Bicultural Socialization Experiences of Black Immigrant ...

Seton Hall UniversityeRepository @ Seton HallSeton Hall University Dissertations and Theses(ETDs) Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses

Spring 3-22-2017

Bicultural Socialization Experiences of BlackImmigrant Students in Selective PredominantlyWhite Institutions in AmericaErasmus Igbozurike [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertationsPart of the Higher Education Commons

Recommended CitationOkere, Erasmus Igbozurike, "Bicultural Socialization Experiences of Black Immigrant Students in Selective Predominantly WhiteInstitutions in America" (2017). Seton Hall University Dissertations and Theses (ETDs). 2301.https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2301

https://scholarship.shu.edu/?utm_source=scholarship.shu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2301&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations?utm_source=scholarship.shu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2301&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


https://scholarship.shu.edu/etds?utm_source=scholarship.shu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2301&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1245?utm_source=scholarship.shu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2301&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2301?utm_source=scholarship.shu.edu%2Fdissertations%2F2301&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Bicultural Socialization Experiences of Black Immigrant Students in Selective

Predominantly White Institutions in America

Erasmus Igbozurike Okere

Seton Hall University

South Orange, New Jersey

2017

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

iii

©2017ErasmusIgbozurikeOkere

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Coming this far has been a huge journey of fulfilled dreams, an accomplishment of the

desire to give back the astonishing blessings of life. My experiences throughout the grill and drill

of coursework, research projects, and mentoring sessions shaped my perceptions and greatly

refined my analytical skills. I am very grateful for every motivation, support, love, and kindness

that I have received in the pursuit of my Ph.D.

To God be the glory for the great things He has done for me. I thank God for his unfailing

mercies and blessings. My gratitude goes to my Local Ordinary, His Grace Archbishop Anthony

J. V. Obinna, the catholic Archbishop of Owerri, Nigeria, for his paternal love, trust and

kindness in sponsoring my doctoral program.

I wish to express my deep gratitude to all my professors for their tremendous

encouragement. To my mentor, Dr. Eunyoung Kim, words are not enough to thank you for

painstakingly moderating my dissertation, for your insistence on details, vision of thought, and

clarity of purpose, and for your timely feedback and friendliness, which helped to make this dream

a reality. My tremendous gratitude goes to my Committee members: Dr. Joseph Stetar (my

academic advisor—thank you for your friendship and guidance) and Dr. Gerard Babo (immense

thanks for making the research interesting). Thank you Dr. Martin Finkelstein for sharpening my

writing;Dr. Elaine Walker, from my heart, I thank you for trusting in me and for your motivations.

Thank you Dr. Rong Chen, Dr. Robert Kelchen, Dr. Michael Osnato, and Dr. Kucher for the

tremendous job in the faculty.

With great pleasure and respect, I acknowledge my highly supportive family. I thank you

all for your immeasurable love, care, and sacrifice. I most humbly dedicate this dissertation to my

v

first teachers, my dad Mr. John Nwanosike Okere of the blessed memory and my lovely mum,

Nneoma Agnes Ezenwanyi Okere. To my senior brother, Prof. Anthony Okere, who has been our

trailblazer, you made this happen. You showed us the way and have been a father to all of us since

our Daddy passed away. Thank you for being proud of me and for encouraging me to greater

heights. To all my siblings, Ndaa, Dede, NdaPe, Big Joe, Engr KizBen, Assum, and all my kit and

kin, I say thank you for who you are and who you have been.

To my spiritual faily, I am especially grateful to the catholic Archdiocese of Owerri, all

the Priests and Religious and to the amazing lay faithful. My thanks also goes to the Catholic

Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey for providing room and board for me throughout the

program and to the amazing faithful of Igbo Catholic Community Newark, NJ and Blessed

Sacrament/St. Charles Borromeo Church. Immense thanks for your prayers. To my beloved

friends, I value all your awesome sacrifice and love. May God be glorified through this effort?

And may He in His infinite love and wisdom, bless all of you for your love and kindness. May

He meet you at your moments of need and set you constantly in His delectable verdure.

On a final note, I will like to give a special credence to the National Longitudinal Survey

of Freshmen (NLSF), a project designed by Douglas S. Massey and Camille Z. Charles, and

funded by the Mellon Foundation and the Atlantic Philanthropies for allowing me the use of this

data.

Erasmus Igbozurike Okere

vi

Abstract

Minority and dominant cultures present a power dynamic that could promote or impede

academic achievement for Black immigrant students. Drawing upon bicultural socialization as a

conceptual framework, this study explores the predictability of various factors on academic

outcomes among foreign-born compared to US-born Black immigrant students. Using a sample

of 959 Black students (662 US-born and 297 foreign-born) from the National Longitudinal

Survey of Freshmen (NLSF) conducted in the fall of 1999–2003, the current study examines

indicators that inform the integration of Black immigrants into mainstream college environments

by disaggregating the Black student population by nativity, to look more closely at variations in

educational attainment among this population. Controlling for demographic factors, the results

show that interracial relations, campus racial segregation, and commitment to racial diversity

were associated with four- and six-year graduation. This study finds that negative racial relations

and campus racial segregation are inimical to the diversity rendering of institutional vision for

creating a conducive environment and promoting academic excellence. Students’ viewpoints on

racial diversity on campus speak volumes regarding how they perceive the world around them.

The theoretical implications are relevant for predicting appropriate outcome measures for a

balanced integration culture, improving institutional commitment to diversity, and controlling

campus segregation. The findings have implications for preventive interventions addressing the

vii

current achievement gap for Black immigrant students while delineating pathways for students,

faculty, institutional leaders, and policymakers to promote interactive and interracial campus

culture, improve institutional transparency, and evolve strategic plans to close achievement gaps

and promote peer/faculty involvement in out-of-class encounters. The findings show that there is

a relationship between family income and four- and six-year graduation. Moreover, Black

immigrant students appear to be more sensitive to racial segregation. As the level of racial

segregation on a campus increases, the likelihood of Black immigrant students graduating within

four years decreases. The study views diversity from a heterogeneous perspective, underlines

attributes of Black immigrant students that predict dynamics of their adjustment into mainstream

culture, and adds to the existing literature on factors impacting their learning educational

outcomes. The study presents valuable implications for policy and practice. The explanatory

predictors are useful to predict college graduation, promote interactive and interracial culture,

enhance institutional climate while helping to develop plans to close achievement gap. It may

promote peer and faculty involvement that addresses students’ social and academic needs, extol

values of cultural /ethnic organizations on campus and to a large extent, cultivate intercultural

relations on campus. Future research should expand research on the black immigrant students at

less selective four-year, HBCU’s and two-year colleges where these institutions enroll a large

proportion of black students in order to explore how these institutions serve the needs of black

immigrant students and how their bicultural socialization contribute to college completion. It

should compare US-born immigrant black students with other significant pool of black immigrant

students from other regions and their adaptation patterns in college and adding GPA or

academic/cognitive factors in future research for a more robust model.

Keywords: foreign-born/US-born Black immigrant students, bicultural socialization, achievement

gap, college graduation, integration into mainstream culture.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ABSTRACT vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii

LIST OF FIGURES xi

LIST OF TABLES xi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION 13

Background of the Study and the Research Problem 13

Statement of Purpose 20

Research Questions 21

Significance of the Study 21

Overview of Methods 22

Definition of Terms 22

Organization of Dissertation 24

Chapter Summary 24

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW 25

Explication of Terms in the Study 26

Black Immigrants in the United States 30

Black Immigrants’ Academic Achievement 32

ix

Facing the Stereotypical Image of Black Immigrants 34

Theoretical Models of Immigrant-Generational Academic Achievement 36

Factors Related to Students’ Bicultural Socialization 42

Summary 54

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS 56

Research Overview 56

Research Questions 56

Hypothesis 58

Research Design 59

Sample 59

Student Sample 60

Model Specification 62

Data Analyses 66

Limitations of the Study 68

Summary 70

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS 71

x

Descriptive Statistics 72

Logistics Regression 83

Summary 97

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION 98

Overview of the Study 98

Summary of Findings 100

Discussion of Findings 105

Theoretical Implications 108

Contributions of the Study 109

Implications for Policy and Practice 110

Suggestions for Future Research 116

APPENDIX 148

xi

List of Figures

Figure 3. Research Model for the Attributes of the Bicultural Socialization Experiences of

Black Immigrant Students 57

List of Tables

Table 3-1. The Composition of Black Population by Immigrant/Native Origins 60

Table 3-2. Black Immigrant Students Born in the US/Outside the US 61

Table 3-3. Variables used in the Bicultural Socialization Experiences of Black Immigrant

Students 64

Table 4-1. Descriptive Statistics of the Entire Sample 74

Table 4-2. Descriptive Statistics by Nativity 79

Table 4-3. Descriptive Statistics of the Continuous Variable 81

Table 4-4. Graduation Rates for the Total Sample 82

Table 4-5. Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables by Nativity (N=959 82

Table 4-6. Logistic Regression Predicting the Academic Achievement of the Whole Sample

of Black Students in 4-year Overall Graduation 85

Table 4-7. Logistic Regression Predicting the Academic Achievement of the Whole Sample

xii

of Black Students in 6-year Overall Graduation 86

Table 4-8. Logistic Regression Results for US-born Black students’ 4-year Graduation 88

Table 4-9. Logistic Regression Predicting the Academic Achievement of Black US-born

Students in 6-year Overall Graduation 90

Table 4-10. Logistic Regression Predicting the Academic Achievement of Foreign-born Black


Table 4-11. Logistic Regression Predicting the Academic Achievement of Foreign-born Black


Table 5-1. Summary of Predictors for 4-year Graduation (Entire Group, US-born, and Foreign-

born) 104

Table 5-2. Summary of Predictors for 6-year Graduation (Entire Group, US-born, and Foreign-

born) 105

13

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study and the Research Problem

In recent years, higher education has made knowledge more accessible and open to

students from diverse sociocultural backgrounds. With the increasingly multicultural student

bodies on campus, college students have come to expect conducive campus environments that

promote both curricular and extracurricular excellence. Studies on minorities have identified

race/ethnicity as having a strong statistically significant effect on academic achievement (Carini,

Kuh, & Klen, 2006; Dixon, 2003, Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).

Other studies examining student experiences in college using race/ethnicity as a variable in

disaggregated data have shown compelling results, with more dichotomous categories such as

Black/White, minority, and non-minority (Massey et al., 2007; Watson & Kuh, 1996). Due to the

compelling educational interest, colleges and universities seek the potential benefits of a diverse

college student presence and prioritize measures that lead to positive academic outcomes. The

progressive improvement in the undergraduate enrollment of different racial groups in America has

drawn substantial attention in the last decade. The National Center for Education Statistics reports

that Asians demonstrated a remarkable increase in enrollment from 46% in 1988 to 60% in 2012.

Meanwhile, White enrollment increased for ages 18–24 from 27% in 1980 to 42% in 2012.

Similarly, Blacks and Hispanics recorded enrollment increases from 19% in 1980 for Blacks and

16% to 37% for Hispanics between 1980 and 2012, respectively (NCES, 2012).

All students enrolled in college, naturally, work towards acquiring their degrees at the earliest

possible opportunity. However, there are indications that some racial groups seem to require

14

longer than average periods of study to graduate. Hence, research in higher education in the past

three decades has focused attention on the challenges faced by diverse racial population

in America. White and Asian American college students are twice as likely to graduate in four

years compared to Blacks (DeAngelo et al.,2011). This trend is continuing, with Asian and white

students leading the way at 15% and 14%, while Hispanic and Black students are lagging at 8%

and 7%, respectively (Kena et al., 2014).

Considering college completion based on ethnicity, race gaps have continued to widen in

the graduation rate. Black students experience different forms of racism and discrimination and

are often alienated at predominantly White institutions (Cole 2010; Cole &Jackson, 2005; Allen,

1992). Data from the National Center for Educational Statistics show the disparity in educational

attainment between Blacks and their White counterparts. For students from 19 to 25 years of age,

the graduation rate for Blacks was 20% in 2008, which was 13% lower that of their White

counterparts (NCES,2010),20% lower that of Whites in 2013 (NCES,2013), and 10.3% lower that

of Whites in 2015(NCES,2016).Scholars are therefore examining which socialization

experiences in these institutions could actually promote optimal academic success for Black

students.

