Characteristics of urban Asian Pacific-Islander community college students who aspire to transfer from one of the colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District to a four-year institution

James K. Nishimoto

Abstract

The characteristics of urban Asian Pacific-Islander students attending one of the colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District who aspire to transfer to a four-year institutions are studied. This study is a secondary analysis of the first year cross-sectional data collected for the three year longitudinal study, Transfer and Retention of Urban Community Colleges (TRUCCS) Project conducted by Linda S. Hagedorn, Ph.D., University of Southern California beginning in the Fall 2000 under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research, Grant # (R305T000154).

Introduction

The characteristics of community college minority students, for example, limited proficiency in English may adversely affect their social and academic integration  and could be suggestive that these students may be less likely to persist and successfully transfer when considered in the context of Tinto's (1975, 1987) model in which social and academic integration are predictors of academic success and student persistence This is a run-on sentence  Investigators have suggested that for minority students there may be more appropriate predictors other than those identified by Tinto.  In fact Tan (1994) and Drechsel-Makuakane and Hagedorn (2000) have reported that more appropriate indicators may be needed specifically for Asian Pacific Americans. 

It is important to first identify what is considered academic success for community college students.  Traditionally, community colleges were developed to serve a collegiate function with the goal of students transferring from the two-year college to a four-year institution.  Well some were and some were not.

With competing demands by student consumers, it is argued that the collegiate function has diminished and concern is expressed whether or not it should be stopped altogether.  Notwithstanding the debate on continuing the community colleges' collegiate function, there are growing numbers of requirements for data in particular the impact of the collegiate function as represented by student transfer data and rates for accountability and performance indicator purposes.  If in fact, researchers have reported a diminution in the collegiate function and in turn the transfer function, this may have consequences for all minority students to include Asian Pacific-Islanders who are attending community college for purposes of preparing for transferring to four-year institutions.  Compounding the reported findings that fewer transfer students complete baccalaureate programs in comparison with native students with the potential that the community colleges' transfer function may be reduced only serves to identify the awesome hurdles that confront minority community college students in their quest for a baccalaureate degree.

While multiple definitions of transfer are a problem, nevertheless, what ever definition is used indicates that over time the number of transfer community college students has declined.  Because there are proportionately larger numbers of minority students attending community colleges, the reduction in transfer when combined with the findings that transfer students are less likely than native students to attain a baccalaureate degree may indicate a limiting of the upward social mobility of minority students.  Continuing research on community college transfers is needed for decision-making and assessment of change. Despite the increase in the general population of Asian Pacific-Islanders, the number of Asian Pacific-Islander and in particular those transferring from community colleges to four-year institutions have not. Is this because more Asian Pacific-Islanders are applying directly to four-year institutions or are there other reasons, for example, are more Asian Pacific-Islanders "cooling out" or being tracked to vocational programs? 

Lanaan (2000), Hsia (1998), and Mow and Nettles (1999) all have suggested that more research on Asian community colleges students is needed.  In this context of increasing number of minority students attending community colleges, the importance of the community college transfer rates of ethnic minorities as an indicator of change and as a performance indicator having potential broad socio-economic for the individual, and significance to public and higher education policy makers, and the recurring citation by other researchers for empirical studies that focus on ethnic minorities, in particular Asians, this study will answer the question:   What are the characteristics of urban Asian Pacific-Islander community college students who aspire to transfer from one of the colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District to a four-year institution?

Background of the Problem

While there have been some comprehensive studies of community college students, the students involved tended to be categorized as either white and nonwhite with no further breakdown of the nonwhite category despite the inclusion of significant number of identifiable ethnic minority students (Grubb, 1990a).  Of significance is that the U.S. Department of Education (cited in Jalomo, 2001, p. 262) reports that of all undergraduates 61 percent of Hispanic undergraduates, 56 percent of American Indian undergraduates, 47 percent of African-American undergraduates and 46% of Asian-American  undergraduates may be found in two-year institutions. 

This trend of high percentages of minorities attending community colleges is not a temporary aberration as more members of underrepresented groups are more frequently opting to attend a community college rather than following the traditional route of going directly to a four-year institution (Laanan, 2000) .  Most recently, the (California Postsecondary Education Commission, (2001) reports that in the year 2000 the proportion of students with limited proficiency in English rose from 19.9 percent in 1991 to 24.7 percent in 1999.

Sanchez (2000) building on Tinto's (1975, 1987) work suggests social and academic integration may enhance learning opportunities, which may lead to student persistence.  However, for minority students the lack of culturally appropriate college classroom environments may make it impossible for minority students to feel socially integrated.  Yet as reported by Tan (1994), social integration was not a significant factor in promoting academic performance for Asian-Americans. Peng and Hsia reported that Asian Americans are more likely to continue at their institution of choice even though the institutions may have white majorities.  The question may be raised whether or not Tinto's model is predictive for Asian Pacific-Islander community college students' persistence or and ultimate success to transfer to a four-year institutions or if there are other variables that may be more relevant predictors of persistence and success for minority students and in particular Asian Pacific-Islander community college students transferring to four-year institutions.

With the numbers of minority students matriculating at the community colleges, information regarding minority students becomes important for public and higher educational policy makers. Lanaan (2000), Hsia (1998), and (Mow & Nettles, 1999) all have suggested that more research on Asian community colleges students is needed.  Based on studies such as this one that is designed to identify the characteristics of successful Asian Pacific-Islanders transferring to four-year institutions, it will be possible for decision-makers to design programs that may further facilitate and promote the success of these students.

Statement of the Problem

The lack of information about the characteristics of Asian Pacific-Islander community college students has implications for public and educational policy makers.  Due to sample size limitations, studies on the characteristics of Asian Pacific-Islander community college students at urban community colleges are noticeably absent from the literature.

It appears that in the case of minority students to include Asian Pacific-Islanders there may be some confounding factors that reduce the predictiveness of Tinto's (1975, 1987) model for student retention as being associated with students experiencing satisfying and rewarding encounters with formal and informal academic and social systems Loo and Rolison (1986) reported greater alienation among minority students attending a predominantly white university.  Despite the possible absence of social integration, Peng (1985 cited in Hsia, 1998, 132) reports that Asian Americans are more likely to continue at their institution of choice.  Moreover, Tan (1994) reported that social integration is not a significant factor in promoting academic performance for Asian-Americans.

In one of the few studies found on Asian Pacific-Islanders Makuakane-Drechsel and Hagedorn (2000) reported that four factors - cumulative grade point average, financial aid, average credit hours and enrollment at a specific campus - were significant factors in promoting persistence for students pursuing technical majors whereas reverse transfer and attending an urban high school were significant for liberal arts students only.

There is a dearth of research on Asian and Pacific-Islanders possibly due to relatively small numbers of participants or the lumping together as either non-white or part of the minority category (Grubb, 1990a).  However in light of the growing numbers of Asian and Pacific-Islanders particularly in urban areas where they are likely to attend community colleges, more research needs to be done to identify what characteristics differentiate Asian Pacific-Islander students from other groupings of community college students who successfully transfer to four-year institutions.  It is especially valuable to identify those characteristics since data that is available indicate greater numbers of Asian Pacific-Islander attain the baccalaureate degree than comparison groups (Hsia, 1998). 

Purpose of the Study

The community colleges have long served as the port of entry for minority students into the hierarchy of higher education.  Despite increases in the general population of Asian Pacific-Islanders, the numbers of Asian Pacific-Islander community college students transferring to four-year institutions has not increased proportionately (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2001).  While it is reported that the persistence rate of Asian students in higher education is high (Peng, 1995; Hsia, 1998), the characteristics of many Asian Pacific-Islander students particularly those enrolled at the community colleges would not be predictive of persistence in the context of Tinto's (1975, 1987) model in which students' social and academic integration have been found to have a positive correlation to student persistence.  Moreover, research regarding Asian Pacific-Islander community college students is very limited. 

This study focuses on identifying the factors that may be correlated to Asian Pacific-Islander students who successfully transfer to four-year institutions.  Specifically, the purpose of this study is to determine the characteristics of Asian Pacific-Islander community college students who aspire to transfer from one of the colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District to a four-year institution.

Significance of the Problem

Ignash (1994) reports that in the Los Angeles County the Asian and Pacific Islander population grew from 6.1 percent in 1980 to 10.8 percent of the total population in 1990, an increase of 109.6 percent.  Cuseo (1998) reports that it is anticipated that minority enrollment at community colleges will increase because of cutbacks in scholarships and grants forcing minority student to enroll at less expensive community colleges and because minority students will comprise a larger proportion of high school seniors in the next two decades. 

