variables, except for academic validation.
Analysis of Research Question 1
Research Question 1 is stated as, “Do GPA, intent to persist, sense of belonging, sense of
validation, psychological well-being, and campus culture differ by gender, generation levels,
college generation, and institution types among U.S. Filipino college students?”
Hypothesis 1.1: There will be group differences in GPA.
Hypothesis 1.2: There will be group differences in intent to persist.
Hypothesis 1.3: There will be group differences in sense of belonging.
Hypothesis 1.4: There will be group differences in sense of validation.
Hypothesis 1.5: There will be group differences in psychological well-being.
Hypothesis 1.6: There will be group differences in campus culture.
To determine if there were differences for the four independent variables, three between-
subjects ANOVA tests were conducted to measure the dependent variables of GPA, sense of
belonging, and intent to persist, and three between-subjects MANOVA tests were conducted to
48
measure the dependent variables with subscales: sense of validation, psychological well-being,
and campus culture. The initial analyses showed no significant differences for the independent
variable of generation levels. Therefore, it was removed from the subsequent analyses, and the
final results reported were based on three-way between-subjects analyses with the independent
variables of gender, college generation, and institution types.
Hypothesis 1.1 was supported. A three-way ANOVA for the dependent variable of GPA
revealed a significant main effect only for institution types [F(3, 218) = 2.73, p = .045]. Post-hoc
analysis showed a significant difference between community colleges and private institutions (p
= .017), with community college students showing lower GPA than those in private institutions.
There was also a significant difference between UC and private institutions (p = .002), with UC
students showing lower GPA than those in private institutions. Table 9 shows the means for GPA
by institution types.
Table 9.
Means for GPA by Institution Types (N = 218)
Institution M SD n
University of California (UC) 3.85 1.00 93
California State University (CSU) 4.05 1.03 60
CA Community colleges (CCC) 3.74 1.18 23
Private 4.57 0.74 42
Hypothesis 1.2 was supported. A three-way ANOVA for the dependent variable of intent
to persist showed no main effects. However, there was a significant interaction for the two
independent variables of gender and college generation for intent to persist [F(1, 186) = 3.68, p =
.05]. Table 10 shows the means for intent to persist by interactions of gender and college
49
generation.
Table 10.
Means for Intent to Persist by Interactions of Gender and College Generation (N = 187)
First-generation
Gender College Students M SD n
Male Yes 2.50 .87 14
No 2.90 1.00 40
Female Yes 2.98 1.13 54
No 2.80 1.02 79
Hypothesis 1.3 was not supported. There were no main effects or interactions for the
dependent variable of sense of belonging.
Hypothesis 1.4 was supported. A three-way MANOVA for the dependent variable of
academic validation revealed significant differences for college generation and institution types.
For college generation, there was a significant main effect [F(1, 183) = 4.59, p = .034], with first-
generation college students showing lower sense of academic validation (n = 81, 36.8%) than
students who are not first-generation college students (n = 139, 63.2%). Table 11 shows the
means for academic validation by college generation.
Table 11.
Means for Academic Validation by College Generation (N = 183)
First-Generation
College Students M SD n
Yes 3.19 1.02 66
No 3.47 1.00 117
50
There was also a significant main effect for academic validation by institution types [F(3,
183) = 3.21, p = .025]. Post-hoc analysis showed significant differences between UC students
and those in private institutions (p = .025), with UC students showing lower sense of academic
validation than students in private institutions. Table 12 shows the means for academic validation
by institution types.
Table 12.
Means for Academic Validation by Institution Types (N = 183)
Institution M SD n
University of California (UC) 3.10 0.96 75
California State University (CSU) 3.56 0.97 56
CA Community colleges (CCC) 3.19 1.11 18
Private 3.72 1.02 34
There were also several significant interactions for academic validation by: a) gender and
college generation [F(1, 183) = 4.10, p = .045], with male, non-first-generation college students
expressing highest sense of academic validation; b) gender and institution types [F(3, 183) =
2.70, p = .047], with male in CSU expressing highest sense of academic validation; and c) three-
way interaction of gender, college generation, and institution types [F(2, 183) = 3.16, p = .045],
with male, first-generation college students in CSU expressing highest level of sense of academic
validation. Table 13 shows the means for academic validation by each of the three interactions.
51
Table 13.
Means for Academic Validation by Interactions Between Gender, College Generation, and
Institution Types (N = 183)
First-Generation
Gender x College Students M SD n
Male Yes 3.40 1.29 13
No 3.74 .80 39
Female Yes 3.13 .95 53
No 3.33 1.07 78
Gender x Institution Types M SD n
Male UC 3.37 .94 20
CSU 3.99 .75 18
CCC 2.96 1.36 4
Private 3.89 .89 10
Female UC 3.01 .95 55
CSU 3.35 1.00 38
CCC 3.26 1.08 14
Private 3.65 1.08 24
First-Generation Institution
Gender x College Students x Types M SD n
Male Yes UC 3.20 1.17 7
CSU 4.14 .84 5
CCC 1.00 -- 1
Private -- -- 0
No UC 3.46 .83 13
CSU 3.93 .74 13
CCC 3.62 .44 3
Private 3.89 .89 10
Female Yes UC 2.98 .81 28
CSU 3.27 1.10 15
CCC 3.64 .92 4
Private 3.14 1.22 6
No UC 3.03 1.10 27
CSU 3.40 .95 23
CCC 3.10 1.15 10
Private 3.82 1.01 18
52
For the independent variable of general interpersonal validation, a three-way MANOVA
showed a significant main effect only for institution types [F(3, 183) = 3.31, p = .022]. Post-hoc
analysis showed significant differences between UC students and those in private institutions (p
= .025), with UC students showing lower sense of general interpersonal validation than students
in private institutions. Table 14 shows the means for general interpersonal validation by
institution types. There was no interaction for the dependent variable of general interpersonal
validation.
Table 14.
Means for General Interpersonal Validation by Institution Types (N = 183)
Institution M SD n
University of California (UC) 2.65 0.85 75
California State University (CSU) 2.92 0.86 56
CA Community colleges (CCC) 2.81 0.99 18
Private 3.14 0.78 34
Hypothesis 1.5 was supported. A three-way MANOVA for the dependent variable of
psychological well-being revealed significant differences for gender and college generation. For
gender, there were significant main effects with behavior control [F(1, 180) = 5.40, p = .021] and
positive affect [F(1, 180) = 9.11, p = .003], with male students showing higher level of behavior
control and positive affect in comparison to female students. Table 15 shows the means for each
of the mental health subscales by gender.