It is particularly uncertain what the performance of Blacks portends for the future,

considering their manpower contribution to the American labor force. Hence, educators continue

to re-evaluate what contributory factors improve the graduation rates of minority students. Certain

individuals do not perceive themselves as unified cultural entities; rather, they view themselves as

a combination of distinctive cultural persons. Awareness of the individual and contextual

15

processes involved in two or more cultural identities support the idea of bicultural identity

(Haritatos &Benet-Martinez, 2002). The model minority myth has given an outlet to stereotype

threats, which have endured as an inexplicable phenomenon plaguing the academic achievement

of minority groups in American higher education. Studies have highlighted the impact of

stereotype threats on the racial achievement gap in colleges (Massey et al., 2007; Owens &Lynch,

2012), including the negative-ability stereotype threat and its effect on the college performance of

Black students. Some scholars argue that negative stereotypes about their ethnic groups account

for the underperformance of certain minority students (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Massey & Fischer,

2005; Owens & Massey, 2011). Hence, Black immigrants are burdened with tacit negative

cultural experiences in college.

One of the rising challenges of higher institutions in the United States is providing quality

education to a diverse population while bridging the disparity in educational attainment between

racial groups. Minority and dominant cultures interact with a power dynamic that could promote

or impede academic achievement for Black immigrant students. According to Thomas (2014),

“Black students have a qualitatively different and less advantageous college experience than

other minority students” (p. 233). Consequently, these students cultivate their identity through a

conscious process of sharing information, practices, knowledge, and values of other people while

cutting across cultural boundaries. Researchers have sought to identify some of the factors that

predispose students’ experiences in college to predict which trajectories facilitate the academic

attainment of diverse racial minorities. As immigrant populations in postsecondary education

16

continually increase, relevant insights into immigrant intergenerational differences clarify the

need to manage the age-long disparities and provide effective administrative input and

supportive environments for these students to succeed in college. The study addresses the low

academic attainment of Black immigrant undergraduate students, specifically their integration

into college and graduation rates.

Black college students have lower graduation rates than their White and Asian

counterparts (NCES, 2015). Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson (2009) observe that “White

students are consistently more successful in both high school and college than are Black and

Hispanic students”. In a recent education attainment survey, Kena et al. (2014) highlights the

great disparity between Whites and Blacks from 25 to 29 years of age in their bachelor’s degree

attainment level within 6 years: 58% for Asians/Pacific Islanders, 40% for Whites, 20% for

Blacks, and 16% for Hispanics (p. 4). Studies on the attainment of minority students point to the

fact that a racial minority deficit has persisted over time due to complex historical and cultural

factors (Lindley, 2009; Yosso, 2005).

Over a period of 23 years (1990–2013), relevant data show that the size of the White–

Black gap at the college level widened.The gap has increased by 7 percentage points from 13% to

20% and by 7 percentage points for the White- Hispanic gap at the college level from 18% to

25%(NCES 2014 ).Moreover,the declining level of bachelor degree attainment and the rising

White–Black educational achievement disparity are continuing. Therefore, underscoring the

specific factors that contribute to graduation rates could enhance the cultural competency,

academic attainment, and economic viability of the Black immigrant population in the

competitive techno-driven global economy.

17

Wide disparities in academic attainment persist despite the enrollment increase in general

in higher education, as illustrated inwhich shows that between the ages of 25 and 29, 37% of

Whites have a college degree compared to 19% and 12% of their Black and Hispanic

counterparts, respectively (De Angelo,et al., 2011). The data reports from the National Center for

Education Statistics have shown the continued gap in educational attainment between ethnic

groups over a period of 23 years. This trend has not improved despite the obvious increase in

college enrollment. It is notable that while 34% of 25- to 29-year-olds earned a bachelor’s or

higher degree in 2013, this was not reflected in the attainment levels of minority groups. Instead,

the White–Black gap in educational attainment widened from 13 to 20%, and the White–Hispanic

gap widened from 18 to 25% (NCES, 2014).

Research considering individual student attributes embraces those assessment measures

frequently applied by postsecondary institutions to predict college success, such as rankings and

standardized admission test scores (SAT, ACT). Others considering institutional characteristics

examine common factors such as selectivity, type, and size and their impact on students’ college

experiences (Allen et al., 2010; Pascarella& Terenzini, 2005). Furthermore, there are studies that

consider parental involvement and cultural factors to be crucial to Black immigrant students’

academic achievement (Ogbu, 2003; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Identifying factors with significant

influence on the academic achievement of Black African students, Ogbu proposes the idea of

“oppositional culture,” which refers to the way in which non-voluntary minorities view

schooling as a form of imposition (Ogbu, 1998). In his Cultural–Ecological theory, Ogbu (1998)

explicates differing cultural models within which voluntary and involuntary minorities respond

to discriminatory threats by the dominant group. Voluntary minority immigrants refer to

18

immigrant groups with African and Caribbean heritage who migrated from their lands to other

lands of their own volition in search of better economic conditions, political freedom, and

improved societal opportunities (Ogbu, 1998). Contrarily, involuntary minorities refer to non-

immigrant, native-born Blacks forced into the American nation through colonization, slavery, or

conquest (Ogbu, 1998). Thus, the different cultural models have varying impacts on native-born

Blacks’ response to the mainstream American culture.

Scholars have criticized Ogbu’s perspective of involuntary academic attainment. Some

underscore that it is mired in anti-intellectualism and victim blaming and to a large extent

oblivious of other salient factors that contribute to White–Black academic disparity and academic

success (Gilbert, 2009; Tauriac & Liem, 2012). Deliberating on the socioeconomic differences

between Black immigrants and Black natives attending selective colleges and universities,

scholars point out that immigrants are self-selected. Studies by Charles et al. (2008) and Massey

and Fischer (2005) indicate that an appreciation of the differing socioeconomic backgrounds of

foreign-born and native-born Africans can shed light on the dynamics of the college experiences

of Black immigrant students as well as the possible challenges related to their social and academic

adjustments at predominantly White institutions.

Tinto’s (1993) seminal theory of student departure has influenced much research on the

academic and social integration of students. Tinto (1993) posits that students who break away

from their past traditions and associations and become enmeshed in a college’s academic and

social life are more likely to graduate. Some scholars criticize certain tenets of this theory because

of its failure to identify cultural variables applicable to minority students. In fact, some argue that

the foundation and structure of predominantly White institutions rests on Eurocentric paradigms,

19

which streamlined a developmental pathway for intra-cultural progression but did not provide

cues for assimilation from one culture to another (Guiffrida, 2006; Rendon, Jalomo, & Nora,

2000; Tierney, 1992). Critics argue that the underlying driving force to minority students’

commitment may differ from the motivational inclinations of their White counterparts (Guiffrida,

2006; Pintrich& Zusho, 2002).

John Weidman’s (1989) theory of undergraduate socialization highlights the relevance of

identifying both groups or memberships and the individual as influential in how college impacts

change on the individual and affects students’ achievement. Weidman’s model of undergraduate

socialization (1989) offers a broader approach to explaining the impact of college on students.

Socialization has both cognitive developmental and organizational (affective interpersonal)

dimensions linked through patterns of acquisition and maintenance of memberships and

participation in salient groups(Weidman,1989). Weidman’s overall concept of socialization sheds

light on the general principles of undergraduate socialization.It equally demonstrates how

socialization prepares the foundation for knowledge acquisition and the useful skills and

acculturating approaches required to adjust in multicultural organizations, institutions, and

subgroups, although he did not specifically create a pathway for individuals to adjust to the

mainstream culture and yet maintain salience of their national culture.

This study draws upon Phinney and Devich-Navarro’s (1997) bicultural identity model,

which posits how individuals manage the dialectical nature of their identity within a diverse

culture. Different studies point out how minority students have employed their cultural and racial

20

identities to adjust to a wider and more diverse environment of American institutions. Phinney

and Devich-Navarro (1997) expound on Berry’s (1990) acculturation model of integration. This

identification pattern explains the process of adjustment of Black immigrant students to the social

and academic visage of campus life. It illustrates the interplay of interactions and relationships

necessary to predispose cognition and recognition within diverse campus life. A Black immigrant

student stands on the path of loneliness if he or she remains fixed in his or her heritage identity,

without responding coherently to the mainstream culture. Through bicultural experiences,

individuals make necessary interactive efforts to learn to identify and participate in two cultures

and become blended biculturals. Phinney and Devich-Navarro (1997) conduct both quantitative

and qualitative studies on African Americans and Mexican Americans. Their samples consist of

adolescents who underline their salience in dual cultural values and

identities. Their bicultural identity model characterizes a relevant shift in the acculturation

literature. It underlines how out-of-group individuals adjust, through inquiry, learning, and

involvement, to the demands of institutional and organizational environments as opposed to being

limited by the in-group judgments. Moreover, the blended model of bicultural identity looks at the

bicultural socialization experiences of Black immigrant students as they negotiate the mainstream

culture in selective predominantly White institutions.

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of Black immigrant students’ bicultural

socialization experiences on their academic achievement at selective predominantly White

institutions in the United States. This study is significant in that it examines how the bicultural

experiences of Black immigrant students relates to academic achievement.

21

Research Questions

The following research questions guide the study:

1. What are the background characteristics of foreign-born Black students (i.e., demographic

background, socioeconomic background, academic preparation, and high-school background)

compared to those of US-born Black students? Does the (four-year /six-year graduation) rate of

foreign-born Black students differ from that of US-born Black students?

2. What influence, if any, do college environments (e.g., type of college attended, faculty support,

and student support services) have on academic achievement for each group of students?

3. Controlling for student background characteristics and college environments, do bicultural

experiences contribute to academic achievement as measured by the six-year graduation rates of

each group of students? If so, to what extent?

Significance of the Study

Bicultural socialization experiences are associated with enhanced productivity and higher

academic achievement, fewer interpersonal conflicts, and good psychological adaptation (Berry,

et al., 2006; LaFromboise et al., 1993; Mok et al., 2007; Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2012;

Schwartz et al., 2010). Tracking student’s cultural experiences would inform the efforts of

policymakers and educators to consider appropriate strategies for promoting the social and

academic transitions to college. As the population of Black immigrant students in the United

States become more heterogeneous, policymakers and educators will continue to identify unique

variations within different immigrant groups relating to different interests, outcomes, identities,

cultures, ideologies, and historical backgrounds. Such characteristics should be the focus of

institutional attention on diversity, addressing prevalent educational gaps as well as the

adjustment processes of undergraduate college students and providing the rationale for future

22

immigration reforms. Creating such harmony would necessitate welcoming institutional practices

and policies, which would in turn lead to incredible outcomes for a rising percentage of Black

immigrants, whose success in college portends positive impacts on their subsequent economic

returns to the wider American society.

Overview of Methods

This study is based on data from the NLSF a project conducted by Douglas S. Massey and

Camille Z. Charles. NLSF is a stratified random sample of 3294 college students from 28

selective predominantly White four-year United States colleges and universities, diverse in terms

of institutional type, region, and student demographics. It is a five-wave longitudinal survey

(1999–2003) employing a quantitative approach, as reflected in its close-ended questions. A

personal interview geared towards gathering retrospective knowledge regarding the students’

educational and social experiences from childhood through high school was conducted during the

fall of their freshman years. A follow-up telephone interview was conducted during the spring

from 2000 to 2003 to collect information on their educational and social experiences at college

(Owens & Massey, 2011). A binary logistic regression analysis was conducted on the data

derived from the multi-institutional samples “to estimate how much of the variance in the

dependent variable can be accounted for using a particular set of independent variables” (Punch,

2014, p. 219).

