The motivations of first-semester Hispanic two-year college students.

In this study, the researcher developed an instrument to assess college attendance motivations in order to assess the motivations of 179 entering Hispanic freshmen and to explore the relationship between demographics and motivation. Student motivations formed a hierarchy with knowledge at the top, followed by self-improvement, job enhancement, increased social status, and improvement of social life, respectively. The desire to improve social life was higher for those from lower-income backgrounds and for males.

**********

Educational reform can no longer be discussed without seriously considering the concerns and issues that surround ethnic and racial minorities. In the past, issues involving Hispanic students were considered unique to a small group only (Rendon & Hope, 1996). However, it is now evident that because of changing demographics, the education of Hispanic populations has become increasing important with respect to the future of this nation. This reality creates a need for continued research with regard to minority groups in an effort to understand better and address the needs of these students.

Indeed, data regarding minority participation in formal institutions of adult education have been scarce; there exists an obvious gap in the knowledge and research base relative to minority participation in adult education in the United States (Shearon & Tollefson, 1989). Roueche and Roueche (1993) have stated that it is obvious that we do not know nearly enough about these students. Olivas' (1997) studies of Hispanic populations revealed that any comprehensive review of research findings could only conclude that little is known about them.

According to O'Brien and Zudak (1998), minority students now account for almost 23% of postsecondary education students. Their enrollment, which has increased over the past 20 years, has been representative of the overall increase in higher education enrollment. Olivas (1997) and Menand (1997) have also reported an increase in minority participation in higher education of 24% and 27%, respectively. Roueche and Roueche (1993) noted that minority growth in actual numbers and their increasing percentage rate in the general population make them a special target for proactive institutional response. Lane (2001) and Gregory (2003) have reported that the number of Hispanics in colleges will continue to grow, and Hispanic undergraduate enrollment will increase in the United States by one million by 2015, accounting for 15.4% of the country's college population. Changing demographics have demonstrated that in the year 2000, minority populations constituted a third of the population in the United States and that Hispanics are the largest minority group, constituting 11.5% of the total population and one third of the minority population (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999). According to Lane (2001), by the year 2000, the Hispanic population accounted for 40% of the total population growth in the United States. Many researchers have noted that these changing demographics demonstrate that Hispanics are representative of an important and integral part of America's future (Collier, 1995; Parnell, 1990; Rendon & Hope, 1996; Trueba & Bartolome, 1997). Given this information, it is essential to ensure that minority populations are equipped--through educational success--to contribute to the future of the country.

Hispanics enroll in colleges for a variety of reasons (Roueche & Roueche, 1993). To pursue these reasons, this study focused on community college Hispanic students and their motivations for pursuing a college education. Weissman, Bulakowski, and Jumisko (1998) found that students acknowledge a direct connection between higher education and meaningful employment, improved income, and opportunities for advancement. Benshoff and Lewis (1992) stated that upward social mobility might be the single most powerful factor lot nontraditional students to attend college. Roueche and Roueche (1993) also reported that students are attracted to college for practical reasons such as higher income. Students reported being convinced that higher education was the only key to greater opportunities, better jobs, greater financial rewards, and more satisfying work.

Weissman et al. (1998) revealed that students identified family members as significantly influencing their decision to enter college. Moreover, students described the importance of succeeding because they were the first in their families to go to college. Some students indicated that family ties prevented them from going away to school. Shor (1992) stated that students from minority, female, and working-class groups face special challenges and sacrifices when trying to "make it" through education. Indeed, many face the painful choice between allegiance to their roots or to success.

Motivation is the key to understanding what triggers students' decisions to enter college. Indeed, many different reasons for students deciding to enter higher education have been identified. As the United States increasingly becomes an information society, opportunities for well-paying manual labor jobs have been decreasing as well as low-level entrepreneurial opportunities (Bell, 1999; Webster, 2002), therefore increasing pressure on students of all socioeconomic backgrounds to attend institutions of higher education. In recent years, with growing student numbers and a more diverse student population, these reasons could well be more complex than they were 20 years ago (France & Beaty, 1998). Hossler and Gallagher's (1987) three-stage model regarding the process of entering higher education clearly delineates the steps a student experiences once the decision to enter college is made. The process of the decision to enter college starts with the predisposition stage in which students develop aspirations about higher education and decide whether they want to continue their studies beyond high school. In the second stage, students gather information about postsecondary educational institutions; they also search for the attribute values characterizing the college alternatives. This stage is known as the search stage. The final stage, called the choice stage, is the one where students evaluate their choices and select the one institution to enter. Movement of students through these stages, however, does not mean that their decision to attend college is final.