One of the important reasons for this study is that currently there is very limited information about Asian Pacific-Islander community college students.  While some research is available regarding Asian students at four-year institutions, little information is available about Asian Pacific-Islander students at two-year institutions.  This study will help in the identification of characteristics of Asian Pacific-Islander community college students that may be serve as predictors of students likely to successfully transfer to four-year institutions.  With growing numbers of minority citizens, high school graduates and the use of the community college as the port of entry into higher education, information about the Asian Pacific-Islanders will provide useful information about this category of students for use by public educational policy makers.

Research Questions

What are the characteristics of urban Asian Pacific-Islander community college students who aspire to transfer from one of the colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District to a four-year institution?

Somewhere you should probably address the "model minority myth."  It is this myth that has limited research on APA students.  It is generally assumed that ALL Asians do well.  The truth is that there are many who do not excel academically.  It is likely, though unproven, that many of the APA's who choose to go to the community college are among the group of APA's who are academically challenged. 

Assumptions

For this study, the following assumptions are made: 

1. The measures are reliable and valid indicators of the concepts to be studied.
2. The data are accurately recorded and analyzed.
3. The subject will be provide honest responses to the questions.
4. The subject will respond to the best of their ability.
5. The research, data gathering, and findings and conclusions of the student represent "good research."
6. The Asian Pacific-Islanders are accurately identified.

Limitations

1. This study is limited to subjects who agree to participate voluntarily.
2. It is limited to the number of subjects surveyed and the amount of time available to conduct this study.
3. Validity of this study is limited to the reliability of the instrument used.

Delimitations

1. This study will confine itself to surveying students from the Los Angeles Community College District. 
2. The study will focus on student biographic and demographic information, prior educational experiences, college selection factors, allocation of time, academic behavior, academic preparation, English language proficiency, self image, current attitude, perceptions and opinions, career plans, educational aspirations, and other affective measures.
3. Full-time and part-time students will be included in the study.

Definition of Terms

Asian Pacific-Islander student: is operationally defined for this study as any community college student who self-identifies his or her ethnic background as any one of the following: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Laotian, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Pacific Islanders/Samoan, Hawaiian, or Guamanian and other Pacific Islanders.

Aspiring transfer student: is operationally defined for the purposes of this study as any community college student who has matriculated at a community college and who has expressed the aspiration to transfer to a four-year institution of higher education.

Urban Community College: is operationally defined for the purposes of this study as an institution of higher learning whose highest degree awarded is the Associate of Arts Degree and is which located in the Los Angeles Community College District.

Organization of the Study

Chapter One of the study presents the introduction, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, the significance of the study, the definitions of terms, the assumptions, limitations, delimitations, and the organization of the study.

Chapter Two is a review of recent literature.

Chapter Three presents the methodology used in the study, including a description and rationale of the sample, the data collection procedures, a description of instrument development and the methods of analysis of the data. 

Review of the Literature

Introduction

Relevant literature has been organized and will be considered in four sections for the purpose of establishing the context and basis for this study.  Section 1 presents the broad context for this study by describing the community colleges and the needs that they serve.  In this section, the literature will be reviewed in the context of responses to the following questions:  Who are community colleges and what are their origins?  How does the philosophy of community colleges differ from four-year institutions?  What is the impact of community colleges?  What is happening to the collegiate function of community colleges?  What is a consequence of the demand for accountability and performance indicators?

Section 2 will be a discussion of the community college transfer function. The discussion will focus on answers to the following questions: How is transfer defined?  What is the transfer relationship between community colleges and four-year institutions?  Of what value is data on community college transfer students?  What are some of the explanations why community college transfer rates are low?

Section 3 will review analyses and data relating to the general community college student population.  The review will focus on answering the questions:  What are the general characteristics of community college students?  What are the aspirations and perceptions of community college students? Are community colleges serving minority students?

Finally, Section 4 will be a consideration of a subset of the general community college student population and the focus of this study, the Asian Pacific-Islander community college students.  The limited research on Asian Pacific-Islanders community college students will be reviewed in the context of the following question: What has been reported about Asian Pacific-Islander students and how do they differ from other minority students?

This literature review should be VERY helpful in the qualifying exam!

Literature Review

Community Colleges - The Needs They Serve

Who are community colleges and what are their origins?  Community colleges evolved from a desire to create an alternative to four-year colleges and universities for those students interested in continuing their participation in higher education although they may not have been willing, ready or able to attend a four-year institution.  According to Cohen (2001) a community college is defined as any institution accredited to award the associate degree as its highest degree.  By this definition, nationwide there are some 1,050 private junior colleges, private 2-years', two-year proprietary and public institutions with nearly half the students pursuing post secondary education matriculating at the community colleges.  Historically, educational leaders like Henry Tappan of the University of Michigan, William Mitchell from the University of Georgia and William Folwell from the University of Minnesota advocated that the junior college should relieve the university of providing general education.  Similarly, research university advocates such as William Harper of the University of Chicago, Edmund James of the University of Illinois and David Jordan of Stanford advocated that the universities be responsible for the higher-order scholarship, while lower schools provide general and vocational education (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). In the early days of community colleges, Cohen and Brawer (1982) cite the work of Koos (1924) to corroborate that the community college's collegiate function was prominent in the early community colleges.

The functions of community colleges were not limited to only the collegiate function but include vocational and technical training, compensatory and remedial training and personal development (Cohen & Brawer, 1982, 1996). Eaton (1994a) asserts that the community colleges primary attentions should be directed to the collegiate function.  The ascribed functions of the community colleges evolved in response to the changing interests and needs of the local community that organized, controlled and in the beginning in many instances funded the community colleges' operations.  In the 1960s at the community colleges, emphasis on liberal arts blossomed; in the 1970s the curriculum narrowed with greater emphasis on vocational and occupational training; and in the 1980s, course design turned away from traditional transfer programs toward courses appealing to current student interests while other vocational programs began to incorporate collegiate courses, for example, political science and jurisprudence being incorporated into law enforcement officer curriculum (Cohen & Brawer, 1982, 1996).

How does the philosophy of community colleges differ from four-year institutions?  The community colleges' broadly all-encompassing philosophy is both a boon and a bane.  According to Cohen and Brawer (1996), community colleges are often times characterized as untraditional, in that, they do not follow the traditional discipline oriented curriculum of higher education that is offered at four-year institutions, they do not necessarily provide students with new values structures, as residential liberal arts colleges aspire to do, nor do they seek to further the frontiers of knowledge through scholarship and research training, as in the traditions of the university.  In fact, community colleges are not bound to their own traditions as they change frequently, seeking new programs and new clients. 

"Community colleges are indeed untraditional, but they are truly American because, at their best, they represent the United States at its best.  Never satisfied with resting on what has been done before, they try new approaches to old problems.  They maintain open channels for individuals, enhancing the social mobility that has characterized  America; and they accept the idea that society can be better, just as individuals can better their lot within it (Cohen & Brawer, 1996, 37)"

Cohen and Brawer (1996) contend that it is because Americans believe that all individuals should have the opportunity to rise to their greatest potential that community colleges are designed to allow individuals enter, leave, and return to the educational system as long as each person's motivations and the community budget allows.

The all-encompassing philosophy of the community colleges makes it difficult to limit its scope without having negative consequences on other non-focus functions and is a cause for conflicts in institutional priorities and allocation of resources. Eaton (1994b) argues that the collegiate function must be the foremost priority for community colleges as such must be maintained otherwise the community colleges may cease their direct linkage to higher education and lose a significant aspect of their comprehensiveness.  Whereas, Grubb (1990b) argues that community colleges must and can continue to be comprehensive institutions serving the many needs and diverse interests of the community college students.

What is the impact of community colleges?  Community colleges do have significant socioeconomic impact on students.  Laanan (1995) asserts that because education has been viewed as a springboard to increasing an individual's social status intellectually, professional, and personally, it is the community college that plays a critical role in not only training the current and future work-force, but serving as the point of entry to higher education for many of those who might not otherwise have access. The Current Populations Reports 1987 (cited in Pincus  & Archer, 1989, 23) reports that in 1984, those with a bachelor's degrees had mean monthly incomes of $1,831, associate and vocational degree holders had mean monthly incomes of $1,346 ($5,940 annualized difference) and $1,219 ($7,464 annualized difference) respectively. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) assert that there is little doubt that the growth of the community college sector has significantly expanded traditionally disadvantaged groups' access to postsecondary education and that as a consequence those attending have come to enjoy significant socioeconomic and other advantages.  Laanan (2000) points to other studies by Grubb (1996) and Sanchez and Laanan (1998) that similarly found that there is a positive relationship between education and earnings.