Definition of Terms

BlackorAfrican Americancan be defined as “a person having origins in any of the Black

racial groups of Africa,” comprising people who indicate their race as “Black, African American,

or Negro” or provide entries such as “African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, Haitian, or Jamaican”

(The Condition of Education, 2013; U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

23

Black immigrants. In this study, Black immigrant students refer to those students of

African heritage described as “Black” based on the American system of racial categorization

(African American, Sub-Saharan, Haitian, and Caribbean) who relocated to the United States

(voluntarily or involuntarily) from abroad with the intention of residing permanently. They

include those born in the United States with at least one immigrant parent (Alex-Assenssoh,2009;

Gilbert, 2009; Kim & Diaz, 2013;Massey et al., 2007; Ogbu, 2003). Our sample consists of Black

immigrants of native and foreign origin in the NLSF data.

Bicultural Socialization. Bicultural socialization is a process by which an individual

productively and efficiently functions in his or her heritage culture while exhibiting competence

in the culture of the institution, region, or country of residence (LaFromboise,1993; Nguyen &

Benet-Martinez, 2013; Schwartz, & Unger, 2010). The term bicultural literally means two

cultures. By socializing effectively in two cultures, an individual is classified as bicultural to the

extent that he or she successfully navigates between the two cultures as expected by the

institutional or situational demands. Generally, bicultural socialization has the dual functions of

socializing an individual into both the dominant and heritage cultures, where an individual gains

competence in two cultures without losing his or her heritage culture or being subsumed by the

dominant culture.

Bicultural experience. Bicultural experience is an encounter requiring the involvement of

an individual in the process of seeking dialogue and proficiency with a dominant culture while

maintaining salience with his or her heritage culture. It is an opportunity for being exposed to the

sharing of information, practices, knowledge, and values of other people while cutting across

24

cultural boundaries. In certain respects, it necessitates an exposure to, comfort with, and

understanding of one’s heritage culture as well as being comfortable with the people and values of

those with whom he or she has been associating.

Organization of the Dissertation

The following four chapters in the study are organized as follows: Chapter Two reviews

relevant literature on the subject while expounding on the variables and the theoretical

framework. In Chapter Three, the methods applied in the study are examined, highlighting the

data source and participants as well as the procedures and techniques applied in the analysis.

Chapter Four relates the results of the study with regard to the hypothesis and research questions.

Chapter Five discusses the implications of the study, underlining its limitations well as identifying

areas for future research.

Chapter Summary

This study focused on certain factors associated with undergraduate Black immigrant

student’s academic achievement in the context of selective predominantly White institutions. This

was accomplished by examining how bicultural socialization experiences relate to academic

achievement by identifying the factors that influence Black immigrant college students’ academic

achievement. This study provides insight into institutional practices that promote supportive

college environments that foster the success of Black immigrant students.

25

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW

Several factors can be associated with the academic achievements and experiences of Black

immigrant students in four-year undergraduate institutions. In predominantly White institutions,

the minority and dominant cultures interact in a way that could promote or impede the success of

the underrepresented racial groups. The experiences of students during their college years have a

tremendous influence over an array of results related to psychosocial enhancement, value and

attitudinal improvement, academic achievement, as well as economic advantages (Pascarella &

Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Bowen et al. (2009) indicate that improving the cultural experiences of

freshmen from low socio-economic status has the potential to lower the disparities in graduation

rates between the Whites and the Blacks.

Whereas different studies have considered variables that impact Black immigrant

students’ behavior and changes in college, little attention has been given to their within-college

experiences and how those experiences influence their educational achievement. When compared

to Asian and Latino immigrant students, Black immigrant students have been the subject of little

in-depth study (Rong & Brown, 2010; Rong & Fitchett, 2008).Certain researchers identify

biculturalism as the most ideal mechanism of adjustment in college. Considering the significant

gains related to negotiating two cultures, bicultural experiences equip students with balanced

adjustment strategies (Berry, 1997; Berry et al., 2006; Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2013; Padilla,

2006; Phinney et al., 2001), ensure reliable social support networks from two cultures (Mok,

Morris, Benet-Martinez, & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, 2007), and function as a launch pad for

intellectual flexibility, integrative complexity, and academic achievement (Maramba &

Velasquez, 2010; Tadmor et al., 2009).

26

Graduation rate is a major indicator of academic success. An interplay between Black

immigrants’ background and higher education at PWIs may promote or impede their academic

achievement. The study examines reports of important benefits of bicultural socialization on

Black immigrant undergraduate academic achievement, drawing from empirical research articles,

technical reports, books, dissertation abstracts, and annual reviews. Areas of interest are drawn

from interdisciplinary studies on relevant analysis from education, law, psychology,

anthropology, and sociology. The first part of this literature (following explication of the terms in

the study) examines the demographic trends of Black immigrants and Black immigrant students in

postsecondary education in the United States. The second section of the study reflects on the

academic achievements of minorities. The third section explores the models applied to immigrant-

generational academic achievements. In the fourth section, factors related to students’ bicultural

socialization experiences are reviewed, with an emphasis on their application to racial academic

achievement. Finally, a brief chapter summary is provided.

Explication of Terms in the Study

Acculturation. Earlier studies describe acculturation as a change impressed on the

individual by adaptation to a new environment and necessitated either by migration, political

conquest, or relocation. However, there is no single definition of acculturation. The term refers to

the changes that occur in the beliefs, values, and behaviors of ethnic individuals as a result of

contact with, and desired or undesired adaptation to, the dominant culture (Berry, 1993).

Furthermore, Berry (2005, p. 698) explains that “acculturation is the dual process of cultural and

psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups

and their individual members learning and adapting to a new culture.” Gibson (2001) considers

the outcome-impact of cultural contacts as the “changes that take place as a result of contact with

27

culturally dissimilar people, groups, and social influences.” From the psychosocial perspective,

Burnham states that acculturation refers to “the psychosocial adaptation made by members of one

culture as a result of contact with another culture” (Burnham, Telles, Karno, Hough, & Escobar,

1987). Literature on acculturation has explained acculturation models unilinearly, bilinearly, and

typologically (Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2007; Schwartz et al., 2010). Aspects of cultural

orientations encompass multifaceted domains, ranging from restricted domains such as cultural

affiliations, language use, family socialization, generational status, stereotypes, habits, values, and

beliefs to more broadened dimensions, when considered from the point of view of their

interconnectivity and functional specialization (Boski, 2008; Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2013;

Schwartz, et al., 2010; Zane & Mak, 2003). Generally, acculturation is recognized as four separate

strategies that embody the interface between dominant and heritage cultures:Biculturalism

(orientation to both cultures), Assimilation, (orientation to dominant culture only), Separation

(orientation to heritage culture only), and Marginalization (orientation to neither culture) (Nguyen

& Benet-Martinez, 2013, p. 123). The focus here is largely on the literature related to biculturalism

and the studies revolving around its principles and application to the academic achievement of

Black immigrant students in PWIs.

Biculturalism. Biculturalism is a part of the larger picture of acculturation processes and

is a major component of the integration strategy that orients the individual into both the

dominant and heritage cultures. Biculturalism is relevant to higher education, as immigrants

across several generations constitute a major landscape of college life. Policymakers must

promote a healthy environment for the interaction and integration of students from every cultural

background. Biculturalism is identified with ethnic cultures and is often applied to the internal or

28

external interactions of any pair of cultures. As interactions among individuals (students,

immigrants, refugees, expatriates) increase regionally and internationally, the population of

bicultural individuals continues to grow exponentially. For instance, about two-fifths of

Singapore’s population is foreign-born. Over one-fifth of the Canadian and Australian

populations are bicultural. About one-fifth of the American population is foreign-born, and over

20% of the population speaks languages other than English. Thirty-four percent are non-White

(Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2013; United Nations Statistics Division, 2011). Studies carried out

by Clark, Kauffman, and Pierce (1976) on three generations of U.S. immigrants give an

indication of how individuals could maintain high levels of internal and external ethnic identity.

While code switching with a White identity, students may maintain their ethnic ties in their PWI

experiences (Evans et al., 2010). Rotheram-Borus and Phinney (1990) regard biculturalism as the

fusion of cultural norms from two groups into a single behavioral stream. Bicultural individuals

refer to “those who have been exposed to and have internalized two cultures” (Benet-Martinez,

Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002).

Bicultural Socialization. Bi-cultural socialization is a procedure through which children

“acquire the norms, attitudes and behavior patterns of two ethnic groups” (Rotherham &

Phinney, 1987). The root of the term is derived from culture. Two ancillary terms deserve special

explication. The term “culture” is broad and could assume numerous meanings. It is applied to a

cluster of concepts. Research perspectives in higher education refer to culture from a behavioral

29

point of view (La Fromboise et al., 1993). Culture and human development are intimately

intertwined and interconnected, and it is within the cultural ambience that values, human

behavior, and attitudes are moderated and valorized through socialization. As social entities,

human beings become an ensemble of societal legacies, a repertoire of common heritage, or

historical epochs and cultural experiences. When one socializes effectively in two cultures, he or

she is regarded as bicultural to the extent that he or she successfully navigates between those

cultures as expected by the institutional or situational demands. It is a process by which an

individual who is a non-majority member expresses comfort in his or her native group as well as

that of the host or dominant group. Simply, it denotes the dexterity that enables an individual to

socialize effectively and function impressively within two separate cultures. Culture is a dynamic

and ever-evolving reality. Socialization denotes “the process by which societies induce their

members to behave in socially acceptable ways” (Crain, 2000).

Higher education research considers how individuals become part of and effectively

benefit from participating as integral members of two cultural groups. The focus of inquiry

revolves around ethnic identification, racial socialization, and bicultural socialization (Padilla,

2006).Bicultural socialization is an awareness of an instantaneous feeling of oneness with a

culture and a sense of differentiatedness from another culture. LaFromboise,et al.,(1993) reiterates

that through biculturalism, “an individual is able to gain competence within two cultures without

losing his or her cultural identity or having to choose one culture over the other”p.395. Therefore,

bicultural socialization has the dual function of socializing an individual into both dominant and

heritage cultures, entailing that an individual gains competence in two cultures without losing his

or her heritage culture or being subsumed by the dominant culture.

30

Black immigrants in the United States. Black immigrants in this study are persons having

origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. The concept encompasses all individuals who

indicate their race as “Black, African American, or Negro” or responded “Black” in entries in the

2008-9 American Community Surveys (ACS) (The Condition of Education, 2013). Black

immigrants with roots in racial groups from Africa have some heuristic values. Their native

Africa has a current population of over one billion people, and that growth rate is increasing.

There are over 2000 diverse languages in Africa, and political unrest is a reality in most of its

countries. This increases the number of border-crossing Black immigrant students who come to the

United States.

As a large continent comprising more than 55 nation-states, Africa is the second-largest

and second-most populous continent in the world. It has high heterogeneity, with diverse socio-

cultural, racial, religious, geo-political, economically feasible, and linguistic diversity dynamics

that have significant impacts on Black immigrant students and their academic and social

integration needs in the United States. Despite the non-monolithic backgrounds of the Black

immigrant students, scholars recognize that they have certain common needs and experiences.

These needs and experiences are derived from similar philosophical and historical factors based

on their beliefs and cherished values (Stebleton,2007). Through a common ancestry

characterized by complicated historical and political conditions, Africa is connected to the larger

population of Blacks in diaspora, reaching to Haiti and the Caribbean (Alex-Assensoh & Hanks,

2000). Irrespective of the ever-growing evidence of racial diversity among Blacks, studies on

31

Black politics are subtly linked to connections, alliances, and race-based scenarios surrounding

Black history in the United States (Alex-Assensoh, 2009). Thus, the image of immigrant Black

Africans and Black Americans are like a humongous tree seen as a lump of some homogeneous

and intra ethnic entity. Characteristically, this image has been viewed conceptually by scholars

based on ethnic and interracial considerations. Therefore, different stages of “social and political

transmutations surrounded the Black immigrants of African heritage either as indentured servants,

enslaved Blacks, emancipated or manumitted and freed” (p. 90). The last two decades, marked by

colonialism and slavery, have had a significant impact on the psyche and identity of Blacks, as it

has in different historical epochs. Hence, Black immigrants must negotiate a rough terrain of

stereotypical threats. They are enmeshed in the multiple identities crises prevalent in the host

culture, and they must reconcile this with the necessary struggle to maintain their national

identities (Nwadiora, 1996).