MacBrayne (1995) conducted a study in an effort to obtain an understanding of motivation to enroll in a college course. The study revealed four main factors that were characterized as motivational traits. These, in order of importance to the students, included degree seeking, information seeking, participation, and job enhancing. Interestingly, a fifth factor identified by the respondents seemed to characterize a facilitator for enrollment rather than a motivational trait. It was the convenient location of the course. In the same study, interviews with 30 students revealed reasons for enrolling in college. The interviews cited one of three primary goals: the desire for a better future job, the desire to enhance a current job, or the desire for self-improvement. Ultimately, hoping to obtain a better job and seeking personal gratification, these students were stimulated to enroll by both the extrinsic and intrinsic value of a degree.

Cohen and Brawer's (1996) study on the motivating factors for entering higher education focused on the concerns and aspirations of minority students. The professed motives of minority students for attending college run the spectrum from finding a satisfying and well-paying job to serving their community and enriching themselves academically, aesthetically, and socially. The disparity is often great between the goals and the means used to achieve these goals. Some students express a desire to expand their intellectual horizons as an end in itself. Others see attending college as enabling them to engage in relationships with thinking persons. Cohen and Brawer (1996) also found that Black and Hispanic students often come to college with an altruistic goal. They want especially to help the young within their own neighborhood and ethnic group. The desire to minister professionally to the poor among their own ethnic group thus pulls students to college and career. These students see themselves as uniquely qualified for service jobs where their minority status would be an asset in empathizing with the victims of deprivation.

Additionally, a college education is seen as having value beyond the practical, the altruistic, and the aesthetic. Discussing and exchanging ideas with others at all levels of sophistication is for some students the by-product of a college education. Other influential motivators reported in Cohen and Brawer's (1996) study included the anticipated camaraderie found in college, the government stipend, the attainment of other alternatives, and the responding to family pressures.

Cohen and Brawer (1996) concluded that minority students enter college because they perceive education as capable of transforming their lives. Students regard themselves as personally accountable for the outcome. If they work hard enough and receive the appropriate credentials, they feel that at least they will be eligible for better jobs than before and, at most, they may satisfy their other aspirations: altruistic, intellectual, aesthetic, and social.

The primary purpose of this study was to identify the motivational factors that contribute to the decision of Hispanic students to enter a two-year college. In so doing, this researcher had to develop and validate a motivation instrument. Another objective of the study was to examine the influence of the background variables of age, gender, ethnicity, employment, economic status, marital status, and number of children on motivational factors.

Methods

Samples

Two samples of students attending Hostos Community College (located in the South Bronx of New York City) were used in this study. A larger sample of 214 mostly minority first-semester freshman students was used for scale construction of the motivation indicator; Hispanics constituted 83.6% of the sample. Black students (African Americans, Caribbean Americans, and Africans) constituted an additional 8.6%, with the remaining 7.8% consisting of Whites, Asians, and Native Americans. The research sample consisted of 179 Hispanic students.

At the time of this study, the college enrolled 2057 freshman students, of whom 680 were entering their first semester. Students who were transferring, being readmitted, or returning were eliminated, therefore reducing the population to 503 students, approximately 80% of whom were Hispanics, reducing the population to approximately 400 Hispanic students. Therefore, the research sample of 179 participants represents approximately 45% of the Hispanic first-semester students in attendance at Hostos Community College.