What is happening to the collegiate function of community colleges? Some researchers like Grubb (1990b) and Eaton (1994b) perceive that the collegiate function of community colleges may be diminishing and that such is a serious threat to the comprehensive to the community college and in turn the linkage to higher education.  Beginning in the 1970s and continuing through the mid 1990s, the number of community colleges, student-attendance patterns, faculty-employment patterns and types of degrees awarded leveled, but the community colleges' perennial problems with funding, public perception, relative emphasis, purposes, and questions of value continued unabated (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). During this period, Clark described his "cooling out" theory (cited in Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 641) in which high-aspiration but low achieving and/or low-socioeconomic-status community college students become discouraged and fail in their pursuit of the educational benefits equal to those of four-years college graduates.  Whether because of the "leveling out" of community college, the impact of "cooling out," or the growing demand for readily marketable skills, there were fewer community college students transferring to senior institutions suggesting that the community college's collegiate function has been weakened (Cohen & Brawer, 1982). 

It is suggested that this weakening of the community college's collegiate function occurred despite the fact that the community colleges may be better equipped to offer the best form of lower-division studies given that from their inceptions community colleges have had to prepare collegiate courses for less well-prepared students (Cohen & Brawer, 1982).  Even with their adaptation to the changing demands of community college students and the boost community colleges received from such national initiatives such as the 1947 Truman Commission Report on Higher Education, community colleges have remained secondary to four-year colleges and universities (Townsend & Twombly, 2001).  And yet, it is because of the community colleges' efforts to prepare unprepared students and the accommodation of large number of students in earning lower division credits that senior institutions have been able to maintain their focus and have not had to divert resources to accommodate the needs of students whose needs may be met by community colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 1982).

The insatiable demand for information and for technical education to participate in and support the juggernaut of expanding global economy, the shrinking availability of public resources to support higher education, and the public's demands for accountability and quality are catapulting higher education and in particular community colleges to the forefront of the federal and state educational policy agenda (Townsend & Twombly, 2001). It is in this context that Bernstein (1986), Brint & Karabel (1989), Kinnick & Kempner (1988) (cited in Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991,641-643) have suggested that community colleges are facing a watershed:  Either the community colleges forego the transfer function and focus attention on such other roles as vocational and technical training, and remedial training or the community colleges must revitalize the transfer function by reducing transfer obstacles, supporting more intensive remedial programs, and seeking greater access to financial aid.  The lack of a decision and commitment by the community colleges are not likely to be permitted as those providing funding or paying the tuition, albeit token in the case of California, will demand an accounting of what was received for the payments made (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2001).

What is a consequence of the demand for accountability and performance indicators?  With the advent of electronic database, the demand for data explaining how public funds were expended and whether or not such expenditures attained the desired or intended outcomes has exploded. Cohen (2001) describes a confluence of events beginning in the 1960s and continuing today.  State legislatures assumed a greater role in detailing responsibilities, appropriating funding, and prescribing shared management responsibilities the state and local authorities for community colleges. Coincidentally, the Federal Higher Education Act of 1965 directed the states to create higher-education coordinating commissions in part to ensure that states were able to fulfill their responsibility for equalizing the financing of community colleges.  Clearly, control was gravitating toward the state capitals along with shifting funding sources from the local district to the state.

Because funding is oftentimes tied to student enrollment, Cohen (2001) contends that college leadership developed a mind-set favoring growth, that is, promote student enrollment to increase reimbursement for students taking classes.  Compounding the perceived linkage between more funding with increasing enrollment, it is alleged that the federal government has colluded in the "growth is good" presumption through its every-expanding student grant and loan programs, e.g., community college students receive about 30 percent of all Pell Grant awards as reported by the American Association of Community Colleges (1996) (Lovell, 2001).  The expansion of and expenditure of public funds both state and federal by the community colleges is made with certain expectation in mind by the granting agency, who by mandate is more oftentimes demanding feedback, and not without obligations for due diligence in efforts to maximize the attainment of the desired or hoped for outcome.

Cohen (2001) reports that by the late 1980s, many state legislatures were appropriating from 75 to 90 percent of the total expenditures for community colleges.  Richardson and de los Santos (2001) argue that because community colleges have become major competitors for shrinking tax revenues states community colleges must now justify their requests for appropriations.  Possibly a consequence, community colleges like other programs were mandated to provide data linking the expenditure of funds to the satisfaction of hoped for outcomes and performance indicators for purposes of justifying continued funding.  Like the states, the federal government joined in with similar demands and in some instances unfunded mandates for data and analysis that correlated student performance and outcomes.  For example, The Integrated Postsecondary Education Date System (IPEDS) requires each institution receiving any federal funding (direct or indirect) to report data to the federal Department of Education, through its National Center for Education statistics (NCES) on a variety of data areas (Lovell, 2001). 

Both state and federal agencies want the answer to the question:  If a key function of the community colleges for which publicly provided funds are made available is to prepare students to transfer to four-year institutions, how many community college students transfer?  The California Postsecondary Education Commission (2001) prepares an annual performance indicators of California higher education as mandated by Assembly Bill 1808 (Hayden, Chapter 740 of the Statutes of 1991).  One of the many performance indicators being demanded for accountability purposes is then the number or rate that community college students transfer to senior institutions.

The Community College Transfer Function

How is the transfer function defined?  Cohen and Brawer (1982), Spicer and Armstrong (1996) and others argue that data for comparative purposes on the number of community college student transfers are not readily obtainable because follow-up studies are far from uniform . The studies and definition used may concentrate on first-time transfers, transfers attending senior institutions at a given time, transfers who completed a minimum number of units or terms, transfers to state public institutions and for comparative purposes they use head-count enrollments, full-time equivalent enrollments, graduates, four-year undergraduate enrollment, but the lack of uniformity is a problem. In response to variety of defintions of transfer and transfer rate Laanan and Sanchez (1996) have examined a variety of traditional and non-traditional methods of measuring transfer.  In a major effort to establish a more uniform definition of transfer rate Cohen (1994, p. 73)) developed a now widely used definition of the community college student transfer rate, that is, "... all students entering the community college in a given year who have no prior college experience and who complete at least twelve college-credit units, divided into the number of that group who take one or more classes at the university within four years."

According to Ignash and Townsend (2001), transfer refers to the student flow among institutions and programs - the "who"  whereas, articulation refers to courses and programs - the "what."  In 1989, the Center for the Study of Community Colleges began collecting data on transfer, using the definition of transfer as being "all students entering the community college in a given year who have no prior college experience, and who complete at least twelve college credits within four years of entry, divided into the number of that group who take one or more classes at an in-state, public university within four years (Cohen, 1994; Cohen & Brawer, 1996).  Other definitions of articulation and transfer are reviewed by Kintzer and Wattenberger (1985).  Additionally, Townsend (1999) noted that the community college transfer function is multifaceted, in that, a significant and growing number of reverse transfer students or those student who post-baccalaureate matriculate at the community college.  Although the effort has been made to standardize the definition of transfer, the demand for more readily available cross-sectional data may mean that other more convenient definition of transfer may be employed, for example, in the Performance Indicators of California Higher Education the number of transferring students applying and admitted are reported (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2000).  The lack of a uniform and easily available definition of transfer may frustrate and confound comparisons.

What is the transfer relationship between community colleges and four-year institutions? Cohen and Brawer (cited in Pincus and Archer, 1989, p. 10)) and Medsker and Tillery (cited in Pincus and Archer, 1989, p. 10) have  reported that during the 1960s at least two-thirds of community college students intended to transfer to a four-year school in order to obtain a baccalaureate degree.  Karabel (1972) gave a somewhat lower estimate of the transfer rate of all entering students - 25-30%. In an unpublished national survey of both full-time and part-time community colleges students enrolled in credit courses, Palmer (1988, as cited in Pincus & Archer, 1989, p. 10) reported that 60 percent intended to get a baccalaureate degree.  Yet, Adelman (1988) looked at all 1972 high school graduates who had entered a community college between 1972 and 1984 and found that only 21.2 percent had transferred to a four-year school.  The research indicates that while a significant number of community college students express the aspiration to attain a baccalaureate degree and a smaller number transfer from the community college to baccalaureate degree granting institutions.  Additionally, Cejda and Kaylor (2001) have reported that they found that many students enroll at community colleges with a specific intent other than earning the associate degree, for example, earning transferable course work credits.

By the mid-1980s, some educators and policy makers had grown concerned about the perceived weakening of the transfer function of community colleges even though these conclusions were based on disparate studies that employed a variety of definitions of transfer and in the absence of any commonly maintained uniform database (Pincus & Archer, 1989).  According to Pincus and Archer (1989) the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges reported that only 16 percent of community college students were enrolled in vocational programs in 1965 with most other students enrolled in transfer programs; whereas, by 1976, half of the students were enrolled in vocational courses and the remainder enrolled in either transfer courses or general education courses.  Karabel (cited in Pincus & Archer, 1989, 11) reported that that between 1971 and 1973, 13.8 percent of community college student transferred to a public four-year school in California.  By the 1981 to 1983 period, the figure had dropped to 11.4 percent.