Black immigrants are one of the fastest growing of the immigrant groups in the United

States (Capps, McCabe, & Fix, 2011; Massey et al., 2007). They make up about 4% of the foreign-

born population of Black immigrant students, accounting for 15% of all enrolled Black

undergraduate students in the 2007–2008 academic year (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

Between 1976 and 2004, the enrollment of minority students increased from 17% to 32%. Further,

more Blacks than Hispanics earned postsecondary degrees (U.S. Department of Education, 2007).

However, the educational attainment of 25 to 29 year olds (attaining a bachelors degree or higher)

improved by 10% for Blacks, 7% for Hispanics, 14% for Whites, and 17% for Asians/Islanders

(NCES, 2013, p. 10). The National Postsecondary Aid Study (2008) highlights that almost a quarter

of all undergraduate enrollments in 2007–2008 were by immigrants. With fewer prejudices toward

32

the growing number of immigrants, first- and second-generation immigrants comprised between

10% and 13% of all undergraduate enrollments in 2007–2008 (U.S. Department of Education,

2012). It is important to study the demographic features of Black immigrant students because

“immigrant students in higher education are under-examined, inaccurately characterized, and often

misunderstood” (Teranshi, Suarez-Orozco, & Suarez-Orozco, 2011).

Black Immigrants’ Academic Achievement

Student and institutional factors are connected to timely graduation. Despite the variations

across different institutional types, trends at the national and state levels reveal the untimely

completion of bachelor’s degree programs. At selective universities, one in three students graduates

in four years. In contrast, one in four students graduates on schedule in less selective universities

(Bowen et al., 2009). Due to institutional control,the median time to earn a degree was 55 months

for 2008 bachelors degree recipients graduating from public institutions, 45 months for graduates

of private non-profit institutions, and 103 months for graduates of for-profit institutions (US.

Department of Education, 2011).

Ethnic minority peers experience significant disparities in academic achievement (Barnes

et al., 2010; Stevenson &Whelan, 2013). There was an increase in bachelor’s degree attainment for

the 25 to 29 age cohorts for different ethnic groups between 1980 and 2011. A considerable 14%

increase was recorded for Whites (from 25–39%) while Blacks had an 8% increase (12–20%),

Hispanics had a 5% increase (8–13%), and Asians had a 14% increase (42–56%). However, the gap

in the graduation rates across the minority groups continued to widen. “Between 1980 and 2011,

the gap in the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or higher degree between Blacks and Whites

increased from 13 to 19 percent; and the gap between Whites and Hispanics increased from 17 to

26 percent” (Aud et al., 2012, p. 114). From 1990 to 2012, the percentage of 25- to 29-year-olds

33

who attained a bachelors or higher degree continued to increse from 26% to 40% for Whites, from

13% to 23% for Blacks, and from 8% to 15% for Hispanics. For Asians/Pacific Islanders, the

educational attainment rate of at least a bachelors’ degree in 2012 (60%) was higher than the rate

in 1990 (43%). Between 1990 and 2012, the gap in the attainment rate between Whites and

Hispanics at the level of bachelors’ degree or higher widened from 18% to 25%. However, from

1990 to 2011, the gap widened even further (Aud et al., 2013).

Studies have recognized differences in the educational outcomes of Black immigrant

students (Charles, Torres, & Brunn, 2008; Massey et al., 2007; Williamson, 2007). Massey et al.

(2007) identify staggering differences in the social origins of immigrant and native Black students

in PWIs in the United States. Using data from the NLSF, they observe that the racial gap in

academic achievement between Whites and Black college students indicates that “both Black

immigrants and Black natives earn significantly lower grades than Whites” (p. 263). Using data

collected from a freshman class in the fall of 2003 (2,075 students from a Southeastern University),

McKinney (2009) examined academic measures for dealing with race-based differences, access,

and retention of college students. The findings corroborate earlier research, confirming the

existence of group differences in academic measures (SAT, high school and college GPA) and their

potentially adverse impact on Black and Hispanic students in regard to admission decisions.

The drifting slope of degree attainment levels of minorities in American higher education is

demonstrated by Harper (2012). His findings show that among four cohorts of undergraduates, the

six-year graduation rate for Black male students ranked lowest compared to other groups in public

colleges and universities and was about 14.8% lower than the overall student graduation rate of

48.1%. Harper argues that these troubling achievement gaps that are prevalent in some racial groups

34

are poor indicators despite the significant efforts to expand college access for under-represented

students.

Significant evidence associates the bicultural socialization of students with higher academic

achievement (Marks et al., 2011). Following a mixed-methods approach, Marks et al. (2011) uses

two groups of participants, 41 older cohorts of adolescents from a New England college and 43

younger cohorts of 43 middle adolescents drawn from an independent high school, to capture the

participants’ identifications and students’ school experiences as bicultural individuals. Both cohorts

reflected a gender mixture favoring females (62% female vs. 38% male representation). The authors

report that older bicultural adolescents represented their multifaceted ethnic identities with “a

variety of ethnic labels in both explicit and implicit measures” (p.282).They recommend that a

future longitudinal study should replicate the findings but include a larger population from early

adolescents to later adolescents and accommodate family cultural socialization practices and

routines to correlate with their implicit identity work. Studies on the attainment of minority students

indicate that a racial minority deficit has persisted over time due to complex historical and cultural

factors (Lindley, 2009; Yosso, 2005). Some scholars recommend the application of a conceptual

model that encompasses a wider spectrum of student experiences, which could generate more

characteristics highlighting students’ behavior in college.

Facing the Stereotypical Image of Black Immigrants

Current discussions on Acculturation, reflect the characteristics of outcome-oriented and

process-oriented paradigms (Heo & Kim, 2013, Phinney, 1990). Whereas the outcome-oriented

framework targets in-group perceptions and judgments towards out-of-group individuals, process-

oriented frameworks relate to out-of-group members’ individual cultural identity development

through inquiry, learning, and involvement. Studies on bicultural identity frameworks have

35

emphasized how individuals maintain their traditional heritage while adjusting to the wider society.

Fundamental to this typology is Berry’s (1990, 1997) acculturation classification of integration,

separation, assimilation, and marginalization. Several studies consider biculturalism relevant, as it

raises fundamental questions on an individual’s identity and self-expressivity through intercultural

contact within the more complex and diverse society. According to Berry (1997), psychological

acculturation is influenced by many individual-level factors. In particular, the integrationist or bi-

cultural acculturation strategy appears to be a consistent predictor of more positive outcomes than

the three alternatives of assimilation, separation, or marginalization (p. 27).

Phinney (1990) characterizes the bidimensional structure of bicultural experiences

bordering on individual ethnic and national cultures. Identifying ethnic identity as a dynamic

construct, Phinney relates that an individual makes efforts to develop a sense of belonging in a

heritage culture. Thus, the process of cementing one’s attitudes and understanding about one’s

group clearly projects an individual’s identity within complex intercultural relationships (Phinney

et al., 2001). Further analysis on the two-dimensional bicultural model draws from Phinney and

Devich-Navarro’s (1997) theory of bicultural identification. That model provides a basis for Black

immigrants in PWIs to capture their experiences while resisting the negative stereotypes at selective

colleges and universities in the United States.

A review of the theoretical models suggests how studies geared towards students change in

college. There are some commonalities in their varied approaches and their adaptability to different

types of students. The bicultural identification of Phinney and Devich-Navarro (1997) is applied in

this study since it highlights the socio-cultural and academic integration resources of Black

immigrant students through a process of blended biculturalism. This approach was considered

36

appropriate since it places the integration process into the wider mainstream culture of the campus

climate, establishing an interface between ethnic identity comfort and academic attainment.

Theoretical Models of Immigrant-Generational Academic Achievement

Some theoretical models of immigrant-generational academic achievement are now

discussed:

Astin’s (1970, 1991) input–environment–outcome model and theory of involvement.

Commonly called the I-E-O model, Astin’s theory of involvement occupies a midpoint in

explaining psychological and sociological college impacts on students. He identifies the

institutional role of providing the comfort grounds for limitless social and academic opportunities

to embrace new ideas, meet new people, and acquire new knowledge. He holds that the level and

quality of a student’s involvement in the integral rhythm of institutional life determines the

magnitude of opportunities and benefits he or she receives from the institution. He illustrates that

one of the major functions of higher education is talent development. In consonance with the study

of Pace (1988), Astin’s (1985) theory of involvement explains how students develop in college

(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) and shows that student involvement is a product of the psychological

and physical energy invested in academic activities. Astin expands his theory in a study employing

135 college environmental measures and 59 measures of student involvement. Although Astin’s

theory motivated further research (Derby & Smith, 2004; Kuh, 1999), some scholars have

challenged “whether Astin’s propositions constitute a theory, however, is open to question”

(Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 54).

Tinto’s (1975, 1993) theory of student departure. Vincent Tinto’s seminal theory of

student departure provided phenomenal motivation to discussions on student integration and

persistence in college. Tinto (1975) posits that students who socialize effectively in campus life

37

increase their commitment to the institution and have a higher likelihood of graduating. He

recognizes that students enter college with intentions and commitments and postulates that they

pass through a series of longitudinal interactions between the individual and organizational aspects

of the social and academic dynamic of the institutions. Tinto argues that integration requires the

proper absorption of the normative values of the faculty and peers as well as enmeshment into the

formal and informal structures that promote student success. Some scholars have reviewed the basic

tenets of Tinto’s theory. While subsequent studies validate the need for minority students to connect

to their institution’s cultural heritage (Guiffrida, 2005) and familial connections (Delgado &

Stefancic, 2001; Nunez, 2004), later research repudiates the application of Tinto’s theory to

minority students because it is rooted in the Western assimilation/enculturation paradigm, ignoring

bicultural integration, and suggests the subjection of the theory to a high level of theoretical

development (Guiffrida, 2006).

Weidman’s theory of undergraduate socialization (1989). In an attempt to account for

immigrant-generational academic underachievement, scholars have offered considerations from

diverse perspectives regarding the prevalent disparities among ethnic groups. Pascarella and

Terenzini (2005) identify developmental and sociological perspectives of students’ change,

considering specific contexts underlying the students’ actions and behavior in the last three

decades. Developmental theories respond to students’ integral growth in college based on certain

organized characteristics and the progression of intrapersonal changes (Chickering & Reisser,

1993; Magolda, 2001). In an empirical study, Torres (2009) evaluates the impact of social class

and cultural capital on Black students, opining that challenges exist in comparing Blacks

to their White counterparts due to the prevailing classism and racism on campuses. In a qualitative

38

study of 23 Black immigrants enrolled in a selective research university, Griffins et al. (2012, p.

107) find that parental influence and cultural values shape the immigrants’ ethnic backgrounds,

such that “…being a good Nigerian, or Haitian or Jamaican meant valuing education, having high

expectations, and attending a good college.” Some schools of thought have attributed the cause of

this achievement gap to racial hierarchy. Early studies advanced the Critical Race Theory, which

deals with White privilege over people of color. With its focus on institutional structures that

promote racial inequalities, especially between Blacks and Whites, every effort is directed at

reconstructing the normative structures of racism to represent appropriate cultural paradigms that

favor diversity (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Evans et al., 2010, 2007). This approach has been

criticized for “reductionist victim blaming” and for not accounting for the greater resources

available to immigrant-origin Blacks in relation to their U.S.-origin counterparts (Gilbert, 2009;

Stevenson & Whelan, 2013; Tauriac & Liem, 2012).

Sociological models, on the other hand, basically focus on the environment as a potent index

of learning encounters, creating powerful settings that bring about student change. Such settings

are characterized by an environment that nurtures interpersonal contacts. Experiences are explored

in the process of socialization and de-socialization of individuals within the racial climate of the

campus. Studies on this model integrate sundry variables that impact student change. Certain

variables such as gender, demographics, students’ personal attributes, institutional factors, students’

experiences, and campus ethos have a large role in shaping students’ experiences in college.