The Setting

The South Bronx, where Hostos Community College is located, is one of the poorest neighborhoods in the country. Bronx County ranks last in household income in the state of New York at $24,031; the state median family income is $36,369 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a). According to Bosworth (2003):

   The Bronx is the only county in the northeast quarter of the US
   (north of the Ohio River; east of the Great Plains) where more
   than 40% of children live in families below poverty. It is the
   only county in the same area where more than 30% of the
   population lives below the poverty line. Congressional District
   16 (entirely in The Bronx, covering most of the South Bronx)
   had the highest poverty rate in the US (40.2%; the next highest
   rate was 32.4%). Congressional District 16 also had the highest
   proportion of children living below poverty (50.1%; the next
   highest was 42.2%), and the lowest median household income
   (Section 1, para. 5).

Although the national high school graduation rate is approximately 80%, only 58.5% of Bronx County residents have graduated from high school (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000c). Because Bronx County also contains affluent areas such as Riverdale, the high school graduation rate in the South Bronx is most likely below 50% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b). Hispanics account for approximately 65% of the population in the South Bronx (Carter, n.d.).

Instrumentation

A questionnaire was administered to participants to identify motivational determinants that contribute to their pursuit of an education in a two-year community college. The questionnaire was developed based on the guidelines provided by Fink (1995) and contained 30 items that were developed based on identifiable motivational factors that could be classified as either intrinsic or extrinsic motivators. Each item was anchored to a tour-point Likert-type response mode, with strongly agree as 4, agree as 3, disagree as 2, and strongly disagree as 1.

The 30 items were factor analyzed. Sampling adequacy was very strong with a KMO statistic of .87 (Kaiser, 1974). The KMO statistic indicates that 87% of the variance is shared among the items in the analysis; the error variance accounts for only 13% of the total variance. After several analyses, a five-factor solution accounting for 54.1% of the variance was selected. The motivational factors identified were Knowledge, Self-Development, Job Enhancement, Social Status, and Improving Social Life. Only two of the 30 variables did not load on any of the factors (to learn English and to please parents). The five identified factors were assessed for internal consistency reliability using Cronbach's coefficient alpha and were intercorrelated.

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics on the scales, item means, and item standard deviations. Scale scores were computed as the mean of item scores. That is, for each individual factor, item scores were summed and divided by the number of items in the scale. This method of computation was done so that the different motivational factors could be compared even though they have different numbers of items. In addition, such scoring gives meaning to the scales. Scales are arranged in order of endorsement rates, with Knowledge (M = 3.35, SD = 0.43) as the most highly endorsed motivation and Improving Social Life (M = 2.62, SD = 0.58) the least endorsed motivation. Study participants generally agreed that they attended school in order to gain Knowledge; they seem to be neutral about whether they attend school for Improving Social Life. Within each scale, items are arranged from most to least endorsed. Alpha reliability estimates are presented for each scale. Reliabilities range from a high of .86 for Self-Development and a low of .53 for Social Status. With the exception of Social Status, which is considered marginally reliable, reliability coefficients are fairly strong.

In the original conception of this study, motivators were dichotomized into intrinsic and extrinsic factors. In Table 1, Knowledge and Self-Development were considered potential components of an intrinsic motivational syndrome, and Job Enhancement, Social Status, and Improving Social Life were considered to be extrinsic motivators. However, in order for this conception to be empirically verifiable, correlations between Knowledge and Self-Development would have to be higher than between those two variables and the extrinsic variables. That is, the relationship between Knowledge and Self-Development would be stronger than the relationships between each intrinsic variable and those variables that were conceptualized as extrinsic motivators (i.e., Job, Social Status, and Improving Social Life). Conversely, intercorrelations among Job Enhancement, Social Status, and Improving Social Life would have to be higher than cross correlations with Knowledge and Sell-Development. The intercorrelations of the five motivational scales are presented in Table 2. All correlations were significant at the .01 level. Although Self-Development and Knowledge correlated strongly (r = .63), the second and third criteria were not met. The intercorrelations of Job Enhancement, Social Status, and Improving Social Life range between .32 and .42, and their cross correlations with Knowledge and Self-Development range between .32 and .55. These findings suggest that, although Knowledge and Self-Development could be conceptualized as intrinsic motivators, the variables of Job Enhancement, Social Status, and Improving Social Life do not cohere around a core construct that can be separated from intrinsic motivation. Therefore, the five scales are conceptualized as separate aspects of motivation, and the intrinsic-extrinsic dimension was not considered any further.