Cohen and Brawer (1982) reported that between 1970-71 and 1977-78 the percent of associate arts degrees awarded dropped from 57 percent to 41 percent.  If the number of associate arts degrees awarded is used as an indicator of the number of community college that have the potential to transfer to four-year institutions, then the drop in associate arts degrees may be interpreted as indicating a drop in the potential number of transfer students.  Cohen and Brawer go on to note that these shifts also reflect changes in curricular choice, in that, since the mid-1970s more students transferred to universities from career education programs than from college-parallel programs.  This shift in source of transfers to four-year institutions from college-parallel programs to career education being interpreted as a reflection of the weakening of the link between the collegiate and transfer function.  Palmer, Ludwig, and Stapleton (cited in Ignash & Townsend, 2001, 178) found that only 37 percent of community college transfer students completed their associate's degree before transferring corroborating the earlier conclusion that the associate's degree may not be a robust indicator of rate that students may be transferring from community colleges to four-year institutions.

Of what value is data on community college transfer students? Cohen and Brawer (1996) have also framed the more frequently asked questions:  Are the community colleges worth what they cost?  Do the outcomes justify the public resources they consume?  It is argued that one of the values of the community colleges is the transfer function.  Data on community college transfer students may be an indicator of changes in the traditional focus of the community colleges.  For the advocates for maintaining the collegiate function of community colleges, transfer data serves as an indicator of change. Palmer (1986) argues that a because a disproportionately large number of minority students matriculate with the aspiration of beginning their collegiate careers and then transferring to a four-year institution , the transfer function is more than an indicator and more like a social imperative for ensuring that social mobility of those using higher education as the means to enhancing their socioeconomic condition.

By equating the collegiate function with transfer courses, Cohen and Brawer (1982) assert that proponents may be doing the collegiate function a disservice.  Few community colleges matriculants adhere to graduation requirements; few obtain associate in arts degrees; few transfer to the universities at all; most are part-time students taking a course or two for personal interest or career education for whom transfer to the university is irrelevant.  Many students who do intend to transfer find that they can study the liberal arts in greater breadth as well as depth at the senior institutions resulting in the transfer function becoming relied upon to fill specific student requirements.  If this thesis is accepted, then the correlation between community college student transfer rate and data to the stability or status of the community college collegiate function may be weakened.

Laanan (2001) argues that the most immediate challenges facing community college are diminishing fiscal resources, increasing student diversity, and the growing demands for responding to accountability mandates, both at the federal and state levels.  Community college are facing greater expectations to demonstrate their effectiveness as institutions of higher education.  In the context of Laanan's comments and questions posed by Cohen and Brawer, the State of California (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2001) has made the number of community college transfer students a performance indicator for consideration by public policy makers in the deliberations of appropriations and in their determination whether or not community college are meeting the purposes for which they were created.

What are some of the explanations why community college transfer rates are low?  Cohen and Brawer (1982) assert that in the 1970s, the collegiate function was assailed as being irrelevant to the students during the period in higher education when the hue-and-cry were for relevancy and individualism as opposed to the teaching of values and a common heritage.  In this context, the supporters of liberal arts were unable to fend off the demands for occupational education at the expense of the liberal arts. Relevance was interpreted as providing job skills to the young and by the end of the 1970s, attempts were being made to sweep the collegiate function out of community colleges.

Pincus & Archer (1989) offer two explanations for relatively low transfer rates: student characteristics and  characteristics of the community college themselves.  Grubb (1990) argues that the reason for the decline in the transfer rate is due to a host of causes such as rise of vocational programs relative to academic programs, non-traditional attendance patterns, declining achievement in high school and changes in federal financial aid.  From some perspectives the low transfer rates is not problematic since only a small percentage of community college students actually want to transfer. Cohen, Brawer and Bensimon (cited in Pincus & Archer, 1989, p. 11) measured transfer-oriented behavior among community college students and found that while over half of students expressed positive attitudes toward transfer, only 17 percent exhibited high levels of transfer-oriented behavior.  The attitude-behavior gap was greater among black and Hispanic students than among white and Asian-American students. According to this premise, it is then inappropriate to use all community college students as the base upon which to calculate transfer rates.  And if upon leaving community college, most students say they have fulfilled their educational goals even though they have neither transferred nor completed any community college program confounds the argument that all students should be included in determining the transfer rate.

From another perspective, Tinto (cited in Pincus & Archer, 1989,18) has shown that student involvement in the academic and social life of the college is positively associated with academic success.   It may be argued that because community colleges lack residential facilities that would promote more student involvement on campus, that many students are employed part- or full-time, and  absence of a wide array of student organizations and activities that tie students to the campus that the student-centered model consideration in the context of Tinto's premise may explain the low transfer rate.  However, the low transfer rates for low-income and minority students may be affected by other more predominant factors, for example, poor skills and financial limitation.  While poor skills is self-explanatory for a low transfer rate, the financial limitations may be more of a financial aid system problem than student-centered one.  Then too, it may be reasonably argued that students from the lower end of socioeconomic spectrum may be more likely to make short-term, pragmatic educational decisions leading to immediate employment rather than commit themselves to longer termed educational programs that in the long run have greater career development potential (Pincus & Archer, 1989).

From an institutional perspective, Pincus and Archer (1989) argue that there is a commonly shared opinion that the transfer function is no longer the top priority of community colleges with a wide range of rationale being cited - student demand, labor market requirements, funding and institutional identity.  Richardson and Bender (cited in Pincus & Archer, 1989, 44) argue that many predominantly minority urban community colleges track minority students disproportionately into lower-status occupations by concentrating occupational offerings on campuses serving the highest proportions of minorities while concurrently permitting transfer programs to decline.  Pincus and Archer (1989) cite other self-imposed institutional factors that negatively affect transfer rates: (a) sophomore courses are not always available, (b) counselors promote vocational programs rather than transfer programs, (c) special services for transfer students are not always available, (d) strong articulation agreement are not always sought after, and (e) adequate financial aid is not always available.

Cohen and Brawer (1996) cite two curricular considerations impact on the community college transfer process.  First, since the 1970s, a high proportion of students completing career programs are transferring to universities.  It is suggested that organization of the career programs, the selective admission policies, the fact that students are forced to make an early commitment, maintain continual attendance, and make satisfactory progress serve to reinforce patterns that lead successful students to enroll in further studies at a university.  The collegiate courses, in contrast, are more likely to be taken by students who have not made a commitment to a definite line of study and are more of a catchall.  Second, while catalogues displayed recommended courses, semester by semester for students planning to major, students were selecting those courses that were offered at a preferred time of day, or those that seemed potentially useful.

Community College Students

What are the general characteristics of community college students? Cohen & Brawer (1996) cite the National Center for Education Statistics (1994) as reporting that one-half of all students beginning postsecondary education enrolled in a two-year college.  The U.S. Department of Education (cited in Jalomo, 2001, 262) reports that of all undergraduates 61 percent of Hispanic undergraduates, 56 percent of American Indian undergraduates, 47 percent of African-American undergraduates and 46% of Asian-American  undergraduates may be found in two-year institutions.  This trend of high percentages of minorities is not a temporary aberration as more members of underrepresented groups are more frequently opting to attend a community college rather follow the traditional route of going directly to a four-year institution (Laanan, 2000) .  California (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2001) reports that in the year 2000 the proportion of all students with limited proficiency in English rose from 19.9 percent in 1991 to 24.7 percent in 1999.

The Faces of the Future survey (Phillipe and Valiga cited in Laanan, 2000, 21) provides a nationwide snapshot of information of credit and non-credit students.  Student respondents indicated that among credit students, 60 percent indicated that a major reason for taking a class at the community college was to meet the requirements for their chosen field, 83 percent indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their community college, and 11 percent of credit students and 30 percent of non-credit students report that they had never used the Internet. The study reinforces the notion that many students attend community colleges to augment their occupational skills and increase their employability.  Of note is that this study did not examine the possible differences between ethnic minority and white students  (Laanan, 2000).  According to Zwerling (1992) community college students are likely to have one or more of the following attributes:  full-time or part-time employees; first-generation college students; non-traditional-age and returning adults; immigrant, non-native English speakers; middle-, lower- and working-class backgrounds; and the academically under-prepared. According to Cohen & Brawer (1996), from a psychological perspective community college students are pragmatic, are little concerned with learning for its own sake, and are not self-directed or self-motivated; they need to be instructed.  Yet Townsend (1993) reports that almost all the community college students in her study chose to rely on themselves with respect to the transfer process.  From a sociological perspective, community college students are struggling to escape from their lower-class backgrounds; some do, but many are inhibited by a bias against leaving family and friends that a move in class would engender.  Economically, community college students who are from low-income families pay more in the form of forgone earnings as a percentage of total family income than their counterparts from higher-income groups, a differential that more than offsets the savings gained by attending a low-tuition institution.  From a political perspective, students attending community colleges are given short shrift because the institutions are funded at a lower per capita level than the universities, and hence the students do not have equivalent libraries, laboratories, or faculty-student ratios available to them.  The conclusion of Zwerling, Cohen and Brawer with respect to community college student characteristics, it would appear that community college students may have certain characteristic, such as having to work in while enrolled that may mean that they have less time for student activities, and that those student with limited proficiency with English may as a consequence be less likely to be socially integrated.  This lack of time or ability to be socially integrated may be predictive of a diminished level of persistence in accordance with Tinto's model in which social and academic integration are identified as indicators of student persistence.