Considering the performance of all racial groups, a gender gap exists between Black male and

female students, with the males performing worse (Harper, 2012). Some studies appraise the

marginal difference from the perspective of improved female enrollment in college across all

ethnic/racial groups (King, 2006). Examining college success as a function of race or ethnicity,

39

gender, and class, Keels (2013) draws data from the National Longitudinal survey of freshmen.

Arguing from the stance that the gender gap widens in academic achievement as a result of socio-

demographic factors, some scholars believe that race, gender, and class are indicators of college

success (Keels, 2013; Snyder & Dillow, 2010).

Ogbu’s (1999) cultural ecological theory of minority academic achievement. Ogbu’s

cultural ecological theory has made a tremendous contribution to explaining minority students’

responses to schooling. Ogbu (1999) conceives the issue from two preponderant perspectives: how

the society and schools treat students (the system) and the response to those forces (community

forces). To underscore the academic achievement of minority students, Ogbu maintains that beyond

the differences in community forces, other factors such as how minority groups are incorporated

into the society (voluntarily or involuntarily) play a major role in determining the academic

achievement of minority students (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). The distinction between voluntary and

involuntary minorities has been made in the literature (Ogbu, 1991; Ogbu & Simons, 1998).

Voluntary minorities are those immigrants who came of their own volition to improve their

political, economic, and social well-being. Conversely, involuntary minorities such as non-

immigrant Blacks were constrained into their society through slavery, conquest, or colonization.

Both involuntary and voluntary minorities experienced an unprecedented level of discriminatory

treatment by the host American culture but responded differently to it. Whereas voluntary

minorities have developed a positive approach toward school success, involuntary minorities tend

to maintain a rather contradictory and ambivalent approach (Ogbu, 1998). Ogbu’s theory adds new

insights into the different adaptation dynamics affecting immigrant and native-origin Blacks. Critics

of Ogbu’s theory have pinpointed his failure to account for the greater resources available to

immigrant-origin Blacks compared to native-born Blacks (Benneth & Lutz, 2009; Turiac & Liem,

40

2012). Hence this study takes a modest step further to examine other factors that influence Black

immigrant students’ academic achievement, exploring their bicultural socialization experiences as

a possible resource for improved academic success within the interface of their ethnic and dominant

cultures.

Phinney and Devich-Navarro’s (1997) theory of bicultural identification. Identifying

how Black immigrant students’ bicultural socialization experiences contribute to their academic

success is the central element of this discourse. Bicultural identity is an integral component of

acculturation. Social identity theories have shed light on why the combination of ethnic and

dominant cultures lead to huge benefits in different spheres of life, particularly for racial minority

groups (Huynh, Devos, & Goldberg, 2014). In a meta-analysis by Nguyen and Benet-Martinez

(2013) including 83 studies and 23,197 participants, biculturalism is found to be highly significant

to psychosocial adjustments to college. According to their results, bicultural individuals “tend to be

significantly better adjusted than those who are oriented to only one culture, or perhaps

acculturating individuals who are better adjusted are more likely to be bicultural as opposed to

being oriented to only one culture” (p. 131).

The findings reinforce the earlier acculturation paradigms of Berry (1990), LaFromboise

(1993), and Birman (1994). As numerous immigrant college students are characteristically

bicultural (van Oudenhoven, 2006), this study is based on Phinney and Devich-Navarro’s view of

bicultural identity, focusing on Black immigrant (foreign-born and native –born) students.

These groups have subtly different social origins and yet share a peculiar relationship with the

dominant American culture. To address this issue, Phinney and Devich-Navarro (1997) develop

two conceptual theories: blended and alternating biculturalism. According to Phinney & Devich-

Navarro (1997), in blended biculturalism, two cultures are perceived to overlap to some

41

extent but not completely, and the individuals who comfortably occupy (primarily) the area of

overlap are classified as blended biculturals. This is exemplified by a Black immigrant student

who combines his or her ethnic culture with the host American identity. Furthermore, Phinney

and Devich-Navarro affirm that alternating biculturals consider themselves more rooted in their

ethnic identities but are also comfortable in the host culture and are thus able to switch their

behaviors in cultural and situational contexts, such as at home or in school environments.

Empirically, Phinney and Devich-Navarro (1997) advance their framework by carrying out a

quantitative and qualitative study with 52 African American and 46 Mexican American 10th and

11th grade high school students with equal gender representation. In addressing how minority

adolescents identify themselves with regard to their two cultures (ethnic and American), the

results show that “among African American adolescents, 28 (54%) were blended biculturals, 13

(25%) were alternating biculturals and 9 (17%) were classified as separated” (p.124).The

remaining two students (4%) could not be classified due to inconsistencies. The results for

Mexican Americans show that 16 (35%) were blended, 29 (63%) were alternating biculturals,

while one student (2%) was separated (p. 124). In their study, the adolescents expressed a high

sensitivity to their ethnic culture while exhibiting significant respect for the dominant culture.

Similar to other ethnic groups, Black immigrant students live with two cultures. Phinney

and Devich- Navarro (1997), find, however, that “being bicultural was more problematic for the

African American alternating adolescents than for blended biculturals; As one respondent said,

‘…you are not as American as another White person’” (p. 127). Such experiences follow the

42

inherent tensions in negotiating the academic pathways in PWIs, where Black immigrant students

strive to biculturally socialize with their peers and faculty members from other racial groups. It is

within this context that this study applies Phinney & Devich-Navarro’s theories of biculturalism to

underscore the impact of Black immigrant students’ bicultural socialization experiences on their

academic achievement at selective White universities in the United States.

Factors Related to Students’ Bicultural Socialization

There are complex arrays of forces that shape students’ behavior in college. Earlier theories

held that students coming to college had preconceived values and aptitudes that require some

moderation to adapt to a new college climate. Feldman and Newcomb (1969) characterize the

freshman’s experience in college as a time of de-socialization and socialization, when values and

behaviors are amplified or unlearned to fit into the wider host culture. More recent research has

begun drawing from interdisciplinary frameworks rather than singular paradigms to explain the

impact of college on students (Banks & Banks, 2004). Researchers have applied different

frameworks to address the multifaceted effects of college on students, encompassing precollege

experiences, institutional factors, as well as students’ socialization dynamics in college life.

Scholars have identified certain challenges impacting minority students’ educational achievement

and the possible aftereffects of those challenges (Feagin, 2002; Rendon et al., 2000).

The negative impact of educational underachievement for people of color is obvious

(Bowen & Bok, 1998; Maramba & Valasquez, 2010). Studies have examined bicultural

socialization interventions as mechanisms that facilitate academic achievement in college

(Oyserman, Terry, & Bybee, 2000; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Phinney, 1993). Literature on the

subject, therefore, deals with the socio-cultural adjustment that supports academic achievement,

social skills, and institutional factors that facilitate immigrant students’ adjustment in college.

43

Researchers have highlighted some noncognitive and psychosocial factors that predict college

outcomes (Allen et al., 2010; Berry et al., 2006; Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2010; Oswald et al.,

2004; Robbins et al., 2006; Schwartz et al., 2010).

Considerations have been given to the variables adapted to this study. When coming into

contact with the host culture, Black immigrant students interpenetrate it with their ethnic culture.

The socialization processes are effected through interaction, integration, and learning within the

normative contexts of peer groups, co-curricular activities, and the major program of study. The

academic dividends that accrue from the process of change are characterized by the potency of

various socialization agencies. Such agencies provide necessary mechanisms of diversity within

which students can explore and de-socialize the experiences that result in marginalization,

separation, and assimilation. Empirical studies have applied some of the non-cognitive and

psychosocial factors, as identified below under the subheadings Background Characteristics

Variables (BCV), Institutional/College Environment Variables (ICEV), and Bicultural Experiences

Variables (BEV).

Background characteristics variables (BCV). Background Characteristics Variables (BCV)

are measured by demographic factors (gender), socioeconomic background (parent’s highest

education and family income), and academic preparation (SAT). Certain student factors may

influence the graduation time of students, such as gender, level of college preparation, and

family background. The literature on socialization platforms for minority groups has identified a

high correlation between precollege interactions and college environments during the

undergraduate years. Studies indicate that adequate exposure to out-groups at the precollege level

has a high likelihood of predisposing students to healthier interracial interactions which could

44

affect the time taken to graduate (Bound et al., 2010; Saenz, Ngai, & Hurtado, 2007). Studies on

adolescence indicate that on gender issues, males are more likely than females to develop

interracial friendships (Schofield et al., 2010; Zeng & Zie, 2008). Some studies have shown that

gender and race intersect to the disadvantage of men, as they are more likely than women to

internalize negative stereotypes (Massey, 2005). Gender and racial gaps in college grades and

graduation rates have been studied using the data from the NLSF 1999 (Keels, 2013).The

hierarchical modeling analysis applied in that study shows that within four years of enrollment,

more women (63%) than men (48%) graduate; and under six years post-enrollment, women

(84%) are more likely to graduate than their male counterparts (73%).

College preparation. Scholars consider college preparation as a useful tool to predict

students’ performance and time to graduation (Bound et al., 2012; Deming et al., 2011; Keels,

2013). It is commonly assumed that poor academic preparation results in low graduation rates

(Bailey, 2009; Horn & Nevill, 2006). Further studies on the impact of students’ preparation on

their graduation rates have revealed a significantly positive relationship between taking fewer

classes per semester and better freshman year grades for students aiming to protect their GPAs

(Adelman, 2006). However, studies agree that obvious indicators of improved student

performance such as previous academic grades and high school GPA can predict the degree of

improvement and time of graduation (Bound, Lovenheim, & Turner, 2010; Cullinane & Lincove,

2014). Moreover, the degree may differ for minority and first-generation students given their

predictive utility of precollege preparation (Nettles, Millet & Ready, 2003).

45

Parental education/economy. Research has highlighted why immigrant students vary in

their adjustment capacity in college. Some policymakers have also considered the family

background, human capital, demographic effects, as well as school impacts as important variables

(Glick & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Suarez-Orozco et al., 2008). The variations, many scholars

contend, may arise from other sources such as host community characteristics and governmental

factors (Portes & Rambaut, 2001; Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 2001). Yoshikawa and Way

(2008) extend their study to nonfamily factors that shape the adjustment of children and youths

from immigrant families. Employing qualitative and quantitative methods, they highlight proximal

(peer and extended family contexts) and distal (institutional policy and legal issues) forces that

combine as trajectories associated with immigrant youth socialization. In a qualitative study of 23

Black immigrants attending a public research central university, Griffin et al. (2012) study the role

habitus plays in how Black immigrant students engage in predisposition, search for, and choose to

attend college. The results from the interviews drawing on the two integrated frameworks of Hossler

and Gallagher show that habitus is intimately connected with Black immigrant students’ intention

to attend college. They further reiterate that habitus is not only a means of individual social mobility

but an imperative part of a family legacy and support system.

Institutional/ collegiate environment variables (ICEV).Institutional/College

Environment Variables (ICEV) are operationalized by control factors (liberal arts colleges, private

or public institutions), faculty/mentoring, and student support services.

Institutional factors. Scholars do not seem to agree on the relationship between institutional

mission and student outcomes. Examinations of institutional expenditures on gains in student

learning have indicated significant positive effects (Toutkoushian & Smart, 2001). Drawing on the

College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ) (Pike, Kuh, & Gonyea, 2003) and using the six

46

dominant Carnegie classifications for four-year colleges within a stratified random sample of 1,500

undergraduates across the country, it is found that institutional type leads to variations in students’

college experiences.