The survey also provided the necessary demographic data including gender, age and ethnicity, economic stares, marital status, number of children, and employment. The ethnicity item was based on the college's student survey form that classified the Hispanic population into three categories: Dominican, Puerto Rican, and Other Hispanic. These categories are, in turn, based on the demographic distribution of both the school's and the community's Hispanic population. This survey was piloted with a similar small group in both English and Spanish to test for reliability and validity with respect to participants' comprehension of content and the appropriate time needed to respond to the survey.

Results

The frequencies and distributions (Table 3) of participants on demographic background variables revealed that almost three-quarters (73.2%) of the participants were female. Almost half (47.5%) were between the ages of 18 and 24 years, and 39.6% were between 25 and 38 years of age. The remaining 13% were 39 years of age or older. The majority (65.9%) of the participants were Dominican; 19.0% were Puerto Rican, and 15.1% were Other Hispanic.

More that half (59.8%) of the participants were single. More students were separated or divorced (23.5% combined) than were married (16.2%). One (0.6%) participant was widowed. More than half (54.2%) of the participants had children--21.8% had one child and 18.4% had two children. Twenty-five (13.9%) of the participants had three or more children.

Nearly three quarters (71.5%) of the study participants were living on incomes below $15,000 per year. An additional 20.1% had incomes between $15,000 and $25,000 per year. Over 90% (91.6%) had incomes of less than $25,000 per year. The remaining 9.4% had incomes of $25,000 or more. Although 40.8% of the participants were not employed, more than one-quarter (26.9%) had a part-time job lasting between 1 hour and 20 hours per week, and 28.5% worked between 21 hours and 40 hours. A total of 3.9% had a full-time job of 40 or more hours per week.

The frequencies and distributions of responses on the reasons for selecting a college and on who encouraged the participant to attend a community college are presented in Table 4. The most common reason for selecting a college was that it offered a degree that the participant wanted (27.4%). The second most common reason was that the college was close to home (21.2%). The other reasons in descending order of frequency were the following: wanted to attend this particular college (18.4%); inexpensive (16.2%); could not get into the school they wanted (10.1%); my family wanted me to (5.0%); and other reasons (1.7%).

When queried about who encouraged them the most, nearly half (47.5%) indicated that they encouraged themselves to go to college. An additional 34.0% indicated that their parents or other family encouraged them, and 7.3% said their spouse encouraged them. Friends were cited by 6.7%. School personnel were cited by an additional 3.9%, and 0.6% indicated others as sources of encouragement.

Family seems to play an important role with respect to encouragement. When asked to identify the person(s) who provided encouragement for pursuing higher education, 41.3% identified family support--including the spouse--as essential. However, 47.5% identified self-encouragement as the primary source.

The five motivational factors were compared by first using a repeated measures analysis of variance test, which indicated significant within-subjects differences among the five factors ([F.sub.[4, 712]] = 103.87, p < .01). Scores on each of the five motivational scales were compared, resulting in 10 comparisons (e.g., Knowledge-Self-Development, Knowledge-Job, and so forth). T-tests were computed to determine whether the mean difference between each pair of motivational scales was significant. All 10 pairs were statistically significant. The results are presented in Table 5.

The findings suggest that the motivational factors for these Hispanic students can be arranged in a hierarchy with Knowledge at the top followed by Self-Development, Job Enhancement, Social Status, and Improving Social Life at the bottom. Finally, the five motivational factors were regressed on the demographic background variables of gender (female = 1; male = 0), age, marital status (single = 1; other = 2), number of children, family income, and number of hours worked per week. With the exception of Improving Social Life, demographic background factors did not influence motivation. Table 6 contains results of the regression of Improving Social Life on background variables. A regression analysis is a multivariate statistical technique in which the relationships between a set of predictor variables and a dependent variable are computed. The most important statistic from a regression analysis is the beta weight ([beta]), which can be viewed as a partial correlation coefficient, controlling for the effects of other predictor variables in the equation. The findings indicate that the higher the family income level, the less likely a student will be motivated to attend school for Improving Social Life ([beta] = -.17, p < .01); also female students are less likely than are male students to attend school for Improving Social Life ([beta] = -.19, p < .01).