53
Table 15.
Means for Mental-Health Subscales by Gender (N = 180)
Subscale Sex M SD n
Anxiety Female 40.06 20.21 129
Male 44.71 19.04 51
Depression Female 52.83 22.50 129
Male 56.37 17.35 51
Behavior Female 60.89 19.31 129
Control Male 69.61 16.43 51
Positive Female 56.20 18.04 129
Affect Male 64.71 12.47 51
For college generation, there was significant main effect only with anxiety, [F(1, 180) =
4.99, p = .027], with first-generation college students showing lower anxiety levels compared to
those who are not first-generation college students. Table 16 shows the means for each of the
mental health subscales by college generation. There were no main effects or interactions for the
Depression subscale.
Table 16.
Means for Mental-Health Subscales by College Generation (N = 180)
Subscale First-Generation
College Students M SD n
Anxiety Yes 37.56 20.34 64
No 43.48 19.49 116
Depression Yes 48.44 21.40 64
No 56.81 20.55 116
Behavior Yes 60.70 19.54 64
Control No 64.83 18.47 116
Positive Yes 56.17 18.16 64
Affect No 59.96 16.33 116
54
Hypothesis 1.6 was supported. A three-way MANOVA for the dependent variable of
campus culture revealed significant differences in cultural validation [F(3, 187) = 3.12, p = .027],
humanized educational environments [F(3, 187) = 4.07, p = .008], and culturally relevant
knowledge [F(3, 187) = 2.68, p = .049] only for institution types. Post-hoc analysis for cultural
validation showed a significant difference between UC students and those in private institutions
(p = .025), with UC students showing higher level of cultural validation than students in private
institutions. Post-hoc analysis for humanized educational environments subscale showed a
significant difference between students in community colleges and those in private institutions (p
= .018), with community college students showing higher sense of humanized educational
environments than students in private institutions. Post-hoc analysis for culturally relevant
knowledge showed no significant differences for institution types. Table 17 shows the means for
the nine CECE model subscales by institution types.
55
Table 17.
Means for CECE Model Subscales by Institution Types (N = 187)
Constructs Institution M SD n
Cultural University of California (UC) 3.82 0.81 76
Familiarity California State University (CSU) 3.93 0.76 55
CA Community colleges (CCC) 3.72 1.00 19
Private 3.56 0.98 37
Culturally University of California (UC) 3.50 1.14 76
Relevant California State University (CSU) 3.61 1.14 55
Knowledge CA Community colleges (CCC) 3.60 1.24 19
Private 3.10 1.30 37
Cultural University of California (UC) 3.42 1.11 76
Community California State University (CSU) 3.56 1.11 55
Service CA Community colleges (CCC) 3.61 1.17 19
Private 2.96 1.12 37
Cross-Cultural University of California (UC) 3.70 1.00 76
Engagement California State University (CSU) 3.73 0.95 55
CA Community colleges (CCC) 3.53 1.30 19
Private 3.39 1.10 37
Cultural University of California (UC) 3.61 0.90 76
Validation California State University (CSU) 3.45 1.12 55
CA Community colleges (CCC) 3.72 0.79 19
Private 3.04 1.12 37
Collectivist University of California (UC) 4.16 0.55 76
Cultural California State University (CSU) 4.19 0.67 55
Orientations CA Community colleges 4.32 0.61 19
Private 4.10 0.94 37
Humanized University of California (UC) 3.91 0.86 76
Educational California State University (CSU) 4.19 0.73 55
Environments CA Community colleges (CCC) 4.56 0.60 19
Private 4.32 0.72 37
Proactive University of California (UC) 4.14 0.94 76
Philosophies California State University (CSU) 4.15 0.90 55
CA Community colleges (CCC) 4.08 1.02 19
Private 3.81 0.97 37
Holistic University of California (UC) 4.11 0.97 76
Support California State University (CSU) 4.21 0.98 55
CA Community colleges (CCC) 4.09 1.12 19
Private 4.10 0.77 37
56
There was also a three-way interaction of gender, college generation, and institution types for
holistic support [F(2, 183) = 3.21, p = .043], with male, non-first-generation college students in
CSU expressing the highest level of holistic support. Table 18 shows the means for holistic
support by interactions with gender, college generation, and institution types.
Table 18.
Means for Holistic Support by Interactions Between Gender, College Generation, and Institution
Types (N = 187)
First-Generation Institution
Gender x College Students x Types M SD n
Male Yes UC 4.29 .80 7
CSU 3.75 1.10 4
CCC 4.50 .71 2
Private -- -- 0
No UC 4.10 1.08 14
CSU 4.67 .47 13
CCC 3.78 2.12 3
Private 3.97 .69 10
Female Yes UC 4.12 .95 28
CSU 4.44 .79 15
CCC 3.75 1.50 4
Private 4.13 1.15 8
No UC 4.07 1.01 27
CSU 3.87 1.14 23
CCC 4.23 .77 10
Private 4.16 .65 19
There were no main effects or interactions for the other five CECE subscales: cultural
familiarity, cultural community service, cross-cultural engagement, collectivist cultural
orientations, and proactive philosophies.
57
Analysis of Research Question 2
Research Question 2 is stated as, “Do sense of belonging, sense of validation,
psychological well-being, and campus culture predict U.S. Filipino college students’ GPA?”
Hypothesis 2.1: Sense of Belonging will predict students’ GPA.
Hypothesis 2.2: Sense of Validation will predict students’ GPA.
Hypothesis 2.3: Psychological well-being will predict students’ GPA.
Hypothesis 2.4: Campus culture will predict students’ GPA.
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the influence of the four
predictor variables on the outcome variable of students’ GPA.
Hypotheses 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4 were supported. Results showed significance for the overall
prediction model [F (17, 177) = 2.427, p =.002, R
2
= .205] with 20% of the variability accounted
for. However, the betas indicated that only Sense of Belonging, two subscales for Mental Health,
and two subscales for the CECE model were significant predictors (p < .050). Table 19 shows
the multiple regression summary results of the variables shown to be significant predictors of
GPA.
58
Table 19.
Summary of Linear Regression Statistics for Variables Shown as Significant Predictors of GPA
among U.S. Filipino College Students.