Pascarella & Terenzini (2005) suggest that certain policy intervention programs be carried

out by higher institutions to promote diversity. Such packages encourage students to undertake one

or more courses related to “race-ethnicity, national, or historical cultures, gender, social class,

sexual orientation, age and disabilities” (p. 312). In a study on the effects of institutional inputs on

the time to degree, while controlling for individual characteristics, Cullinane and Lincove (2014)

draw upon a large statewide data set of 99 colleges and universities. Applying a competing risks

model, they compare on-time graduation to late graduation, dropouts, and graduation times

exceeding six years. Their findings show that student and institutional factors have a significant

influence on the time it takes students to obtain a degree, which is in line with some theoretical

predictions regarding institutional characteristics, investments and resources, state policies, college

costs, and student support services (Bound, Lovenheim, & Turner, 2010; Long, 2008). Studies posit

that national average graduation rates hover around 50%, but selective public universities and

colleges have graduation rates over 75% (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).

Graduation rates vary based on institutional type, and a significant shift has been seen in

gender dominance, with females having more success at nearly all levels of post-secondary

education. In a cohort starting in 2006, more females graduated from all institutions (by 5%)

compared to their male counterparts (specifically, by 5% in private non-profit institutions and by

6% in public institutions). Male students still have a higher graduation rate (by 7%) in private for-

profit colleges and universities (NCES, 2016).

47

Faculty support/mentoring. Scholars have recognized the tremendous impact of the faculty

on students’ academic achievement (Astin, 1993; Cole, 2010; Dixon, 2003; Lundberg & Schreiner,

2004). Studies have shown that the discomfort between Black students and faculty in PWIs can be

attributed to culturally insensitive faculty members (Griffin, et al., 2012; Guiffrida & Douthit,

2010), stereotypical attitudes towards Blacks (Fries-Britt & Turner, 2001), down-playing Black

perspectives in college curricula (Guiffrida, 2005), and alienation and discrimination (Cole, 2010;

Cole & Jackson, 2005). Guiffrida and Douthit (2010) argue that strong relationships with faculty

are crucial to the success of students on campus. They extol the role modeling and mentorship of

Black faculty in PWIs. Earlier studies highlight the positive impact of faculty–student interactions

(Kuh & Hu, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Different strategies have been conceived

as encouraging better relationships between students and faculty, including out-of-class contacts

(Cox & Orehovec, 2007; Kuh & Hu, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) as well as contacts related

to academic and intellectual matters (Einarson & Clarkberg, 2010; Flowers, 2004, Lundberg &

Schreiner, 2004). In a research survey drawn from 37,401 undergraduate students from 14 research-

extensive universities with a 46% response rate, Einarson & Clarkberg (2010) examine the impact

of faculty–student relationships on college outcomes. Guided by Astin’s (1991) theory of student

involvement, the researchers develop separate regression models for four racial groups (Latino,

Asian American, African American, and White). Their findings show a significant relationship of

out-of-class interaction with faculty and indicate greater academic benefits for African Americans

and social benefits for Latino students.

The role of counselors in providing mentoring expertise and advice positively aids the

adjustment of Black students in PWIs. Student mentoring has been identified as a viable platform

that involves informal and formal strategies that provide students with the necessary instrumental

48

and emotional support they require to succeed in college (Allen & Eby, 2007). Indeed, studies have

the invaluable impact of mentoring (Nakamura & Shernoff, 2009; Cramer & Prentice-Dunn,

2007).It transcends the apprenticeship model of graduate education and has tremendous effects,

especially on minority college students (NCES, 2010). College students’ experiences with various

mentoring approaches during their undergraduate studies have been associated with improved

relationships resulting in better grades (Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001). Empirical studies have

identified three major types of mentoring: employee mentoring geared towards career building (Eby

et al., 2008); academic mentoring focusing on academic adjustment, retention, and academic

success; and youth mentoring targeting disconcerted youths and providing possible support for and

management of deviant behavior (DuBois & Katcher, 2005). Most scholars refer to the bi-

directional component of mentoring. This presupposes a mutual relationship between faculty and

student in such a manner that their individual characteristics benefit from the mentoring practice

(Cramer & Prentice-Dunn, 2007).

Studies demonstrate that mentoring is effective when the encounter profits both the students

and the faculty. Therefore, mentors contribute critically to college access, persistence, academic

achievement, and the career success of minority students (Nakamura & Shernoff, 2009; Zambrana

et al., 2015). The effect of undergraduate mentoring is advancing. In a review of undergraduate

mentoring programs, Gershenfeld (2014) underlines the 50% social validity and 75% absence of

information on primary mentoring programs in 20 empirical studies in mentoring programs from

2008 to 2012. In a study by Amaral and Vala (2009), a posttest experience in a chemistry course is

carried out on 6439 undergraduate students to ascertain the effect of peer mentoring on student

achievement. The findings show that students who served as prepared peer mentors earned better

grades in subsequent chemistry courses than their unprepared counterparts. Similar studies have

49

reported the positive impacts of mentoring opportunities on students’ academic performance (Goff,

2011), academic integration (Torres & Hernandez, 2009), and exposure to research (Yaffe, Bender,

& Sechrest, 2012).

Mentors and counselors perform the crucial job of preparing and guiding Black students

transitioning to PWIs. It is maintained that Black immigrant students are faced with numerous

challenges in PWIs beyond academic preparation and personal ability (Guiffrida & Douthit, 2010).

In a qualitative study, Guiffrida (2005) finds that high-achieving Black students in PWIs have a

preference for Black rather than White faculty members as mentors. This choice is based on certain

underlying attributes of Black faculty, including their capacity to provide student-centered

academic/career advising and student advocacy as well as their confidence in students’ abilities to

do better (Guiffrida, 2005).

Student support services. Saenz, Ngai, and Hurtado (2007) quantitatively examine the

influence of positive interactions among college students. Reviewing earlier literature, Chang et al.

(2004) propose that the campus environment should promote opportunities for more racial contacts.

Their research reveals that greater racial and ethnic diversity on campuses enhances learning

outcomes. Moreover, they hold that there are other informal advantages related to students’ choices

in peer groups with regard to sororities, ethnic organizations, athletics, and student government.

Utilizing longitudinal data from the Preparing Students for a Diverse Democracy Project, the results

from the interviews show a marked correlation with interactions across race during the

undergraduate year, comfort with diverse peers, and overall comfort on campus. Similarly, drawing

on surveys of 254 full-time, first-year, non-transfer African American students and 291 randomly

selected White peers, Schofield et al. (2010) focus on the precursors of college friendships between

White and African American first-year college students at a large, mid-Atlantic PWI. Their findings

50

strongly link precollege and in-college contacts within intergroup friendships at the end of the

students’ first year.

Similarly, Maramba and Valaquez (2012) conduct studies on the influences of campus

experience on the ethnic identity development of students of color. Their qualitative research

involving 19 students at a selective, research-intensive PWI show that improved consciousness of

one’s ethnic group has both cognitive and non-cognitive benefits (sense of competence, sense of

belonging, interpersonal relationships, and commitments). Drawing on the longitudinal data from

the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) operated by the Higher Education Research

Institute (HERI) of UCLA, Chang, Astin, and Kim (2004) examine the educational relevance of

cross-racial interaction among undergraduates and what campuses can do to sustain best practices.

Applying Astin’s conceptual framework, six outcome measures emerged, focusing on affective

development, behavioral, cognitive, and psychological areas. The findings show that cross-racial

interaction does not follow same path of gain for people of color as student body diversification.

Bicultural Experience Variables (BEV). Bicultural Experience Variables (BEV) are

measured by cross-racial group interaction, peer interaction on campus, co-curricular group

involvement, and racial segregation on campus.

Cross-racial group interaction. Black immigrant populations at very selective institutions

have continued to grow, yet they have remained at the lower rungs of the academic achievement

ladder for the past three decades. Studies establishing the relationship between interactions on

campus and students’ experiences with academic achievements end with motley findings based on

institutional differences and the multicultural spreading of campuses. The literature on interracial

interactions on campus has identified certain frameworks outlining some predisposing features that

predict interracial contacts, such as “availability, propinquity, homophily, balancing, and sociality”

51

(Wimmer & Lewis, 2010). The spread of students from diverse cultural backgrounds builds the

foundation for interracial contacts, made possible by the degree of space and time accessibility

resulting from the curricular and co-curricular schedules on campus (Bowman & Park, 2014).

Same-group preferences of friendship are more to likely be influenced by the frequency of contacts

related to course choices, language comfort, and common recreational interests. Students who are

more sociable readily establish relationships beyond their own racial groups, and the multiplier

effect of this interracial crisscrossing of friendly overtures may bring new recognition of the

amazing interracial links through bicultural socialization. Drawing upon the NLSF, Bowman

(2011) employs Gurin’s theoretical model and explores the impact of interracial college interactions

on precollege exposure to diversity. The study points out that interracial interactions are directly

related to college satisfaction. The large database provides an in-depth representation of students’

precollege exposure to diversity and explains the importance of a positive campus environment for

enhancing diversity in college. Later research by Bowman (2013) examines the relationship

between interracial interactions and college outcomes. Using several control variables (gender,

parental education, family income, high school GPA, socializing and relaxing, study abroad,

undergraduate major, and institutional type), he finds that interracial interactions (specifically Asian

interactions with Blacks, Whites, and Hispanics) are related to becoming a better person and

preparation for post-college life.

Peers interaction on campus. Intergroup friendships on campus result from the socialization

experiences of students with their peers. Establishing strong, friendly ties with students is the crux

of the diversity experience on campus. The values of friendship are exceedingly enormous and

captured by numerous studies: promoting knowledge of out-of-group (Schofield et al., 2010) and

52

intergroup closeness (Tropp, 2007) reduces contemporary racism (McClelland & Linnander,

2006) and shapes intergroup attitudes towards diversity (Denson & Bowman, 2013).

Co-curricular group involvement. Higher education researchers are currently focusing on

diversity programs and their impacts on college student achievement. Institutions have continually

argued for the huge benefits of such programs in fostering cross-racial interaction (Park, 2009). It

is believed that they promote learning and egalitarianism (Gurin et al., 2002). Studies have

examined different dimensions of the components of diversity that promote a healthy campus

environment and interracial relationships (Whitt et al., 2001). Important steps are taken by

institutions to promote diversity programs through formal, classroom, and co-curricular avenues.

Stevenson and Whelan (2013) refer to diversity programs highlighted by Kuh (2008) that support

interracial relationships in college. These include “…first-year seminars and experiences; common

intellectual experiences; learning communities; writing-intensive courses; collaborative

assignments and projects. They also include ‘science as science is done’/undergraduate research;

diversity/global learning; service learning, community-based learning; internships; capstone

courses and projects” (Stevenson & Whelan, 2013, p. 19). Similarly, Pascarella and Terenzini

(2005) report on certain policy intervention programs carried out by higher institutions to promote

diversity. Such packages encourage students to undertake one or more courses related to “race-

ethnicity, national, or historical cultures, gender, social class, sexual orientation, age and

disabilities” (p. 312).

Studies have shown that courses offered to students from diverse racial backgrounds are

significantly able to support genuine openness to diversity, improved student racial–ethnic

attitudes, decreased racial prejudice, multicultural understanding, and interracial comfort (Antonio,

2001). Collecting data from undergraduate college students from the University of California

53

(1996–1997 school year) and from the annual survey of freshmen of the Cooperative Institutional

Research Program, Antonio (2001) carries out a multiple regression analysis examining diversity

and the influence of friendship groups in college. His findings suggest that diversity improves

socialization within predictable institutional environments. Using the data from two national

surveys—the Fall 1994 Co-operative Institutional Research Program and the 1998 Spring College

Student Survey (CSS)—Park (2009), examines (a) student satisfaction with campus racial climates,

(b) traditional institutional structures, and (c) behavioral diversity programs that favorably impacted

student achievement in college. The findings support previous reports that campus diversity has

positive implications for Black students with regard to college satisfaction (Hurtado et al., 2007).

Scholars have denounced the marginal attention given to minority cultures (Harushimana &

Awokoya, 2011; Williams, 2007). The socialization experiences of Black immigrant students bring

different skills, cultural knowledge, and experiences into their integral learning system. Diversity

programs on campus that consider the potential benefits of growing minority groups utilize

innovative strategies to meet the academic and social needs of diverse minority groups to forestall

the unprecedented oversight of “majority-in-the-minority hegemony” (Harushimana, 2007, p. 70).