Discussion

There are several implications that emerge from the results of the study. First, the conceptualization of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations was not supported by the findings. Second, the findings conform to other research that indicates that the college-attending Hispanic population is predominantly female (U. S. Census Bureau, 1998). Third, although nearly half of this population is under the age of 25, the remainder is composed of mature students between the ages of 25 and 52, which follows the trend of nontraditional students. Fourth, although nearly 60% are single, more than half have children for whom they are responsible. Fifth, the sample was nearly two-thirds Dominican, which suggests that Dominicans are very interested in pursuing degrees in institutions of higher education. Bronx demographics show that approximately 150,000 Dominicans live there (Bosworth, 2003). Sixth, the students in this study are economically marginal in the extreme, with more than 85% having less than $20,000 a year to live on. Given students' economic marginality and the fact that many of them have family obligations, their ability to maintain matriculation is oftentimes jeopardized.

Nearly 90% indicated that they were self-interested or that they were encouraged by family members. The findings of this study suggest that the motivations of the Hispanic students in this study are congruent with the goals of higher education institutions. First, these students want to learn about the world in which they live. Second, students are attending college because they want to improve themselves--they see a college education as an opportunity to become more self-reliant, to increase their capabilities, and to reduce the gap between their perceived self and their ideal self. Third, they desire an education so they can have a career rather than a job, more marketable skills, and a job that is satisfying as well as materially rewarding. They are less enamored with the possibility of increasing their social status or improving their social lives.

Benshoff and Lewis (1992), Roueche and Roueche (1993), and Weissman et al. (1998) suggest that minority students enroll in college for primarily instrumental reasons: to improve their job marketability, to gain upward social mobility, and to increase their income. However, Cohen and Brawer (1996) suggest a much different motivational syndrome: these minority students perceive education as a way of transforming their lives; they are not motivated primarily by careerist or vocationalist goals. They see higher education as making them different people. Cohen and Brawer (1996) also suggest that students see higher education as up-lifting them and making them smarter, more sensitive, erudite human beings. The findings of this study suggest that for the Hispanic students enrolled in a community college, careerist considerations are part of a larger motivational choice whereby they wish to improve their knowledge base, and they see education as achieving an ideal of transforming them into better human beings.

The results of the study suggest that Hispanic two-year college students enter school with high expectations. They see it as a life-changing experience. Most come from a poor immigrant background, are the first generation to attend higher education and, in many cases, feel an obligation to give back to the community by becoming a professional to serve it.

It is important for community college administrators to understand the motivational components of incoming freshmen from Hispanic backgrounds. The findings here suggest that these students are idealistic and have a desire to learn. The first-semester Hispanic freshmen in this study want to go to school for the right reasons. However, their poverty, family obligations and, for many, the need to work constitute potential barriers to actualization of their aspirations. Nevertheless, in spite of the obstacles before Hispanic students, the findings in this study suggest that one big advantage for them is their desire for an education.

Given this, it is important that further research be conducted on the relationship between motivational factors and school success for Hispanic students. An unanswered question about two-year college students from Hispanic backgrounds is to what extent motivation influences academic achievement and retention.

Table 1
Scale Summaries and Item Means for Reasons for Attending College
(N = 214)

Scale/Item                                      [alpha]    M      SD

Knowledge                                         .75     3.35   0.43
  Learn skills for daily life/complete person             3.49   0.59
  Learn subject matter                                    3.33   0.66
  Gain specific knowledge/personal interest               3.30   0.64
  Improve knowledge and skills                            3.26   0.65
  Transfer to a senior college                            3.20   0.77
  Obtain useful information                               3.16   0.64

Self-Development                                  .86     3.22   0.49
  Independence, self-reliance, autonomy                   3.47   0.64
  Increase capabilities                                   3.41   0.59
  Attain personal advancement                             3.39   0.62
  Self-improvement                                        3.39   0.59
  Increase self-esteem                                    3.13   0.73
  Self-discovery                                          3.11   0.67
  Personal fulfillment                                    3.04   0.75
  Change way perceive self                                2.93   0.74