R
2
F B SE β p
GPA .205 2.427 .002
Sense of Belonging .104 .048 .206 .033
Mental Health - Anxiety .010 .005 .202 .038
Mental Health - Behavior Control .016 .006 .295 .013
Cultural Community Service (CECE) -.248 .099 -.276 .013
Proactive Philosophies (CECE) -.190 .088 -.174 .033
The two other Mental Health subscales, Depression and Positive Affect, and the seven other
CECE model subscales – Cultural Familiarity, Culturally Relevant Knowledge, Cross-Cultural
Engagement, Cultural Validation, Collectivist Cultural Orientations, Humanized Educational
Environments, and Holistic Support – were not significant predictors of GPA.
Hypotheses 2.2 was not supported. Sense of Validation was not a significant predictor of
GPA for this study.
Analysis of Research Question 3
Research Question 3 is stated as, “Do sense of belonging, sense of validation,
psychological well-being, and campus culture predict U.S. Filipino college students’ intent to
persist?”
Hypothesis 3.1: Sense of Belonging will predict intent to persist.
Hypothesis 3.2: Sense of Validation will predict intent to persist.
Hypothesis 3.3: Psychological well-being will predict intent to persist.
Hypothesis 3.4: Campus culture will predict intent to persist.
59
A multiple regression analysis was conducted to examine the influence of the four
predictor variables on the outcome variable of students’ intent to persist.
Hypotheses 3.2 and 3.4 were supported. Results showed an overall significance for the
prediction model (F (17, 177) = 2.907, p < .001, R
2
= .236) with 24% of the variability
accounted for. However, betas indicated that only Hypotheses 3.2 and 3.4 were supported with
the following three subscales showing as significant predictors of intent to persist: Academic
Validation and CECE subscales for Cultural Community Service and Cross-Cultural
Engagement (p < .050). Table 20 shows the multiple regression summary results of the variables
shown to be significant predictors of intent to persist.
Table 20.
Summary of Linear Regression Statistics for Variables Shown as Significant Predictors of Intent
to Persist among U.S. Filipino College Students.
R
2
F B SE β p
Intent to Persist .236 2.907 <.001
Academic validation .290 .091 .283 .002
Cultural Community Service (CECE) .209 .099 .229 .036
Cross-Cultural Engagement (CECE) -.255 .092 -.254 .006
The General Interpersonal Validation subscale, as well as the seven other subscales of the CECE
model – Cultural Familiarity, Culturally Relevant Knowledge, Cultural Validation, Collectivist
Cultural Orientations, Humanized Educational Environments, Proactive philosophies, and
Holistic Support – were not significant predictors of students’ intent to persist.
Hypotheses 3.1 and 3.3 were not supported. Sense of Belonging and Psychological Well-
Being were not significant predictors of Intent to Persist for this study.
60
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore environmental and individual factors that may
predict the persistence and academic experience of U.S. Filipino college students in the United
States. More specifically, this study sought to empirically examine the influence of sense of
belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-being, and campus culture on the GPA and
intent to persist of U.S. Filipino college students enrolled in UC, CSU, CCC, and private post-
secondary institutions in California. The results of this study suggest that the factors identified in
this study are important variables to predict the GPA and intent to persist of U.S. Filipino college
students. The following chapter contains a discussion of the results, study limitations,
implications for practice, and directions for future research.
Discussion of Results
The preliminary analyses showed significant correlations between all of the study
variables. Students’ GPA was correlated with sense of belonging and psychological well-being,
while students’ intent to persist was correlated with sense of validation and psychological well-
being. Furthermore, sense of belonging was highly correlated with several of the variables in the
study, supporting previous findings of the importance of including sense of belonging when
studying the academic experience and success of college students (Hurtado & Carter, 1997;
Museus & Maramba, 2011; Maramba & Museus, 2013; Strayhorn, 2008, 2018; Strayhorn et al.,
2016). The preliminary analyses were strong indications that the variables selected are suitable
and would likely support the hypotheses.
Group Differences Based on Gender, College Generation, and Institution Types
This study hypothesized that there would be group differences across the study variables
based on students’ gender, generation level, college generation, and institution types. However,
61
initial analyses found no group differences based on generation level, so the final analyses were
based on group differences in gender, college generation, and institution types. Surprisingly, the
results of the final analyses showed no group differences for sense of belonging. One probable
reason for this result is the particular sample of this study. Since many of the study participants
recruited are members of student organizations, most of the participants may already exhibit high
sense of belonging. According to Hurtado and Carter (1997), students’ sense of belonging
increases when they engage more in meaningful academic and social activities. For the other
study variables - GPA, intent to persist, sense of validation, psychological well-being, and
campus culture - significant differences and interactions were found in this study.
For GPA, there were significant differences found for institution types, with students
enrolled in UC and CCC showing lower GPA than those enrolled in private institutions. With
U.S. Filipino college students overly represented in CCC and only around 50% successfully
transfer to four-year institutions or complete their degrees in six years (The Campaign for
College Opportunity, 2015), it is crucial to examine further what challenges and barriers they are
facing in the classroom to receive low GPA. In addition, because GPA serves as a primary
measure of undergraduate academic performance (Westrick, 2017), it is even more important to
assess what type of supports are needed to help U.S. Filipino college students in UC and CCC
improve their GPA and increase their chances of transferring to four-year universities and
eventually completing their degrees.
For intent to persist, there was a significant interaction found between students’ gender
and college generation, with female, first-generation college students showing higher intent to
persist than male, first-generation college students. This result aligns with Maramba (2008),
where she examined the experiences of Filipina American college students. Those who had male
62
siblings expressed differences in the pressure and expectations of performing well in school from
their parents compared to their male siblings. Furthermore, for most of the participants
interviewed, they shared that their parents were the primary influencer to attend college and the
source of motivation to do well. They hope to give back for all of their parents’ sacrifices to
immigrate to the United States to have a better future and education. Therefore, it is important to
further examine how gender differences and expectations to succeed in college, especially for
first-generation U.S. Filipino college students, influence their intent to persist and overall college
experiences.
For sense of validation, this study found significant differences in both academic and
general interpersonal validations for institution types. UC students reported lower sense of
academic and general interpersonal validations compared to students enrolled in private
institutions. Perhaps, it may be that institutional agents (e.g., faculty, staff, administration) in
private institutions, compared to those in UC, are able to actively reach out and engage more
with their students. As the top public institutions in California, serving almost 300,000 students,
it is necessary to further examine what may be influencing the low sense of validation of U.S.