Racial segregation on campus. Social categorization had remained a common feature of college

life, and hence studies have attempted to address the prevalent racial prejudices that challenge

students’ integration and positive outcomes in college. Scholars have viewed campuses as

microcosmic representations of the macro society (Cole, Case, Curtin, & Rios, 2011).

Traditionally, racial groups operate within the seemingly parallel terrains of out-of-group and in-

group configurations following the imaginary lines of a “we and them” mentality. Such a mindset,

which precipitates into monopolistic and dichotomized worldviews, views reality through a more

lopsided sequence of personal judgments short-circuited in the world beyond the self. Largely,

54

academic culture and resource-poor environments may contribute to common challenges of the

integration process in college (Robichaud & Soares, 2014). In a study examining whether

knowledge of the racial diversity of White college students’ friendships affected Black and White

students’ meta-perceptions before an interpersonal interaction, Wout, Murphy, and Steel (2010)

find that an interaction partner’s racial galaxy of friends can moderate expectations in interracial

interactions.

Summary

The fate of marginal persons caught in the way of two cultures has been highlighted for

those who have to contend with the psychological stresses of trying to retain the integrity of their

original cultural group (LaFromboise et al., 1993; Marks, Patton, & Coll, 2011; Padilla, 2006).

Becoming bicultural is fraught with negative psychological outcomes, which could be solved by

assimilation into the dominant culture. Other authors consider a new dimension different from the

concept of marginality, arguing that through socialization, individuals could attain high levels of

cultural competence in two cultures (Del Pilar & Udasco, 2004; Padilla, 2006; Phinney & Devich-

Navarro, 1997). As a growing social phenomenon, biculturalism is conceptually identified with

significant adjustment outcomes. Consequently, bicultural individuals maintain optimal levels of

sociocultural and psychological adjustments (Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2013; Schwartz et al.,

2010). Some sociocultural benefits include higher academic achievements (Fuligni, Witkow, &

Garcia, 2005; Giuffrida & Douthit, 2010; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997; Nguyen & Benet-

Martinez, 2013) and career success (Okocha, 2008; Saenz, Ngai & Hurtado, 2007; Stebleton, 2010).

Further psychological gains include better self-esteem (Torres, 2009), improved well-being and

adjustment (Shih & Sanchez, 2005), and fewer mental health issues (De Coteau et al., 2003;

LaFromboise et al., 1993; Smokowski & Bacallao, 2007).

55

Black immigrant students in PWIs, hypothetically, represent high-achieving students with

moderate social and human capital resources. Their experiences in college will inadvertently draw

from the melting pot of the socio-cultural and academic environments. Under such circumstances,

negative-ability stereotypes could be identified, and the opportunity structure of mainstream

society is easily demonstrated. Exploring the existing empirical research and relating it to this

study, it is necessary to project Black immigrant students’ qualities, distinctiveness, and social

and academic experiences to uncover unknown variables that potentially depress the academic

achievements of Black immigrant students. This study adopts Phinney and Devich-Navarro’s

(1997) conceptual framework to highlight the Black immigrant students’ bicultural experiences in

the process of integration into the dominant culture. Based on Phinney and Device-Navarro’s

(1997) assumption that the process of balancing between ethnic and mainstream cultures is

critical for seeing the wider society as inclusive, this study explores the heuristic values of

blended biculturalism for Black immigrant students in PWIs in the United States.

56

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

Research Overview

This study examines the impact of Black immigrant students’ bicultural experiences on

their academic achievement at highly selective institutions in the United States. The study

investigates whether the bicultural experiences of Black immigrant students relate to academic

achievement, controlling for other demographic variables.

Research Questions

1. What are the background characteristics of foreign-born Black students (i.e.,

demographic background, socioeconomic background, academic preparation, and high school

background) compared to those of US-born Black students? Does the (four year / six-year)

graduation rate for foreign-born Black students differ from that of US-born Black students?

2. What influence, if any, do college environments (e.g., type of college attended, faculty

support, and student support services) have on academic achievement for each group of students?

3. Controlling for student background characteristics and college environments, do

bicultural experiences contribute to academic achievement as measured by the six-year graduation

rate for each group of students? If so, to what extent?

The research questions were built based on Figure 3 below:

57

Figure 3. Research model for the attributes of the bicultural socialization experiences of Black

immigrant students.

Graduation

(4-year)

(6-year)

Background Characteristics Variables (BCV)

Demographic (gender)

Socioeconomic background (Parents’ highest education and financial status)

Academic Preparation (SAT scores)

Bicultural Experience Variables (BEV)

Interracial relations

Closest friends: gender

Race of 1st person

Extracurricular activities

Degree of racial segregation on campus

Institutional/College Environment Variables (ICEV)

Control (liberal arts colleges, private or public)

Faculty interaction

Commitment to racial diversity

Independent Variables

Dependent Variable

58

Hypothesis

This study hypothesizes that the more bicultural students become, the more likely they are

to succeed in college, as measured by four- and six-year graduation. The basis for this hypothesis

draws upon theories and previous research. The theoretical perspectives of Berry (1990), Ogbu

(1990), Weidman (1989), and Phinney and Devich-Navarro (1997), whichare reviewed in Chapter

Two, posit that students’ bicultural socialization experiences in college play a significant role in

their academic achievement. The models demonstrate that cultural identification is crucial, as

Black immigrant students interpret their experiences while navigating two cultures.

College students negotiate the process of integrating into the mainstream culture in

college. This presupposes that Black immigrant students who come to campuses with openness to

other racial groups and engage in effective interactions characterized by positively cultivated

attitudes towards other peers, enjoying interactions with faculty and support within their college

environments are more likely to reap the benefits of both the heritage and mainstream cultures

and become blended biculturals (Phinney & Devich-Navarroh, 1997).

In addition, blended biculturalism brought about by the synergy of heritage and

mainstream cultures has been increasingly shown to lead to higher academic achievement

(Fuligni, Witkow, & Garcia, 2005; Marks, 2011), enhanced self-esteem (Phinney et al., 1997),

positive self-concept and integration (Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997), minimal mental issues

(Smokowski & Bacallao, 2007), better social adjustment(Chen, Benet-Martinez, Wu, Lam, &

Bond, 2013; Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2013), and a better sense of competence, belonging,

commitment, and interpersonal relationships (Maramba & Velasquez,2012).

59

Research Design

The study is a quantitative research using data from the NLSF (1999–2003). NLSF’s

primary purpose is to provide comprehensive data on the academic and social progress of college

students, accounting for their level of intellectual engagement and social integration while

controlling for pre-existing factors such as economic, social, and demographic backgrounds. The

questionnaire included Likert-scale questions. Subsequently, four follow-up surveys were

performed from the spring of 2001 to 2003.

The forthcoming sections of this chapter discuss the research methods and the NLSF

survey design, including institutional the sample, student sample, and data collection. The second

section deliberates on the factor scale of the dependent variable and a set of independent

variables. The next section describes the analyses of the study by reviewing the statistical

procedures employed in the hierarchical logistic regression analyses as well as other analytical

limitations of this study.

Sample

The NLSF was conducted by Douglas S. Massey and Camille Z. Charles. The sample

includes research universities, private institutions, as well as liberal arts colleges. Massey et al.

(2003) provide detailed characteristics of the participating colleges and universities.

The final sample comprised a nationwide survey of first-time freshmen students who are

either U.S. citizens or resident aliens at 28 selective PWIs in the United States. Of the 4573

freshmen invited for the study, 3924 (86%) participated in the study. Overall, 3,098 students

participated in all five waves of data collection, with a response rate of 79%, through phone

60

interviews (with a retest response of 79%). The final NLSF sample included 1,051 African

Americans, 959 Asians, 916 Latinos, and 998 Whites while accounting for students who dropped

out and were followed-up to reduce selection bias.

Student Sample

The sample used in this study includes only Black students who participated in all five

waves of the survey. They were drawn from 28 selective institutions in the United States. These

freshmen had a median SAT score of 1243. About 71% had been in the top 10% of their classes at

high school graduation. The total sample size of the Black population that participated in the

survey was 688, with 57.6% females and 42.4% males. The institutional types from which the

respondents were drawn were private research universities (57.6%), public research universities

(31.7%), and liberal arts colleges (10.7%) (Table 3-1). During the first wave of the survey, 959

respondents participated, with 660 (68.8%) U.S.-born Blacks and 297 (31.0%) foreign-born

Blacks.

Table.3-1.The Composition of Black Population by Immigrant /Native Origins

Gender Frequency Percent Female Male Total

396 292 688

57.6 42.4 100.0

Type of college attended Valid Liberal Arts College

74

10.7

Private Research University 396 57.6 Public Research University 218 31.7 Total 688 100.0

61

Table 3-2

Black Immigrant Students born in the US/Outside the US

Type of College

Attended

Born in U.S Born Outside

U.S

GENDER

MALE

FEMALE

Liberal arts

college

54 20

Private research

university

273 121

Public research

university

149 69

Total 476 210

Born in US 208 268

Born outside US

TOTAL

82

290

128

396

62

Model Specification

Dependent Variable. Overall, this study utilized a dichotomous outcome variable

(graduation rate) to determine the probability that the more students are bicultural, the more they

graduate within four or six years. The one categorical, dichotomous variable, six-year graduation

rate (yes/no), was coded 0=not graduate from college and 1=graduated from college, as drawn

from Wave 5 of the NLSF survey. Specifically, graduation data were obtained from the offices of

the registrar of the 28 colleges and universities in the NLSF and the National Student Clearing

House (NSC), which contained records of respondents who graduated within four and six years.

A binary logistic regression was applied to ascertain the parametric relationship between a group

of independent variables and a dichotomous or binary dependent variable (Homer & Lemeshow,

2000).

Independent Variables. The independent variables were clustered into three groups

reflecting the hypothesized influence on the dependent variable. The rationale for the selection of

predictor variables was their potential in creating opportunities for bicultural socialization

transmission that might influence academic achievement.

BCV, ICEV, and BEV were included in the analyses as primary control variables. The

first cluster predictors included the students’ BCV, embracing demographics (gender) and

indicating male and female respondents with the dummy-coding 10=male and 21= female. The

socioeconomic background refers to parents’ highest level of education, that is, the highest level

of schooling achieved by the mother/father on a seven-point scale: from 1=mother/father has less

than grade school to 7=graduate or professional degree. The background characteristics explain

the family’s financial status, estimating a respondent’s household annual income on a 14-point

scale coded as follows: 1= under $3000, 2–5=between $3000–$6,999, 6–9=ranging from $7000,

63

10–11=$7000–$24,999, 11–13=$25,000–$74,999, and 14=$75,000 or more. The academic

preparation related SAT verbal and quantitative scores and was scored from 0 to 800.

The second cluster of predictors included variables on institutional/college environment,

which included control (institutional type: liberal arts college, private, or public), faculty

support/mentoring, and commitment to racial diversity on campus. The institutional type was

coded on a 4-point scale as follows: 1=public school, 2=religious school, 3=private non-religious

school, and 4=home schooled. Racial segregation on campus related the extent institution’s

commitment to racial and ethnic diversity on campus and was emphasized and coded on a 5-point

scale: 1=very little, 2=slight, 3=some, 4=substantial, and 5=very substantial.

The third set of variables (BEV) represented bicultural experiences pertaining to cross-racial

group interaction, measuring intergroup relations among students on campus, and were measured

on the scale of 0-10, with ‘0’ designating “very poor” and ‘10’ indicating “excellent”. The race of

the closest friends in college were represented thus: 1 = White,2 = Black/African American,3 =

Hispanic,4 = Asian,5 = Biracial and 7 =Native –American. The gender of the best friend was

listed as either male or female. Further, extracurricular activities included programs and efforts to

promote students’ integration process on campus and reviewed co-curricular involvements, which

measured the categorical variable relating students’ involvement in activities or groups while in

college and was coded as 1=yes and 50=no. Finally the degree of racial segregation on campus

was measured using the scale very little, slight, some, substantial, and very substantial.