Job Enhancement                                   .73     3.13   0.47
  Prepare for new career                                  3.62   0.55
  Enhance knowledge and skills                            3.62   0.50
  Get satisfying job                                      3.55   0.66
  Increase chance for raise                               3.03   0.67
  Take courses in my field                                2.92   0.80
  Retain job                                              2.31   0.80

Social Status                                     .53     2.89   0.51
  Improve future lifestyle                                3.59   0.65
  Get credentials (improve social status)                 2.98   0.77
  Improve income                                          2.94   0.93
  Receive financial aid                                   1.99   0.72

Improving Social Life                             .81     2.62   0.58
  Increase cultural and social activities                 2.98   0.66
  Meet new people                                         2.79   0.72
  Seek social interaction                                 2.75   0.74
  Be with friends                                         2.12   0.72

Table 2
Intercorrelations of Motivation Scales (N = 214)

                   Knowledge    Job     Status   Social

Self-Development    .63 **     .44 **   .55 **   .37 **
Knowledge                      .46 **   .44 **   .32 **
Job                                     .41 **   .32 **
Status                                           .42 **

** p < .01.

Table 3
Frequencies and Distributions of Study Participants
on Demographic Background Variables (N = 179)

Variable                  n     %

Gender
  Male                    48   26.8
  Female                 131   73.2

Age
  18-24                   85   47.5
  25-31                   33   18.4
  32-38                   38   21.2
  39-45                   17    9.5
  46-52                    6    3.4

Ethnicity
  Dominican              118   65.9
  Puerto Rican            34   19.0
  Other Hispanic          27   15.1

Marital Status
  Single                 107   59.8
  Married                 29   16.2
  Separated               34   19.0
  Divorced                 8    4.5
  Widowed                  1     .6

Number of Children
  0                       82   45.8
  1                       39   21.8
  2                       33   18.4
  3                       17    9.5
  4-5                      4    2.2
  6+                       4    2.2

Yearly Family Income
  <$10,000                79   44.1
  $10,000-14,999          49   27.4
  $15,000-19,999          25   14.0
  $20,000-$24,999         11    6.1
  $25,000-$29,999          5    2.8
  $30,000-39,999           9    5.0
  $40,000+                 1     .6

Hours of Work per Week
  0                       73   40.8
  1-10                    20   11.2
  11-20                   28   15.7
  21-30                   16    8.9
  31-40                   35   19.5
  40+                      7    3.9

Table 4
Frequencies and Distributions of the Participants on
Education Variables (N = 179)

Variable                                     n     %

Reason for Selecting a Community College
  Offers a degree I wanted                   49   27.4
  Close to home                              38   21.2
  I wanted to attend this college            33   18.4
  It is inexpensive                          29   16.2
  I could not get into the school I wanted   18   10.1
  My family wanted me to                      9    5.0
  Other                                       3    1.7

Who Encouraged Student
  Myself                                     85   47.5
  My parents                                 40   22.3
  Other family                               21   11.7
  My spouse                                  13    7.3
  My friends                                 12    6.7
  My counselors                               5    2.8
  My teachers                                 2    1.1
  Other                                       1    0.6

Table 5
Paired t-tests of Motivational Factors (N = 214)

Motivation          Descrip-                      Paired t-values
                     tives

                                    Self-
                    M      SD    Development   Job    Status   Social

Knowledge          3.35   0.41      3.91       6.47    12.66    16.10
Self-Development   3.23   0.46                 3.23    10.30    13.28
Job                3.11   0.45                          6.05    10.69
Status             2.87   0.51                                   5.04
Social             2.66   0.56

Note. All t-values are significant at the .01 level

Table 6
Multiple Regression Analysis of Improving Social Life Motivation
on Demographic Background Variables (N = (179)

Variable                   B     SE of B   [beta]

Number of children        0.05    0.04      .10
Family income            -0.07    0.03     -.17 *
Hours of work per week    0.01    0.01      .05
Gender                   -0.25    0.10     -.19 *
Single                    0.13    0.11      .11
Age                       0.02    0.05      .04

Note. [R.sup.2] = .08

* p < .05.