What are the aspirations and perceptions of community college students? Laanan (2000) reports that less than three-fourths of study participants indicate that the associate's degree was their highest degree planned at the community college.  A common response among nonwhite and white students was an expressed higher aspiration indicative of the intent to transfer to senior institutions to attain a bachelor's degree and even a master's degree (Cohen and Brawer, 1996).  However, Cuseo reports that there is a "baccalaureate gap" of 15 percent between community college matriculants and those that actually attain the baccalaureate degree.  For many students attending community colleges, the sub-baccalaureate credential is the primary educational objective and serves as the impetus for opportunity and social mobility (Grubb, 1996).  According to Laanan (2000), he found evidence that both non-white and white student choose the community college because of low tuition costs, in addition to having the desire to live near home, and the college's reputation for job placement and academic reputation as important considerations in decision-making.

Boyer (1993) found that Vietnamese students' career aspirations were motivated not only by the desire for individuals advancements but also by the desire to provide service to the community. In her study of Vietnamese students Boyer (1993) examined students enrolled in two English-as-a-Second Language (ESL) courses at Golden West College in California. (Laanan, 2000)  Family and community influences may be greater for ethnic minority students from collectivist cultures (Laanan, 2000).  The previous studies cited provide useful information about factors that influence students' decisions about or perceptions of education and work.  Particularly for minority students, the literature suggests that family and academic support factors play an important role not only in learning about the possible career choices but also in facilitating or enhancing academic success.  Strategies such as job placement programs and addressing individuals' aspirations promote success beyond graduation (Hull, 1992; Illinois State Board of Education, 1991).

Are community colleges serving minority students?  Cohen and Brawer (1996) lay out the issues on both sides of the question whether or not community colleges are serving or hindering minority students.  The arguments that community colleges support minority students are the ease of access, low tuition, minimal entrance requirements, special services to minority students, the efforts to recruit minority students and ultimately the fact that a sizable percentage of those students would not be in college at all were it not for the community college.  The counter-argument includes that minority students who begin their college education at a community college do not do as well in comparison to student of equal ability who directly enroll at the senior institution, and that this differential is greater for them than it is for the majority students and because students who begin at a community college are less likely to obtain baccalaureate degrees, minorities are actually harmed by two-year institutions.

If sizable percentages of minority students would not attend any college unless there were a community college available, and if the act of attending college to take even a few classes is beneficial, then community colleges have certainly helped in the education of minority students (Cohen & Brawer, 1996; Cohen, 2001). Thus, community colleges, emphasizing both occupational studies and collegiate curriculum, provide opportunity for upward mobility.  But if the presence of a convenient community college discourages minority student from attending senior institutions and reduces the probability of their completing the baccalaureate, then for those students the community college degree may be wasted  and actually be a detriment (Cohen & Brawer, 1996).  From another perspective, the works of Karabel, Brint and Karabel and Aston are cited in Pascarella (1991) as support for the paradoxical argument that while community colleges proliferated the persistence rates of students and their attainment of baccalaureate degrees may not have been served.  Cuseo (1998) reports that while minority students have very similar degree aspirations as majority students, minority students have a lower transfer rate to four-year institutions.  Thus, the mere provision of equal access to participate may  not be sufficient, instead equal access may have to be tied to opportunities to enjoy the full benefits of postsecondary participation (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).  Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) reports that even after holding constant a variety of relevant personal, academic and family background characteristics, students entering four-year institutions are substantially more likely than two-years college entrants to persist in their education, to complete a baccalaureate degree.

Cohen and Brawer (1996) contend that minority students tend to be concentrated in two-year colleges and as a group, they do not tend to go through to the level of the associate degree and then transfer.  These tendency are the same for all community college students, minority and majority.  As an example, nationwide the student transfer rate is higher for white and Asian students than it is for African-American and Hispanic students   However, in colleges that have a transfer rate substantially higher than the national norm, the transfer rate for African-American and Hispanic students is higher than the national norm for all students (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). 

In his study, Community College Students' Career and Educational Goals Laanan (2000) was not as sure that the community college experience had the same impact on all students as he noted that while the focus of his study was the descriptive analysis between nonwhite and white students, it is important to raise the question of  "within group" differences particularly among those in the nonwhite group that included African American, Asian, American Indian, and Chicano/Latino students.  Laanan conjectures that difference in students' perceptions and attitudes will exist and that such perceptual difference may be attributable to differences in culture and socialization.

Asian Pacific-Islanders Community College Students

How may Asian Pacific-Islander students differ from other minority community college students?   Mow and Nettles (1999) found that Asian Americans have higher rates of access, persistence and performance based on having taken more college preparatory curricula, more science and mathematics courses and more likely to have a higher SAT in math score than their peers in other minority groups.  In their study, Mow and Nettles noted that studies using Tinto's model have been helpful in explaining the factors related to Black students' performance and persistence at predominantly white institutions, these studies need to be expanded for Hispanic, Asian American and Native-American students.

According to Tinto (1975, 1987), student retention is associated with students experiencing satisfying and rewarding encounters with formal and informal academic and social systems of the institution and by becoming integrated socially and academically by sharing the normative attitudes and values of peers and faculty in the institution and abiding by the formal and informal structural requirements for membership in that community.  Sanchez (2000) builds on Tinto's work by suggesting that while the social and academic integration may enhance learning opportunities, which may lead to persistence by providing students with supportive experiences that meet both academic and social needs.  Sanchez (2000) suggests that it may be the lack of culturally appropriateness in some college classroom environments that it makes it impossible for minority students to feel "socially integrated" with what is happening in the classroom.  In this context, Loo and Rolison (1986) found greater alienation among minority students attending a predominantly white university.

In the absence of proficiency in English, it would be expected that academic success and persistence would be adversely affected.  However, according to Tan (1994) social integration is not a significant factor in promoting academic performance for Asian-Americans.  Peng (1985 cited in Hsia, 1998, 132) reports that Asian Americans are more likely to continue at their institution of choice.  Seventy percent of the Asian-Americans in comparison to 57 percent of white students were in the same two-year college. The stability of Asian American enrollment is also shown by their low withdrawal rate. Nine percent of Asian American who entered two-year colleges had withdrawn or completed a short term program, compared to 27% and 26% withdrawal or completion rates of white and all students respectively.  Makuakane-Drechsel and Hagedorn (2000) reported that four factors - cumulative grade point average, financial aid, average credit hours and enrollment at Campus 4 - were significant factors in promoting persistence for students pursuing technical majors whereas reverse transfer and attending an urban high school were significant for liberal arts students only.

Hsia (1998) goes on to report that almost 9 out of 10 Asian American high school graduates continue with higher education.  More than half enroll in four-year institutions.  They enroll, remain in good academic standing, transfer but do not drop out, and stay through to graduate from public and private two-year and four-year colleges and universities.  Even recent immigrants gain admission to selective colleges and universities.  However, they are more likely than other students to be denied admission on the basis of personal qualities; criteria that are judged subjectively, and sometimes biased by unconscious stereotypes or conscious prerogative requirements. 

Ignash (1994) reports that in Los Angeles County the Asian and Pacific Islander population grew from 6.1 percent in 1980 to 10.8 percent of the total population in 1990, an increase of 109.6 percent.  Portes and Rumbaut (cited in Ignash, 1994, 54) report that of the total post-1970 immigrants, 83.7 percent indicated that their home language was other than English.  Cuseo (1998) reports that it is anticipated that minority enrollment at community colleges will increase because of cutbacks in scholarships and grants forcing minority student to enroll at less expensive community colleges and because minority students will comprise a larger proportion of high school seniors in the next two decades. 

There is a dearth of research on Asian and Pacific-Islanders probably in part due to the relatively small number of participants.  More often than not, Asians and Asian Pacific-Islanders are lumped together as either non-white or part of the minority category (Grubb, 1990a).  However in light of the growing numbers of Asian and Pacific-Islanders particularly in urban areas where they are likely to attend community colleges, more research needs to be done to identify how these students differ or are the same as other community college students particularly with respect to successful transfer to four-year institutions where data that is available indicate greater numbers attaining the baccalaureate degree than comparison groups (Hsia, 1998).