Filipino college students enrolled in the UC. Furthermore, it is also important to investigate what
possible reasons or challenges institutional agents face that may limit their outreach and
engagements with students.
There were also significant differences found in sense of academic validation for college
generation, with first-generation college students reporting lower sense of academic validation
than non-first-generation college students. Finally, this study also found several interactions for
sense of academic validation: by gender and college generation, by gender and institution types,
and by gender, college generation, and institution types. As the first known study to examine the
63
influence of sense of validation on U.S. Filipino college students, the results align with Rendon
(1994) and Hurtado et al. (2011) of the importance of sense of validation on college students’
success. Moreover, the results of this study provide an important glimpse of the significance of
sense of validation when examining the academic performance and success of U.S. Filipinos.
There is more to unpack in the relationships between sense of validation and experiences of U.S.
Filipino college students, especially when looking at different contexts, such as gender, college
generation, and institution types.
For the student’s psychological well-being, this study found significant differences based
on gender and college generation. Psychological well-being was the only variable in this study
that showed significant differences based on gender, with male students showing higher level of
behavior control and positive affect than female students. In referencing Maramba (2008), it
could be that male students experience higher level of behavior control and positive affect
because female students often feel more stress and pressure from their parents to do well in
college in comparison to their male siblings.
In addition to gender differences, there were also significant differences found in
psychological well-being based on college generation. Interestingly, first-generation college
students were found to exhibit less anxiety in comparison to non-first-generation college
students. The result may be primarily due to this study's particular sample, with only 36.8% of
participants identifying as first-generation college students. It could also be that first-generation
college students have become more resilient, having to navigate and understand college life on
their own. It may also be that higher standards have been placed by family members or the
students on themselves to be exceptional, knowing that their parents had to do it on their own.
The results of this study align with David (2010) and Nadal (2013) and highlight the importance
64
of including psychological well-being as a significant factor in studying the college experiences
and success of U.S. Filipinos.
Lastly, for campus culture, the results of this study found several significant differences
and interactions. First, there were significant differences found in cultural validation for
institution types, with UC students reporting higher level of cultural validation than students in
private institutions. Second, there were significant differences found in humanized educational
environments for institution types, with community college students reporting higher level of
humanized educational environments than students in private institutions. Finally, there were
significant interactions found between gender, college generation, and institution types for
holistic support, with male, non-first-generation college students in CSU expressing the highest
level of holistic support. Although not all of the CECE subscales showed significant results, it is
important to highlight that the three subscales mentioned above involve the extent to which
institutional agents provide support to their students and that students feel that the campus
community values them. Results for campus culture support the critical roles institutional agents
and campus environments play in their students' experiences and success.
It is also important to explore the differences in the results found for sense of validation
and campus culture. Sense of validation was found to be stronger in private institutions. In
contrast, cultural validation and humanized educational environments are stronger in public
institutions. It could be that more support and attention are being provided inside the classroom
and on fulfilling degree requirements for students in private institutions, while more emphasis on
cultural values and campus communities are seen in public institutions. While it is encouraging
to see that students feel supported, the support both inside and outside the classrooms are
65
necessary to ensure the overall academic performance and success of U.S. Filipinos, as supported
in this study.
Sense of Belonging, Sense of Validation, Psychological Well-Being, and Campus Culture to
Predict GPA
This study hypothesized that sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-
being, and campus culture would be strong predictors of GPA for U.S. Filipino college students.
As predicted, results showed that sense of belonging, psychological well-being, and campus
culture are strong predictors of GPA. The influence of sense of belonging on GPA aligns with
previous studies (Strayhorn, 2008, 2018; Strayhorn et al., 2016) on the importance of sense of
belonging on college students’ academic performance. The results on psychological well-being
also align with previous studies (David, 2010; Nadal, 2011) on the influence of emotional and
social factors on U.S. Filipinos as they transition into college. For this study, in particular,
feelings of anxiety and behavior control are strongly associated with GPA. Finally, for campus
culture, the results of this study also align with previous studies (Museus, 2014; Museus et al.,
2017) on the strong association of culturally engaging campus environments on students’ higher
likelihood of succeeding in college. More specifically, cultural community service and proactive
philosophies have shown to be strong predictors of GPA. Cultural community service is defined
as the extent to which students had opportunities to give back and positively transform their
cultural communities. Proactive philosophies, on the other hand, is defined as the extent to which
students felt like faculty and staff proactively ensured that they had access to information,
opportunities, and support.
66
Surprisingly, sense of validation was not a strong predictor of GPA. However, with
preliminary analyses results showing sense of validation as significantly correlated to GPA, this
result may be due to the study’s particular sample, and warrants further observation.
Sense of Belonging, Sense of Validation, Psychological Well-Being, and Campus Culture to
Predict Intent to Persist
Additionally, this study hypothesized that sense of belonging, sense of validation,
psychological well-being, and campus culture would be strong predictors of intent to persist
among U.S. Filipino college students. As predicted, results showed that sense of validation and
campus culture are strong predictors of intent to persist. More specifically, academic validation,
although not general interpersonal validation, has shown as a strong predictor of intent to persist
among U.S. Filipino college students. Academic validation represents the actions of institutional
agents that foster academic development and student engagement, while general interpersonal
validation are actions that promote the personal and social adjustments of students. The results of
this study align with previous studies on the influence of sense of validation on college students’
experiences (Hurtado et al., 2011; Hurtado et al., 2015). Although general interpersonal
validation did not show as a strong predictor, it may be due to the particular sample of the study.
As the first known study that explores the influence of sense of validation on U.S. Filipino
college students, it is important to further examine sense of validation as an important factor in
college experiences and success of U.S. Filipinos.
For campus culture, cultural community service and cross-cultural engagement are shown
to be strong predictors of intent to persist among U.S. Filipino college students. Cultural
community service is the extent to which students had opportunities to give back and positively
transform their cultural communities, while cross-cultural engagement is the extent to which
67
students had opportunities to engage in meaningful discussions with people from different
cultures to solve real social and political problems across. The results of this study align with
previous studies on the influence of campus culture and cross-cultural interactions on college
experiences of Filipino college students (Maramba & Museus, 2013; Museus & Maramba,
2011).