References

Bell, D. (1999). The coming of post-industrial society. A venture in social forecasting (Special anniversary ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Benshoff, J. M., & Lewis, H. A. (1992). Nontraditional college students (Report No. EDO-CG-92-16). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED347483)

Bosworth, W. (2003). Discovering the Bronx: Using census data to highlight social problems and achievements in a major urban area (section 3). Retrieved December 18, 2003, from http://www.lehman.cuny.edu/deannss/ politicalsci/discover/bxtext.htm

Carter, M. J. (n.d.). Active living by design community partnerships: South Bronx, New York. Retrieved November 26, 2003, from http://www.activelivingbydesign.org/bronx

Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Collier, V. P. (1995). Promoting academic success for ESL students: Understanding second language acquisition for school. Jersey City, New Jersey: NJTESOL-BE.

Fink, A. (1995). How to ask survey questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

France, L., & Beaty, L. (1998). Layers of motivation: Individual orientations and contextual influences. In S. Brown. S. Armstrong, & G. Thompson, (Eds.), Motivating students (pp. 113-121). London: Kogan Page.

Gregory, S. T. (2003). Planning for the increasing number of Latino students. Planning for Higher Education, 31(4), 13-19.

Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policymakers. College and University, 62, 207-221.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36. Lane, K. (2001). Educating a growing community. Black Issues in Higher Education, 18(16), 28-31.

MacBrayne, P. S. (1995). Rural adults in community college distance education: What motivates them to enroll? In J. Killacky, & J. R. Valdez (Eds.), Portrait of the rural community college (pp. 85-93). New Directions for Community Colleges, no. 90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Menand, L. (1997, April 20). Everybody else's college education. New York Times Magazine. pp. 48-49.

O'Brien, E. M., & Zudak, C. (1998). Minority-serving institutions: An overview. In J. P. Merisotis, & C. T. O'Brien (Eds.), Minority-serving institutions: Distinct purposes, common goals (pp. 5-15). New Directions for Higher Education, no. 102. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Olivas, M. A. (1997). Research on Latino college students: A theoretical framework and inquiry. In A. Darder, R. D. Tortes, & H. Gutierrez (Eds.),

Latinos and education: A critical reader (pp. 468-486). New York: Routledge. Parnell, D. (1990). Dateline 2000: The new higher education agenda. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Rendon, L., & Hope, R. (Eds.). (1996). Educating a new majority: Transforming America's educational system for diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roueche, J., & Roueche, S. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The at-risk student in the open-door college. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Shearon, R. W., & Tollefson, T. A. (1989). Community colleges. In S. B. Merriam, P. M. Cunningham (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education (pp. 316-331). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Trueba, E. T., & Bartolome, L. I. (1997). The education of Latino students: Is school reform enough ? (Report No. EDO-UD-97-4). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED410367)

U.S. Census Bureau. (1998). Table 13. Enrollment and employment status of recent high school graduates 16 to 24 years old, by type of school, attainment level for people plot enrolled, gender, race, and Hispanic origin: October 1998. Retrieved December 18, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/ population/socdemo/school/p20-521/tab13.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (1999). Population growth rate remains stable, Census Bureau reports. United States Department of Commerce News (Press Release No. CB99-101). Retrieved December 18, 2003, from http://www.census.gov/ Press-Release/www/1999/cb99-101.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000a). Education, income, and poverty: New York State (Table B-5. Counties). County and City Data Book: 2000. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000b). Educational attainment by postal code. Summary File 3, Matrix P37. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000c). Educational attainment by sex. Table QT-P20. Educational Attainment by Sex: 2000. Available from http://factfinder.census.gov/

Webster, F. (2002). Theories of the information society (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Weissman, J., Bulakowski, C., & Jumisko, M. (1998). A study of White, Black, and Hispanic students' transition to a community college. Community College Review, 26(2). 19-42.

Minerva Santos is an assistant professor in the Language and Cognition Department at Eugenio Maria de Hostos Community College of the City University of New York. [e-mail]