Conclusions

Community colleges began with a collegiate function as a key focus, but over time broadened their focus because of their philosophical base.  Today it is argued that the focus of community colleges has shifted from the collegiate function to other functions such as vocational-technical training, compensatory-remedial and personal development-interest areas as the driving forces, needs and wants of students, have changed. The community colleges' adaptability is both beneficial and detrimental.  For example, the provision of new programs result in the offering of classes and programs more responsive to student needs such as English as a Second Language programs.  However, the same may have negative consequences as well.  For example, shifting focus from the transfer and collegiate function of community colleges to a vocational-technical training focus has the potential of limiting minority students' opportunity to more fully participate in the total higher education experience as the community college serves as their entry into the full higher education hierarchy.

It is argued that the community college experience may provide students with value added experiences, that is, readily marketable skills.  For minority students, these marketable skills may cause them to consider and pursue short term gains at the expense of future career opportunities that in the long run may provide greater socio-economic benefit to the minority student, but simply aspiring to the longer term objective does not mean that such will be attained as all minority students may be subject to the "cooling out" process.  A number of researchers have argued that at four-year institutions Asian Pacific-Islanders tend to persist, but is such true at the community colleges where the same student must deal with the potential for more immediate employment a potentially appealing option for students from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum and may have greater potential for suffering isolation as a limited speaker of English and therefore be more susceptible to the "cooling out" process?

With competing demands by student consumers, the collegiate function has diminished and concern is expressed whether or not it should be stopped-out altogether.  Notwithstanding the debate on continuing the community colleges' collegiate function, there are growing numbers of requirements for data in particular the impact of the collegiate function as represented by student transfer data and rates for accountability and performance indicator purposes.  If in fact, researchers have reported a diminution in the collegiate function and in turn the transfer function, this may have consequences for all minority students to include Asian Pacific-Islanders who are attending community college for purposes of preparing for transferring to four-year institutions.  Compounding the reported findings that fewer transfer students complete baccalaureate programs in comparison with native students with the potential that the community colleges' transfer function may be reduced only serves to identify the awesome hurdles that confront minority community college students in their quest for a baccalaureate degree.

Although the effort has been made to standardize the definition of transfer, the demand for a definition based on more readily available cross-sectional data may mitigate against the use of a more technically correct but more complex definition.  As a consequence, the diversity of definitions of transfer may frustrate, confound and make for difficult transfer comparisons.  Notwithstanding the lack of a uniform definition, the interpretation of reported transfer data is that while a significant number of community college student express the aspiration to attain a baccalaureate degree a much smaller number actually transfer from the community college to baccalaureate degree granting institutions and that the number of transfer students in absolute terms has diminished over time. 

Explanations why there has been a drop in numbers of community college students transferring to four-year institution include: a shift in curriculum away from liberal arts to occupational education, the gap between student attitude versus behavior (that is the alleged aspiration to attain a baccalaureate degree but lack of student action to meet transfer requirements), the lack of socially and academically integrating activities that correlate positively to student persistence, the shared opinion that the  transfer function is no longer the top priority of community colleges with a wide range of rationale being cited, the creation by the community college of self-imposed barriers to facilitating student transfers, and the lack of programs and strategies designed to promote and enable students to transfer.  What is lacking are empirical studies that seek to consider these explanation from the perspective of minority students and in particular the Asian Pacific-Islander students, whose numbers in the general population are growing.  Despite the increase in the general population of Asian Pacific-Islanders, the number of Asian Pacific-Islander and in particular those transferring from community colleges to four-year institutions has not increased. Is this because more Asian Pacific-Islanders are applying directly to four-year institutions or are there other reasons, for example, are more Asian Pacific-Islanders "cooling out" or being tracked to vocational programs?

As a consequence of accountability, there exists a demand for data on transfers from federal and state policy-makers.  However, of greater importance is consideration of the community college transfer function from the perspective of minority students and students from the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum for whom the community college is both an entry point and passageway to higher education and all of the attendant benefits associated with attaining the highest academic degree that the individual is able to attain. Transfer data and transfer rates may be more than performance indicators of the successful satisfaction of one of the community colleges' functions, but it may also be a indicator of broader public education policy concerns and social concerns, that is, access to and opportunities for maximum participation of the general citizenry in higher education.

The trend increasing numbers of minorities attending community colleges is not a temporary aberration as the size of the minority population is growing at a greater rate than the white majority.  It is reasonable to conclude that in the future, the numbers of minority students attending community colleges will increase particularly as more members of underrepresented groups are opting to attend a community college rather follow the traditional route of going directly to a four-year institution.

Community college students are likely to include one or more of the following attributes:  full-time or part-time employees; first-generation college students; non-traditional-age and returning adults; immigrant, non-native English speakers; middle-, lower- and working-class backgrounds; and the academically under-prepared. The conclusions of Zwerling, Cohen and Brawer with respect to community college student characteristics do not seem to be complimentary to the tenets of Tinto's social and academic integration model for student persistence.  Is this true for minority students and in particular for Asian Pacific-Islander community college students? For some minority students, the literature suggests that family and academic support factors play an important role not only in learning about the possible career choices but also in facilitating or enhancing academic success.   Given the cultural characteristics for strong family bonds, is the family support for Asian Pacific-Islander community college students, who may be less well integrated socially and academically than native English speakers a better predictor for persistence?

Cohen and Brawer (1996) lay out the issues on both sides of the question whether or not community colleges are serving or hindering minority students. Some literature has reported that transfer students may not be as successful as native students in attaining the baccalaureate degree other reports indicate that while transfer student may take longer than native students both have essentially equal success in attaining the baccalaureate degree.  Is this contradiction due to different definitions or methodological reasons or are there other factors in play?  Even before considering whether or not community college Asian Pacific-Islander students are successful in attaining a baccalaureate degree in comparison to native students, the Asian Pacific-Islander community college students must successfully transfer from the community college to four-year institutions. Research into minority student community college enrollment and transfer to four-year institutions may serve as an indicator whether or not the community colleges are serving or harming minority students for the perspective of continuing participation in higher education beyond the community college.

In his study, Community College Students' Career and Educational Goals Laanan (2000) noted that while the focus of his study was the descriptive analysis between nonwhite and white students, it is important to raise the question of  "within group" differences particularly among those in the nonwhite group that included African American, Asian, American Indian, and Chicano/Latino students.  Laanan conjectures that difference in students' perceptions and attitudes will exist and that such perceptual difference may be attributable to differences in culture and socialization.

Sanchez (2000) building on Tinto's work suggests social and academic integration may enhance learning opportunities, which may lead to student persistence.  Is it possible that the lack of culturally appropriate college classroom environments may make it impossible for minority students to feel "socially integrated?"  Moreover, with limited proficiency in English minority community college students may have a reduced likelihood for social integration with native English speakers and may experience difficulties in student-faculty communications that may affect the student academic integration. As a consequence of the lack of culturally appropriate classroom experience and having a limited proficiency in English it may be an appropriate conjecture that the persistence rate of minority community college student may less than other community college students. However, according to Tan (1994) social integration was not a significant factor in promoting academic performance for Asian-Americans. Peng and Hsia reported that Asian Americans are more likely to continue at their institution of choice even though the institutions may have white majorities.  As suggested earlier, a unanswered question is whether or not Tinto's model is predictive for Asian Pacific-Islander community college students' persistence or if other variables may be more relevant predictors of persistence and success, as indicated by the numbers of Asian Pacific-Islander community college students transferring to four-year institutions.

While the number of Asian Pacific-Islanders has undergone population explosion in some urban areas, for example Los Angeles and minority students at the community college has the potential for significant future increases, there is a dearth of research on Asian and Pacific-Islanders experience in higher education in general and community colleges. There may be appropriate rationale for the lack of research such as the relatively small number of Asia Pacific-Islanders in a selected research group.  Then too, in instances where there are numbers of Asians and Asian Pacific-Islanders in the research sample, they have been lumped together as either non-white or part of the minority category (Grubb, 1990a).  However in light of the growing numbers of Asian and Pacific-Islanders particularly in urban areas where they are likely to attend community colleges, there has been more frequent calls for more research that focuses on Asian Pacific-Islanders.

Implications

One of the community colleges' functions is the collegiate function.  There are those that argue that this function is diminishing, which if true may have a disproportionate impact on minority students and potential significant social policy implications that public policy makers and public higher education policy makers may need to take into consideration.  The number of ethnic minority citizens is growing and as a consequence the minority student population attending community colleges growing.  Because minority students may have needs different from the majority and possibly even other student minorities, it is important for education administrators to be culturally sensitive to the fact that the old adage one-size-fits-all with respect to all community college students or that all ethnic minorities are the same college students may not apply. 