Surprisingly, sense of belonging and psychological well-being did not show as strong
predictors of intent to persist. It may primarily be due to the particular sample of this study.
Several studies have shown the influence of sense of belonging (Maramba & Museus, 2013;
Museus & Maramba, 2011) and psychological well-being (David, 2010; Nadal, 2013) on the
college experiences and success of U.S. Filipino college students. For these reasons, it is
important to still consider sense of belonging and psychological well-being as possible predictors
of intent to persist among U.S. Filipino college students.
Limitations of the Study
While the study had several significant findings, some limitations should be considered,
including study design, sample size, and instrumentation. First, with study design, data collected
relied on students’ subjective responses on a self-report survey. Study participants were also
recruited through convenience sampling, mainly recruiting participants who are members of
student organizations. Notably, some students active in student organizations may already
exhibit high sense of belonging and motivation to persist. Finally, because of the study's non-
experimental nature, only association between the independent and dependent variables, and no
cause-and-effect relationships, could be implied from the study results.
Another limitation of this study is the sample size. Although the study's design included
different types of post-secondary institutions, only a small fraction of the actual Filipino student
68
population participated in the study. For generalizable findings, a sizable sample of students
from each of the types of institutions was needed. There was also a significant number of female
participants in comparison to male participants. Finally, to claim generalizable findings on the
academic performance and college experience of U.S. Filipinos in the United States, their
complex identities must also be considered. For example, although gender and college generation
were measured in this study, and that generation level was attempted although nonsignificant,
other identities and social contexts of U.S. Filipino college students (e.g., parents’ educational
history and income, multi-racial, sexual orientation, immigration status) should be considered.
A third limitation was the instrumentation used for this study. Although the instruments
used to measure sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-being, and intent to
persist have been empirically validated and are considered culturally-sensitive tools, there are
external factors to consider when analyzing the results of this study (e.g., socioeconomic status,
parents’ education, school structure and resources). In addition, the instrument used to measure
campus culture, the CECE model, is a relatively new model and more research is necessary to
further explore its appropriateness in examining U.S. Filipino college students’ academic
experiences.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study offer important implications for researchers, educators, and
student affairs professionals in their efforts to better understand how to support U.S. Filipino
college students in their success during college. The influence of sense of belonging, sense of
validation, psychological well-being, and campus culture must continue to be considered when
developing policies and practices that involve U.S. Filipino college students’ persistence and
academic experience.
69
First, the findings related to GPA warrants further exploration. With GPA as the primary
source of measurement for undergraduate academic performance, it is vital to create campus
opportunities that positively nurture variables that influence students’ GPA, including their sense
of belonging, psychological well-being, and campus culture. For example, offering more
opportunities for peer and faculty interactions could improve students’ sense of belonging and
positively influence their GPA. If instructors provide timely and constructive feedback on their
students' performances, it could help nurture their students’ academic confidence, thus improving
their sense of belonging. Collaborations among peers could also provide accountability for
studying or support needed when one might feel overwhelmed or lost. In addition, educators and
student affairs professionals should also examine the lower GPA found in UC and CCC
compared to private institutions. With U.S. Filipino college students overly represented in CCC
and only around 50% successfully transfer to four-year institutions or complete their degrees in
six years, as well as UC being the top public institutions in California, it is critical to further
examine what challenges and barriers students are facing in the classroom to receive low GPA.
Ensuring policies and procedures are in place to nurture students’ academic confidence, such as
early intervention strategies, collaboration between instructors and academic advisors, and
tutoring services, are highly recommended.
Second, this study highlights the influence of sense of validation on U.S. Filipino college
students' experiences that previously have not been explored. With sense of validation as a strong
predictor of intent to persist, educators and student affairs professionals are encouraged to focus
on developing their students’ academic and general interpersonal validations. Providing timely
and constructive feedback on class assignments, showing genuine concerns for students, and
extending opportunities to work with students individually could foster students’ academic
70
validation. On the other hand, academic advisors acknowledging their students’ achievements
and expressing interests in their students’ development could foster their general interpersonal
validation.
The lower sense of validation of U.S. Filipino college students in UC and CCC
experience compared to those in private institutions is also noteworthy. Further exploration of
the possible reasons or barriers institutional agents in public post-secondary institutions may be
facing that could be limiting their opportunities to reach out or engage with their students is
needed. Additional support, resources, and training for faculty and staff to learn about the needs
and challenges faced by U.S. Filipino college students and how to support and engage them
effectively could be helpful.
Lastly, understanding the historical and contextual factors that influence the identity
development of U.S. Filipinos, as well as the emotional and social factors they experience as
they transition into college, are key in supporting their success. For example, the indigenous and
core value of kapwa, defined as the unity of the “self” and “others,” is known to be the essential
core that drives Filipino culture (Enriquez,1994, as cited in David, Sharma, & Petalio, 2017).
Kapwa recognizes that one has a shared inner self with others and highlights the strong need for
connection and closeness. Therefore, the teaching, academic advising, and counseling services
provided to U.S. Filipino college students should ensure that students feel valued and
empowered. Helpful practices may include incorporating studies of Filipino researchers as part
of course readings, creating opportunities for families to participate in orientation events, and
promoting cross-cultural socialization.
71
Directions for Future Research
While researchers have studied various elements of the experiences of U.S. Filipinos in
higher education, further research is necessary to closely examine and gain a deeper
understanding of how those factors influence their academic success and performance. There are
several ways to build upon the findings of this study for researchers who wish to better
understand the unique experiences of U.S. Filipino college students. First, a mixed-method,
longitudinal study can be conducted to expand the operational definition of academic
performance and persistence to include degree completion and graduation rates. In addition, data
collected through a combination of self-report surveys, interviews, and case studies can provide a
more complete understanding of the research problem, as well as personal and contextual factors
that may not have been accounted for through self-report surveys alone (Creswell, 2014). For
example, this study showed significant differences in sense of validation by institution types,
with UC students showing lower sense of academic and general interpersonal validations than
students in private institutions. Follow-up interviews of students in UC and private institutions
can help further uncover and interpret the meaning behind these results.
In this study, there was also a strong correlation between students’ sense of validation
and their intent to persist. Exploring faculty's perceptions of U.S. Filipinos' academic
performance and success and how those perceptions influence their teaching and practices could
be a good start. Interviewing academic advisors on their experience in assisting U.S. Filipinos
and what they have found to be effective and challenging is also a good direction for future
research.