In this age of "mass customization," that is, individualization of services on a mass basis and demand for accountability and performance indicators with positive outcomes, the community college administrator must strive go identify opportunities to enhance positive outcomes such as increasing the transfer rate that may be accomplished by first identifying those groups of student that may have greater likelihood of succeeding, for example, transferring from the community college to four-year institutions.  From the perspective of society at large, minority students have traditionally used the community college as the passageway via the transfer process to access higher education and all of the attendant socioeconomic benefits that may be derived from succeeding in higher education.  Minority students matriculating at the community college does not mean automatic success as the minority student must like all other students face the potential for being diverted by either the lure of acquiring and immediately applying highly marketable vocational skills or dropping out as a consequence of the "cooling out" syndrome.   It may therefore be incumbent upon legislators and other public policy makers to ensure that the resources such as higher education and the elimination articulation and transfer barriers are eliminate and that the successful transfer of community college students in general and minority students in particular is facilitated.   It is by facilitating the community college transfer process that the individual may have the opportunity to maximize his or her development and as a consequence have the potential to enable the individual to maximize his or her return contribution to society at large.

While multiple definitions of transfer is a problem, nevertheless, there is general agreement amongst all definitions that over time the number of transfer community college students has declined.  Because there are proportionately larger numbers of minority students attending community colleges, the reduction in transfer when combined with the findings that transfer students are less likely than native students to attain a baccalaureate degree may indicate a limiting of upward social mobility of minority students.  Continuing research on community college transfers is needed for decision-making and assessment of change. Despite the increase in the general population of Asian Pacific-Islanders, the number of Asian Pacific-Islanders transferring from community colleges to four-year institutions has not. Is this because more Asian Pacific-Islanders are applying directly to four-year institutions or are there other reasons, for example, are more Asian Pacific-Islanders "cooling out" or being tracked to vocational programs?

The characteristics of community college students in general and minority students in particular, for example, limited English proficiency, could be suggestive that minority students may be less likely to persist in the context of Tinto's (1975, 1987) model in which social and academic integration are predictors of academic success and student persistence.  Additionally,  Tan (1994) suggests that social integration was not a significant factor in promoting academic performance for Asian-Americans.  Drechel-Makuakane and Hagedorn (2000) have also reported that other indicators may be more appropriate for Asian Pacific Americans.  Other researchers have suggested that for minority students there may be other predictors of student persistence, such as family bonds and family support.  What may be the indicators for Asian Pacific-Islanders attending an urban community college? 

Lanaan (2000), Hsia (1998), and (Mow & Nettles, 1999) all have suggested that more research on Asian community colleges students is needed.  In this context of increasing number of minority students attending community colleges, the importance of the community college transfer rates of ethnic minorities as an indicator of change and as a performance indicator having potential broad socio-economic for the individual, and significance to public and higher education policy makers, and the recurring citation by other researchers for empirical studies that focus on ethnic minorities, in particular Asians, this study will answer the question: What are the characteristics of urban Asian Pacific-Islander community college students who aspire to transfer from one of the colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District.to a four-year institution?

Research Methodology

Introduction

Despite increases in the general population of Asian Pacific-Islanders, the number of Asian Pacific-Islanders and in particular those transferring from community colleges to four-year institutions has most recently not increased (California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2001).   It may be that more Asian Pacific-Islanders are applying directly to four-year institutions.  For community college students, more of the students may be victims of the "cooling out" and subsequent dropping out from higher education, may be being tracked to vocational programs, or may be the silent victims of the diminishing support for and emphasis of the collegiate function of community colleges, all of which may contribute to the declining numbers of minority students transferring to four-year institutions.

The characteristics of community college students in general and minority students in particular may deter the successful social and academic integration of minority community college students and according to Tinto's (1975, 1987) model it may be expected that minority students may have less academic success and student persistence.  Other researchers Tan (1994) and Drechel-Makuakane and Hagedorn (2000) have reported that other indicators may be more appropriate for Asian Pacific Americans.

Irrespective of the definition of transfer used, research on transfers indicates that over time the number of transfer community college students has declined.  Because there are proportionately larger numbers of minority students attending community colleges, the reduction in transfer may have disproportionate on minorities. Continuing research on community college transfers is needed for decision-making, for example as performance indicators, and the possible assessment of change in the focus of community colleges. .            Lanaan (2000), Hsia (1998), and (Mow & Nettles, 1999) all have suggested that more research on Asian community college students is needed.  In this context of increasing number of minority students attending community colleges, the importance of the community college transfer rates of ethnic minorities as an indicator of change and as a performance indicator having potential broad socio-economic for the individual, the significance transfer data to public and higher education policy makers, and the recurring citation by other researchers for empirical studies that focus on ethnic minorities, in particular Asians, there is a need for empirical research relating to Asian Pacific-Islander community college students. 

The purpose of this study is to determine the characteristics of Asian Pacific-Islander community college students who aspire to transfer from an urban two-year institution to a four-year institution.  The study examines whether or not certain biographic and demographic information, prior educational experiences, college selection factors, allocation of time, academic behavior, academic preparation, English language proficiency, self image, current attitude, perceptions and opinions, career plans, educational aspirations, and other affective measures are better indicators of the likelihood that Asian Pacific-Islander community college student will successfully transfer to a four-year institution.  This study goes on to compare the results of the responses of Asian Pacific-Islanders to other categories of minority students who were part of the research sample, these other minorities being African-American, Hispanic and Caucasian/White students who responded to the survey.  This chapter includes the research questions and a description of the research methodology.

Research Questions

What are the characteristics of urban Asian Pacific-Islander community college students who aspire to transfer from one of the colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District to four-year institutions?

Methodology

Research Population

This study is a secondary analysis of data collected for the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) under the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research, Grant # (R305T000154).  For the TRUCCS study and for this study, the target population (9,695 students) of this study are students attending an urban community colleges in Southern California.  The experimental accessible population of 5,000 students who attend one of the seven in Los Angeles Community College District and who are in one of three sample groupings and who were in one of the 241 classrooms visited.  The classrooms hosting a class meeting one of the criteria established for three purposeful sampling sub-groupings.  Lower Branch, Middle Branch, and Upper Branch. 

The Lower Branch Group was comprised of students who have taken non-district credit class, basic skills, 2 courses under the transfer level and enrolled in English-21.  The Middle Branch Group was comprise of students who have taken one course under transfer level, minimal English required for most occupational Associate Arts degree and enrolled in English-28.  The Upper Branch Group was comprised of students taking the equivalent to first year English course, English-101, and are subject to California Articulation CAN 2.  These Branch Groups were identified to ensure that the full range, that is, students pursuing either vocational-technical training and/or degrees, collegiate level instruction for transfer purposes or non-credit compensatory-remedial or personal development training were sampled.

The research sample for this cross-sectional longitudinal study is limited to those students who enrolled as a full- or part-time student during the Fall Semester 2000 at one of the colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District, met the criteria for one of the three Branch Groupings and who completed the "Community College Student Survey," which was developed by Hagedorn (2000) as part of a U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research, Grant # (R305T000154). 

To achieve groups sufficiently large for statistical comparison, ethnic groups were collapsed into broader ethnic groups. Students self-identifying their ethnicity as Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Laotian, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Pacific Islanders/ Samoan, Hawaiian, or Guamanian and other Pacific Islanders were collapsed into the single category Asian Pacific-Islander.  Student declaring their ethnicity as Mexican, Mexican-American/Chicano, South American, Central American and Other Latino/Hispanic were collapsed into the single category Hispanic was to achieve groups sufficiently large for statistical comparisons.  Students declaring their ethnicity as African-American or Caucasian/White were maintained as separate groupings.

The analysis of data will be limited to the responses of 1018 participating students.  The 1018 responding students self-identified their ethnicity as follows: 141 Asian Pacific Islander, 556 Hispanic, 186 African-American, and 144 Caucasian/White.

Research Design

During the Fall 2000 semester, each of the 291 classes was visited.  During the  visitation, the "Community College Student Survey" was administered and records release authorizations completed.  In support of the intent of the TRUCCS grant as being a three-year longitudinal study, the each participating student was asked to identify two other individuals not living in the same home who would be able to provide the current address of the participating students.  The second and third year survey instruments were to be mailed to the participating student in anticipation that some of the students may have transferred to a four-year institution.  The student's survey responses were scanned and put into a format for analysis using the Statistical Package for Social Scientists, Version 10.0.5

Instrumentation

Students completed the "Community College Student Survey."  The survey instrument contains forty-seven items and collects information that includes student biographic and demographic information, prior educational experiences, college selection factors, allocation of time, academic behavior, academic preparation, English language proficiency, self image, current attitude, perceptions and opinions, career plans, educational aspirations, and other affective measures.