Finally, although this study examined various demographic variables (e.g., gender and
college generation) and found significant correlations, more research is necessary to explore the
72
many identities of U.S. Filipino college students and how these intersectionalities affect and
complicate their college experiences.
Conclusion
The goal of this study was to explore variables that have been identified to influence
college students’ persistence and academic experience, and to examine those variables in relation
to experiences of U.S. Filipino college students. More specifically, this quantitative research
study explored the influence of sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-
being, and campus culture on the GPA and intent to persist of U.S. Filipinos enrolled in different
types of post-secondary institutions in California – UC, CSU, CCC, and private institutions. This
study found that sense of belonging, psychological well-being, and campus culture are
significant predictors of GPA, while sense of validation and campus culture are significant
predictors of their intent to persist. Furthermore, this study found lower GPA and sense of
validation for students enrolled in UC and CCC compared to students in private institutions.
However, students in UC reported having a campus culture with stronger cultural validation than
students in private institutions, while CCC students reported having a campus culture with
stronger humanized educational environments than students in private institutions. Finally, this
study found significant differences in psychological well-being based on the students’ gender
and college generation.
U.S. Filipinos are among the largest immigrant groups in the United States, and their
complex histories and identities significantly influence their college experiences. The findings of
this study provide a glimpse of what U.S. Filipinos experience, and there is so much more to
unpack, especially when looking at different social contexts, such as gender, college generation,
and institution types. For example, with U.S. Filipino college students overly represented in CCC
73
and with UC as the top public institutions in California, it is problematic that students enrolled
there are reporting lower GPA and sense of validation than students in private institutions.
Further examinations are needed to identify possible barriers in the classroom and assess the type
of supports needed by the students. Researchers, educators, and student affairs professionals are
encouraged to gain a deeper understanding of the variables included in this study and how to
apply them in their teaching and practices to better engage and support U.S. Filipinos toward a
successful and empowering college experience.
74
References
Abe-Kim, J., Takeuchi, D., Hong, S., Zane, N., Sue, S., Spencer, M., Appel, H.,
Nicdao, E., & Alegría, M. (2007). Use of mental health-related services among
immigrant and US-born asian americans: Results from the national latino and asian
american study. American Journal of Public Health, 97(1), 91-98.
Andresen, T. (2013). Knowledge Construction, Transformative Academic Knowledge, and
Filipino American Identity and Experience. In Maramba, D. & Bonus, R., The “Other”
Students: Filipino Americans, Education, and Power (pp. 65-85).
Arria, A., Winick, E., Garnier-Dykstra, L., Vincent, K., Caldeira, K., Wilcox, H., & O'Grady,
K. (2011). Help seeking and mental health service utilization among college students
with a history of suicide ideation. Psychiatric Services, 62(12), 1510-3.
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments
as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497.
Bollen, K., & Hoyle, R. (1990). Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination.
Social forces, 69(2), 479-504.
Broman, C. (2012). Race differences in the receipt of mental health services among young
adults. Psychological Services, 9(1), 38-48.
Buenavista, T. (2010). Issues affecting US Filipino student access to postsecondary
education: A critical race theory perspective. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 15(1-2), 114-126.
Buenavista, T. (2007). Movement from the middle: Pilipina/o 1.5-generation college student
access, retention, and resistance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles.
75
Buenavista, T., Jayakumar, U., & Misa-Escalante, K. (2009). Contextualizing asian american
education through critical race theory: An example of U.S. pilipino college student
experiences. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(142), 69-81.
doi:10.1002/ir.297
Cabrera, A., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations
modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. The journal of higher
education, 64(2), 123-139.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
David, E. J. R. (2010). Cultural mistrust and mental health help-seeking attitudes among Filipino
Americans. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 57.
David, E. J. R., & Okazaki, S. (2006). The Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS) for Filipino
Americans: Scale construction and psychological implications. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 53(2), 241.
David, E. J. R., Sharma, D. K. B., & Petalio, J. (2017). Losing Kapwa: Colonial legacies and the
Filipino American family. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 8(1), 43.
Davidson, W., Beck, H., & Milligan, M. (2009). The college persistence questionnaire:
Development and validation of an instrument that predicts student attrition. Journal of
College Student Development, 50(4), 373-390.
Eisenberg, D., Downs, M. F., Golberstein, E., & Zivin, K. (2009). Stigma and help seeking
for mental health among college students. Medical Care Research and Review, 66(5),
522-541.
Gándara, P., & Aldana, U. (2014). Who’s Segregated Now? Latinos, Language, and the Future of
76
Integrated Schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 735-748.
Han, M., & Pong, H. (2015). Mental health help-seeking behaviors among asian american
community college students: The effect of stigma, cultural barriers, and acculturation.
Journal of College Student Development, 56(1), 1-14.
Harper, S., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7-24.
Hunt, J., & Eisenberg, D. (2010). Mental health problems and help-seeking behavior
among college students. The Journal of Adolescent Health : Official Publication of the
Society for Adolescent Medicine, 46(1), 3-10.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus
racial climate on Latino college students' sense of belonging. Sociology of education,
324-345.
Hurtado, S., Cuellar, M., & Wann, C. G. (2011). Quantitative measures of students’ sense of
validation: Advancing the study of diverse learning environments. Enrollment
Management Journal.
Hurtado, S., & Ponjuan, L. (2005). Latino educational outcomes and the campus climate. Journal
of Hispanic Higher Education, 4(3), 235-251.
Hurtado, S., Ruiz Alvarado, A., & Guillermo-Wann, C. (2015). Creating inclusive
environments: The mediating effect of faculty and staff validation on the relationship of
discrimination/bias to students’ sense of belonging. Journal Committed to Social Change
on Race and Ethnicity, 1 (1), 60-80.
Kim, C. J. (1999). The racial triangulation of Asian Americans. Politics & society, 27(1), 105-
138.
77
Kim, J., & Gasman, M. (2011). In Search of a "Good College": Decisions and Determinations
Behind Asian American Students' College Choice. Journal of College Student
Development,52(6), 706-728.
Leary, M., & Cox, C. (2008). Belongingness motivation: A mainspring of social action.
Lee, D., Olson, E., Locke, B., Michelson, S., & Odes, E. (2009). The effects of college counseling
services on academic performance and retention. Journal of College Student
Development, 50(3), 305-319.
Leonardo, Z. & Matias, C. (2013). Betwixt and Between Colonial and Postcolonial Mentality,
The Critical Education of Filipino Americans. In Maramba, D. & Bonus, R., The
“Other” Students: Filipino Americans, Education, and Power (pp. 3-18).
Maramba, D. C. (2008). Immigrant families and the college experience: Perspectives of Filipina
Americans. Journal of College Student Development, 49(4), 336-350.
Maramba, D., & Bonus, R. (2013). The “other” students : Filipino Americans, education,
and power. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Maramba, D., & Museus, S. (2013). Examining the effects of campus climate, ethnic
group cohesion, and cross-cultural interaction on Filipino American students' sense of
belonging in college. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 14(4), 495-522.
McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford
University Press, USA.
McHorney, C., Ware, J., Rogers, W., Raczek, A., & Lu, J. (1992). The validity and relative
precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts.
Medical Care, 30, MS253–MS265.
78
Miller, M., Yang, M., Hui, K., Choi, N., & Lim, R. (2011). Acculturation,
enculturation, and asian american college students' mental health and attitudes toward
seeking professional psychological help. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(3), 346-
357.
Miranda, R., Soffer, A., Polanco-Roman, L., Wheeler, A., & Moore, A. (2015). Mental
health treatment barriers among racial/ethnic minority versus white young adults 6
months after intake at a college counseling center. Journal of American College Health,
63(5), 291-298.
Moore, J., & Lewis, C. (2014). Guest Editorial: 60 Years after Brown v. Board of Education:
Educational Advancement or Decline? The Journal of Negro Education, 83(3), 191-
193,426.
Museus, S. (2014). The culturally engaging campus environments (CECE) model: A new theory
of success among racially diverse college student populations. In Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research (pp. 189-227). Springer, Dordrecht.
Museus, S., & Chang, M. (2009). Rising to the challenge of conducting research on Asian
Americans in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(142),
95-105. doi:10.1002/ir.299
Museus, S., & Kiang, P. (2009). Deconstructing the model minority myth and how it contributes
to the invisible minority reality in higher education research. New Directions for
Institutional Research, 2009(142), 5-15. doi:10.1002/ir.292
Museus, S., & Maramba, D. (2011). The impact of culture on Filipino American students' sense
of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 231-258.
79
Museus, S., & Park, J. (2015). The Continuing Significance of Racism in the Lives of Asian
American College Students. Journal of College Student Development, 56(6), 551-569.
Museus, S., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2017). The impact of culturally engaging campus
environments on sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 187-215.
Nadal, K. L. (2004). Pilipino American identity development model. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 32(1), 45-62.
Nadal, K. L. (2011). Filipino American psychology: A handbook of theory, research, and
clinical practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Nadal, K. L. (2013). Counseling Filipino American College Students Promoting Identity
Development, Optimal Mental Health, and Academic Success. In Maramba, D. & Bonus,
R., The “Other” Students: Filipino Americans, Education, and Power (pp. 103-119).
Nadal, K. L., Pituc, S. T., Johnston, M. P., & Esparrago, T. (2010). Overcoming the model
minority myth: Experiences of Filipino American graduate students. Journal of College
Student Development, 51(6), 694-706.
Nadal, K., Wong, Y., Sriken, J., Griffin, K., & Fujii-Doe, W. (2015). Racial microaggressions
and Asian Americans: An exploratory study on within-group differences and mental
health. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 6(2), 136.
Okamura, J. (2013). Filipino American Access to Public Higher Education in California and
Hawai’i. In Maramba, D. & Bonus, R., The “Other” Students: Filipino Americans,
Education, and Power (pp. 213-235).
Pendakur, V. (2016). Closing the opportunity gap : identity-conscious strategies for retention
and student success (First edition.). Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
80
Pérez, H. L., & Solorzano, D. (2014). Racial microaggressions as a tool for critical race
research. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1-24.
Poon, O., Squire, D., Kodama, C., Byrd, A., Chan, J., Manzano, L., Furr, S., & Bishundat, D.
(2016). A critical review of the model minority myth in selected literature on Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders in higher education. Review of Educational
Research, 86(2), 469-502.
Pritchard, M. & Wilson, G. (2003). Using emotional and social factors to predict student success.
Journal of college student development, 44(1), 18-28.
Rendon, L. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative higher education, 19(1), 33-51.
Reynolds, A., & Weigand, M. (2010). The relationships among academic attitudes,
psychological attitudes, and the first-semester academic achievement of first-year college
students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47(2), 175-195.
Strayhorn, T. (2008). Sentido de pertenencia: A hierarchical analysis predicting sense of
belonging among Latino college students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7(4),
301-320.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2018). College students' sense of belonging: A key to educational success for
all students. Routledge.
Strayhorn, T. L., Bie, F., Dorime-Williams, M. L., & Williams, M. S. (2016). Measuring the
influence of Native American college students' interactions with diverse others on sense
of belonging. Journal of American Indian Education, 55(1), 49-73.
Sue, D., Bucceri, J., Lin, A., Nadal, K., & Torino, G. (2007). Racial microaggressions and the
Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(1),
81
72-81.
Tanaka, G. (2002). Higher education's self-reflexive turn: Toward an intercultural theory of
student development. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(2), 263-296.
The Campaign for College Opportunity (2015). The State of Higher Education in California
Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders. Retrieved from
https://www.collegecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-State-of-Higher-
Education_AANHPI2.pdf
Tierney, W. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college. The
Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
University of Chicago Press, 5801 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637.
Tinto, V. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79(4), 16-21.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Asian Alone or in
Any Combination by Selected Groups. Retrieved June 1, 2019 from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk#
Vea, B. (2013). Disaggregating the College Experiences of Filipino Americans, From the
Aggregate Asian American/Pacific Islander Experience. In Maramba, D. & Bonus, R.,
The “Other” Students: Filipino Americans, Education, and Power (pp. 87-102).
Veit, C., & Ware, J. (1983). The structure of psychological distress and well-being in general
populations. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 730 –742.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.51.5 .730
Westrick, P. A. (2017). Reliability estimates for undergraduate grade point average. Educational
Assessment, 22(4), 231-252.
82
Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and
unique contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding
college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407-428.