The "Community College Student Survey" was developed by Hagedorn (2000) and designed to address the unique needs or characteristics of two-year colleges.  The reliability and validity of the instrument was not available at the time of preparing this proposal, but will included as soon as they are made available.

Data Analysis

This study uses both descriptive statistics and inferential statistics to investigate the existence and extent of relationships among selected variables. Descriptive statistics in the Statistical Package for Social Scientists, Version 10.0.5 that includes frequencies, means, and standard deviations for the dependent variable the number of Asian Pacific-Islander aspiring to transfer to four-year institutions are examined.

Specifically, the Chi Square test for goodness of fit will be used to determine if there was a significant difference between the observed data and the theoretically expected frequencies. Additionally, a One Way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) was used to determine is there was significant difference among the means of two or more populations.

References

Adelman, C. (1988). Transfer rates and the going mythologies: A look at community college patters. Change 29 (January/February): 38-41.

American Association of Community Colleges (1996). Community college students and federal student financial aid.  [On-line].  Available on World Wide Web:  http://www.aacc.nche.edu/leg/White%20Paper/FIN_AID/FIN_AID.html

Astin, A. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bernstein, A. (1986). The devaluation of transfer: Current explanations and possible causes.  In L. Zwerling (Ed.), The community college and its critics. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 54. San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Boyer, N. (1993). Vietnamese choice of majors at Golden West College. Huntington Beach CA: Golden West College.

Brint, S., and Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in American 1900-1985.  New York: Oxford University Press.

California Postsecondary Education Commission (2001).  Performance indicators of California Higher Education, 2000: The seventh annual report to California's Governor, Legislature and Citizens in Response to Assembly Bill 1808 (Chapter 741, Statutes of 1991). Commission Report 01-3.  California Postsecondary Education Commission, Sacramento: CA.

Cjeda, B. D and Kaylor, A. J. (2001).  Early transfer: A case study of traditional aged community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25:621-638.

Cohen, A. M. and Brawer, F. B. (1982). The American community college.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A.M., Brawer, F. B. and Bensimon, E. (1985). Transfer education in American community colleges.  Los Angeles: Center for the study of community colleges.

Cohen, A.M. and Brawer, F. B. (1987). The collegiate function of community colleges. San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A. M. (1994). Analyzing the community college student transfer rates. In A. Cohen (Ed.), Relating curriculum and transfer. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 86.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A. M. and Brawer, F. B. (1996). The American community college.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A. M. (2001). Government policies affecting community  colleges: A historical perspective. In B. Townsend and S. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Cuseo, J. (1998).  The transfer transition: A summary of key issues, target areas, and tactics for reform.  Marymount College.  (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 425 771).

Eaton, J. S. (1994a). All access is not equal: The need for collegiate education in the community colleges. In A. Cohen (Ed.), Relating curriculum and transfer. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 86.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Eaton, J. S. (1994b).  Strengthening collegiate education in community colleges. San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Grubb, W. N. (1990a).  The decline of community college transfer rates: Evidence from National Longitudinal Surveys. Department of Education, National Assessment of Vocational Education.  Washington:  DC

Grubb, W. N. (1990b). Finding an equilibrium:  Enhancing transfer rates and maintaining the comprehensive community college.  Revised version of a paper presented at the Annual International Conference on Leadership Development of the League of Innovation in the Community College, "Leadership 2000", July 8-11. San Francisco, CA.

Grubb, W. N. (1996). Working in the middle: Strengthening education and training for mid-skilled labor force.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hagedorn, L. S. (2000). Community College Student Survey. LA: Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California.

Hsia, J. (1988).  Asian Americans in higher education and at work.  Hillsdale, New Jersey:  Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publisher.

Hull, G. (1992). Their chances? Slim and none. An ethnographic account of the experiences of low-income people of color in a vocational program and at work. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education.

Ignash, J. (1994).  Compelling numbers: English as a second language.  In A. Cohen (Ed.), Relating curriculum and transfer. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 86.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Ignash, J and Townsend, B. (2001). Statewide transfer and articulation policies: current practices and emerging issues. In B. Townsend and S. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Illinois State Board of Education. A model to improve the quality and quantity of minority student participation in vocational-technical education programs. Springfield, Ill: Department of Adult, Vocational and Technical Education.

Jalomo, R. (2001). Institutional policies that promote persistence among first-year community college students. In B. Townsend and S. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Karabel, J. (1986). Community colleges and social stratification in the 1980s. Harvard Educational Review 42: 521-62.

Kinnick, M. and Kempner, K. (1988). Beyond the "front door" access: Attaining the bachelor's degree. Research in Higher Education, 29, 299-318.

Kintzer, F. C. and Wattenberger, J. L. (1985). The articulation/transfer phenomenon:  Patterns and directions.  Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.

Koos, L. V. (1924). The Junior College.  Vols. 1 and 2. Minneapolis:  University of Minnesota Press.

Laanan, F. S. and Sanchez, J. R. (1996). New Ways of conceptualizing transfer rate definitions. In T. Rifkin (Ed.) Transfer and articulation: Improving policies to meet new needs, New Directors for Community Colleges, no. 96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Laanan, F. S. (2000).  Community College Students' Career and Educational Goals.  In S. R. Aragon (Ed.), Beyond access: Methods and models for increasing retention and learning among minority students. New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 112. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Laanan, F.  (2001). Accountability in community colleges: looking forward to the 21st century. In B. Townsend and S. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Loo, C. M. and Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a predominantly white university. The journal of higher education, 57(1): 58-77.

Lovell, C. (2001).  Federal policies and community colleges: A mix of federal and local influences. In B. Townsend and S. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Makuakane-Drechsel, T. and Hagedorn, L. S. (2000). Correlates of retention among Asian Pacific Americans in community colleges: The case for Hawaiian students.

Community college journal of research and practice. 24: 639-655.

Medsker, L. L. and Tillery, D. (1971). Breaking the access barrier. New York: McGraw Hill.

Mow, S. L. and Nettles, M. T. (1999). Minority student access to, and persistence and performance in, college: A review of the trends and research literature.  In J. C. Smart (Ed.)  Higher education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. VI. New York: Agathon Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. Descriptive summary of 1989-1990 beginning postsecondary students: Two years later.  U.S. Department of Education, 1994.

Palmer, J. (1986). Bolstering the community college transfer function.  Los Angeles: (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 276 452).

Palmer, J. C., Ludwig, M., and Stapleton, L. (1994). At what point do community college students transfer to baccalaureate-granting institutions? Evidence from a 13-state study. Washington DC: American Council on Education.

Pascarella, E., and Terenzini, P. (1991), How college affect students: findings and insights from twenty years of research.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Phillipe, K. A. and Valiga, M. J. (2000). Faces of the future. A portrait of America's community college student.  Washington DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Pincus, F. and Archer, E. (1989).  Bridges to opportunity are community colleges meeting the transfer needs of minority students?  New York: Academy for Educational Development and College Entrance Examination Board.

Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R. G. (1990). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Richardson, R. C. and Bender, L. W. (1987). Fostering minority access and achievement in higher education.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Richardson, R and de los Santos, G. (2001) Statewide governance structures and two-year colleges. In B. Townsend and S. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Sanchez, J. R. and Laanan, F. S. (1998). (Eds.)  Determining the economic benefits of attending community college.  New Directors for Community Colleges, no. 104. San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Peng, S. S. (1985). Enrollment patterns of Asian American students in postsecondary education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Sanchez, J. R. (2000).  Motivating and maximizing learning in minority classrooms. In S. Aragon (Ed.), Beyond Access:  Methods and models for increasing retention and learning among minority students.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Spicer, S. L. and Armstrong, W. B (1996). Transfer: The elusive denominator. In T. Rifkin (Ed.) Transfer and articulation: Improving policies to meet new needs, New Directors for Community Colleges, no. 96. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tan, D. (1994). Uniqueness of the Asian-American experience in higher education. College Student Journal, 28(4), 412-421.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.  Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Townsend, B. K. (1993). The community college transfer students in a urban university: Survival of the fittest?  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Atlanta).  (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362 086).

Townsend, B. K. (1999) Telling the community college story: The transfer function. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Community Colleges. Nashville: TN.

Townsend, B. K. and Twombly, S. (2001). Community Colleges: policy in the future context. Westport, CT: Ablex  Publishing.

Twombly, S and Townsend, B. K. (2001). Conclusion: the future of community college policy in the 21st century. In B. Townsend and S. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy in the future context. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics (1998). Digest of education statistics. Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Zwerling, L. S. (1992). First generation adult students. In search of safe havens.  In LS. Zwerling and H. B. London (Eds.), First-generation college students: Confronting the issues, New directions for community colleges, no. 80.  San Francisco:  Jossey-Bass.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Page Viewed:   / Created: January 2002 / Updated: Tuesday, 8 January 2002