83
Appendix A: List of Majors
Category Major N Percentage
Arts Cinema & Digital Media 4 2.0
Culinary Arts 1 0.5
Dance 1 0.5
Graphic Design 2 0.9
Music and Instruments 3 1.4
Subtotal 11 5.3
Business Business Administration 8 3.8
Government Criminal Justice 1 0.5
And Law Forensics 2 1.0
Subtotal 3 1.5
Social Sciences Anthropology 2 0.9
and Humanities Asian American Studies 6 2.9
Communication Studies 5 2.9
Early Childhood Education 5 2.4
Economics 3 1.4
English 5 2.3
Higher Education 2 1.0
History 3 1.4
K-12 Education 1 1.4
Philosophy 2 0.9
Political Science 4 1.9
Psychology/Counseling 34 15.9
Public Health 4 1.9
Public Policy 2 1.0
Sociology 7 3.3
Subtotal 85 40.6
STEM Aerospace Engineering 2 1.0
Applied Mathematics 4 2.0
Biochemistry 7 3.3
Biological Sciences 26 12.3
Chemical Engineering 1 0.5
Chemistry 1 0.5
Civil Engineering 5 2.3
Clinical Science 1 0.5
Computer Science 16 7.7
Electrical Engineering 1 0.5
Environmental Science 5 2.5
Global Health 5 2.4
Health Science 5 3.9
84
Category Major N Percentage
Kinesiology 4 1.8
Marine Biology 2 1.0
Mechanical Engineering 2 1.0
Molecular Biology 2 1.0
Neuroscience 3 1.5
Nursing 13 6.1
Pharmacology 2 1.0
Software Engineering 3 1.5
Subtotal 110 54.3
TOTAL 220 100
85
Appendix B: List of Career Aspirations
Category Career Aspirations N Percentage
Arts, News, Actor 2 1.0
Television Culinary Arts 3 1.5
Film Director & Producer 4 2
Journalism 2 1.0
Musician/Music Producer 3 1.5
Subtotal 14 7
Education College Counselor 4 2
Higher Ed Administration 3 1.5
K-12 Instructor 12 5.8
Professor 10 4.9
Subtotal 29 14.2
Government Attorney 10 4.9
and Law Government-Related 4 2
Subtotal 14 6.9
Medicine and Doctor of Medicine 22 10.8
Public Health Clinical Lab Technician 4 2
Dentistry 2 1
Physical Therapy 6 2.9
Health Policy & Administration 8 3.9
Pharmacy 1 0.5
Physician Assistant 10 4.7
Veterinarian 2 1
Nurse 16 7.6
Subtotal 71 34.4
Science and Engineering 15 7.4
Engineering Biochemist 5 2.5
Cyber Security 2 1
Software Developer 9 4.4
Subtotal 20 9.9
Social Services Psychologists 16 7.9
Human Resources 3 1.5
Community Service 4 2
Subtotal 16 7.9
Others Entrepreneur 11 5.5
Pastor 1 0.05
Pilot 1 0.5
Undecided 17 8.2
Subtotal 30 14.25
TOTAL 220 100
86
Appendix C: Study Survey with Consent Form and Questions
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
U.S. Filipinos are one of the largest immigrant groups in the United States. However, they are often invisible in the discussion of race and education. Using quantitative research design, this study examined various environmental and individual factors that influence U.S. Filipino college students' educational experiences and success. More specifically, using the Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) model of college success (Museus, 2014), this study explored the influence of sense of belonging, sense of validation, psychological well-being, and campus culture on the undergraduate GPA and intent to persist of U.S. Filipinos in California. Participants included 220 undergraduate students who self-identify as of Filipino descent and attended the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), California Community Colleges (CCC), or private post-secondary institutions in California. Results of the study showed sense of belonging, psychological well-being, and campus culture as significant predictors of GPA, while sense of validation and campus culture showed as significant predictors of intent to persist. In addition, this study found significant main effects and interactions for gender, college generation, and institution types. The findings of this study have practical implications for educators and practitioners seeking to improve the academic success and college experiences of U.S. Filipinos.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Mama learns: examining factors that influence intent to persist in student mothers
PDF
Advising and acculturation variables as predictors of satisfaction, sense of belonging, and persistence among international undergraduates
PDF
An exploration of the relationship of awareness and use of student services to sense of belonging, overall satisfaction with institution, and intent to persist to degree completion among internat...
PDF
The relationship among gender, race/ethnicity, sense of validation, science identity, science self-efficacy, persistence, and academic performance of biomedical undergraduates
PDF
Ethnic identity development, ethnic student organizations, campus racial climate, cultural integrity, and sense of belonging for Filipino American undergraduate students at a selective predominan...
PDF
Well-being, sense of belonging, and persistence among commuter college students in Hawai’i
PDF
Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence
PDF
Developing a sense of belonging and persistence through mentoring for first-generation students
PDF
Examining the influence of new student orientation on graduate international students’ campus involvement, intent to persist, and sense of belonging
PDF
Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit
PDF
International student perceptions of threat in U.S. higher education
PDF
Psychosociocultural predictors of help seeking among Latino community college students
PDF
Familial and cultural variables as predictors of retention of Latino engineering students
PDF
Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging
PDF
The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities
PDF
Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study
PDF
Struggles build character: the impact of developmental math and the psychological, social and cultural factors that influence Latino males' persistence in STEM
PDF
The relationship of ethnicity, gender, acculturation, intergenerational relations, and sense of belonging in the institution to academic success among Asian American undergraduates
PDF
Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students
PDF
The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college
Asset Metadata
Creator
Reano, Maria Corazon
(author)
Core Title
U.S. Filipinos in higher education: sense of belonging, validation, well-being, and campus culture as predictors of GPA and intent to persist
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
11/29/2020
Defense Date
10/08/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
campus culture,CECE Model,College students,Filipino,GPA,intent to persist,OAI-PMH Harvest,psychological well-being,sense of belonging,sense of validation
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Chung, Ruth (
committee chair
), Harper, Shaun (
committee member
), Maramba, Dina (
committee member
)
Creator Email
coryucla08@gmail.com,reano@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-399313
Unique identifier
UC11667853
Identifier
etd-ReanoMaria-9156.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-399313 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ReanoMaria-9156.pdf
Dmrecord
399313
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Reano, Maria Corazon
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
campus culture
CECE Model
Filipino
GPA
intent to persist
psychological well-being
sense of belonging
sense of validation