64

Table 3-3.Variables used in the Bicultural Socialization Experiences of Black Immigrant

Students

Variables Coding Wave

Dependent 6-year graduation rate (yes/no)Coded 0=Not graduate from college;1= graduated from college

overallgGraduation within 4

years / 6 years Wave 5

Independent

Background characteristics Variables (BCV)

Demographic

Gender

Coded 0=male and 1= female Wave 1

Socio-Economic Background

Parent’s Highest Education

Academic Preparation

highest level of schooling achieved by mother seven – point scale:1= mother has less than Grade school to 7= Graduate or professional

degree

SAT verbal and quantitative ;scaled0-800;Don’t and

Refused as missing

Wave 1

Wave 3

65

Institutional/College Environment variables(ICEV)

Control(liberal arts colleges, private or public)

school type Coded in 4-point scale:1= Public school,2=

Religious School,3=Private Non-Religious,4=Home Schooled

Wave 4

Faculty Relation Support /Mentoring

level of faculty interest in students at college Coded in a 7-point scale: 1= very high,

2=somewhat high,3 = neither high nor low,4=somewhat

low,5=very low

Wave5

Student Support Services institution’s commitment to racial and ethnic diversity on campus Coded in a 7-point

scale: 1=way too little,2=somewhat too little,3=just enough,

4=somewhat too much, way too much,7=refused,8=don’t know

Wave5

66

Block 3:Bicultural Experience Variables(BEV)

Cross-racial group interaction

intergroup relations among students on campus Coded : 0=very poor, 1-9, 10=excellent

Wave 5

Closest friends

the race of the respondent’s closest friends during college years Coded in a 6-point-scale: 1=White, 2=Black/African American, 3=Hispanic, 4=Asian,

6=biracial, 7=Native American,

Gender: Male; Female.

Wave 5

Co-curricular group involvement Racial Segregation on College Campus

Involvement in activity or group while in college. Coded in4-point scale: 1=Yes, 0=No,

the degree of racial separation on the campus Coded in a 5-point scale : 1= very little,2=slight,3=some,4=substantial,5=very substantial

Wave 4 Wave5

Data Analyses

Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted for the data derived from the multi-

institutional samples “to test models and predict categorical outcomes with several categories”

(Pallant, 2010). The use of the binary logistic regression method is appropriate because it studies

data with a group structure and a binary outcome variable. The independent variables are grouped

into three clusters, where the parameters (i.e., BCV, ICEV, and BEV) relate the level of

relationship with the outcome variable. The NLSF data had a nested structure with repeated

observations within the five survey waves, reflecting the interactions between U.S- and foreign-

67

born Blacks. Logistic regression allows for the exploration of the predictive capacity of blocks of

variables while controlling for some other variables (e.g., background characteristics and

institutional environments).

The logistic regression technique makes it possible to test models to predict the

categorical outcomes of many independent variables and their effect on the binary outcome

variable (graduated in four years or graduated in six years). With logistic regression, there is no

assumption that the continuous variables indicate normal distribution or that their variances and

covariances across the groups are equivalent. One important feature of logistic analysis is the

ability to establish a summation of the accuracy of the items measured in the model while

underscoring the sensitivity and specificity of both the negative and positive predictive values

contained in the model. The procedure for analysis entails the recoding of independent variables,

followed by the classification of the descriptive statistics of the whole samples in the model. The

descriptive analysis techniques are employed for the means, frequencies, and cross-tabulations.

The next step involves the application of regression analysis for the samples in the model to

determine the influence of the independent variables on the outcome variable to predict the

significant effects of the independent variables on the academic achievement of Black immigrant

students (US- and foreign-born). In this research, the model of the bicultural socialization

experience of Black immigrant students was represented using the following logit model:

y=log p/1-p = Bo+b1X1+b2X2+b3X3,

where

y is the predicted variable (GR) graduate/not graduate within six years

B0 is the intercept, commonly called the constant

B1 is a coefficient, a constant that multiplies all the available values of the variable X1

68

B2, B3, and B4 are coefficients, constants that multiply all the available values of the

variables X1, X2, X3, and X4 (BCV+ICEV+BEV)

P is the probability that y=1, and X1, X2, and X3 are the independent variables

y denotes Graduation Rate and X1–4 depict the independent variables

(BCV+ICEV+BEV)

GR=log p/1-p=boo+b1BCV+b2CEV+b3ICEV

In reporting the logistic regression, the results are tabulated stipulating the beta values,

standard errors, significance value, and general statistics of the model. In addition, the odds ratio,

confidence intervals, and constant are reported. Descriptive statistics represented in the

frequencies and cross-tabulations help to expound the details of the participants’ characteristics

and their level of influence on the outcome variable. Finally, the variables that were significant

predictors were identified.

Limitations of the Study

The NLSF data did not provide a cumulative college GPA variable. Although GPA is often

used as a predictor of academic success and graduation, this study does not include a college GPA

variable. In addition, the information on the years to graduation was self-reported in Wave 5 of

the survey. Similarly, part of the respondents’ feedback on academic preparation was based on

self-reported advanced placement tests using 1–10 scales for only six subjects (i.e., foreign

languages, social studies, natural sciences, mathematics, history and English). Notwithstanding

previous research (Noftle & Robinns, 2007), identifying strong links between self-reporting with

GPA or academic/ cognitive factors makes for a more robust model.

In disaggregating foreign-born and native-born immigrants, there were no self-reported

69

category of second-generation immigrants. There was an assumption that the respondents

attended US high schools, as some Black immigrant students of foreign-born origin who did not

attend high school in the United States may have a different outlook on campus diversity and

stereotype threats.

Another limitations of this study is that it did not disaggregate the data by region or identify

the regions where the Black immigrants originated. Future research should collate data from the

Black immigrant students’ home countries. Some researchers have pointed out the relevance of

understanding the heterogeneity within Black immigrant groups, especially in PWIs (Massey &

Fischer, 2006; Massey et al., 2007). However, subtle differentiation and recognition of certain

characteristics such as immigrant-origin males vs. females and the difficulty level of integration

for immigrant students from Anglophone and Francophone backgrounds requires more emphasis.

Due to the use of secondary data, certain relevant details containing series of constructs

that might have explained or accounted for basic insights into Black immigrant students’

experiences and academic outcomes could have been omitted while more objective interpretations

were unsuspectingly ignored. Feedback from the self-reported data does not explicitly indicate the

interpersonal styles of the students and the possible roles they play in encouraging or limiting

interactions with their peers and the faculty. The baseline survey (Wave 1) was carried out

through face-to-face interviews. The follow-up surveys (Waves 2–4) were conducted through

telephone interviews. Scholars question the reliability and value of these types of data sources,

citing uncertainty as to whether the information derived in this way explicitly denotes primary or

secondary material (Creswell, 2009). The NLSF data covered 28 selective PWIs. There may be a

problem with generalizing the findings to other tertiary institutions beyond the selective structure

of the design.

70

Summary

Bicultural socialization experiences in college are crucial to understanding how race differences

impact academic outcomes, especially for immigrant students. Students’ viewpoints on racial

diversity on campus speak volumes regarding how they perceive the world around them and how

reality transcribes cognition and recognition in a more corporate way. The key point remains that

between group identity, in-group members view out-of-group members very differently. These

attitudes have been the subject of research in higher education. In Chapter Three, the research

questions and design guiding the discourse were presented and the analytic techniques were used

to focus and sharpen the research while identifying some limitations of the dataset. By applying

multidimensional variables, efforts were made to add depth and contextual flora to the survey

analysis in an attempt to decipher potential factors for improved academic achievement for Black

immigrant students. The following Chapters Four and Five will present the results and a

discussion of the findings in addition to proposing suggestions for future research as well as

recommendations for policymakers.

71

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS

This study examines what differences, if any, exist in the bicultural experiences and academic

outcomes between US-born and foreign-born Blacks enrolled in PWIs. It compares whether the

characteristics of Black immigrant students differ from those of US-born Black students and

whether academic success (measured by four- and six-year graduation) differs between US- and

foreign-born students. Controlling for student demographic characteristics and college

environmental and institutional factors, this study also investigates the extent to which bicultural

experiences affect Black immigrant students’ college as compared to their native-born

counterparts.

This dissertation is guided by the research questions, which center on a set of predictors:

(1) The background characteristics of Black students (e.g., demographic background,

socioeconomic background, precollege academic preparation), (2) the influence of college

environments (e.g., type of institution, faculty and student interaction, and (3) the influence of

bicultural experiences.

In this chapter, the results are organized in two sections: descriptive and logistic

regression analyses. The results of descriptive analyses are presented with means, frequencies,

and cross-tabulations. Binary logistic regression was performed to examine the predictability of

the independent variables for the four- and six- year graduation of Black immigrant students

compared to US-born Black peers.

This study uses data from the NLSF conducted in the fall in years 1999 to 2003. The

NLSF employs a stratified random sample of 3,924 respondents from 28 selective four-year

colleges and universities in the United States. The data used in this study exclude respondents

who attended a HCBU in the baseline survey; 60 Black students who enrolled in HBCUs were

72

eliminated from the final sample used in this study. Other minority racial groups in the NLSF

data, including Hispanic, Asian, and White students, were also excluded because the focus of the

study was on the bicultural socialization experiences of Black students at PWIs. The final sample

used in this study was 959 Black students (660 US-born and 297 foreign-born).

Descriptive Statistics

Table 4.1 presents students’ demographic characteristics of the independent variables

including gender, socioeconomic status, precollege academic preparations, as well as the

environmental and BEV of the entire samples.

Relating to the BCV, the gender distribution showed that the majority of the sample was

female (56.5% vs. 43.5% males).When examining the sample according to socio-economic

status, the respondents reported that 9% of their family incomes were from under $3,000 to

$19,000, 3.3% responded that their family incomes were between $20,000–$24,999, 4.9% had

family incomes of $25,000–$34,999), 9.8% had family incomes of $35,000–$49,999, 17.6% had

family incomes of $50,000–$74,999, and 55.4% had family incomes of $75,000 or above.

The distribution of parental education shows that 3.1% of the mothers had “grade school,”

1.8% had “some high school,” 12.6% had “high school graduate diploma”and12.6% had “some

college,” 37.4% were “college grad.,” 2.8% had “some post grad.,” and 29.7 had

“grad./professional degrees.” Similarly, 2.9% of fathers had “grade school,” 1.9% had “some high

school,” 8.7% had “high school grad.,” 5.5% had “some college,” 24.7% had “college

grad.,”1.5% had “post grad.,” and 29.7% earned “grad./professional degrees.” About two-thirds of

the respondents scored 723 (on average) on both SAT verbal and quantitative tests.

The distribution of the Institutional /College Environment Variables (ICEV)showed that

58.2% of the respondents attended private research universities, 31.8% attended public research

73

universities, and 10% attended liberal arts college. With regard to the level of faculty interaction

with students, 24.1% of the respondents indicated “very high” and 43.3% “somewhat high” while

20.8% reported “neighter high nor low.” In relation to the commitment to racial diversity, 7.5% of

the students responded that there was “way too little,” 31.9% reported “somewhat too little,”

39.9% reported “just enough,” 15.8% agreed with “somewhat too much,” and 4.9% reported

“way too much.”

In terms of the BEV, the results showed that less than 30.1% of the respondents indicated

“low” interacial interactions, 48.1% listed “moderate” interracial interactions, and 21.8%

reported “high” interracial relations. Regarding the gender of their closest friends, the respondents

revealed that 63.3% were females compared to 36.7% males. Further, specific to the

race/ethnicity of the respondents’ closest friends, 4.4% were biracial, 17.3% were Asian, 7.8%

were Hispanic, 18.6% were Black/African American, and 51.9% were White. A large majority

(81.6%) of the respondents said they participated in extracurricular activities while 18.4%

indicated they did not.

As to the degree of racial segregation on campus, 7.1% of the respondents reported that it

was “very substantial,” 32.8% said it was “substantial,” 35.3% indicated that there was “some,”

16.3% reported it was “slight,” and 8.5% reported that there was “very little” racial segregation.

74

Table 4-1

Descriptive Statistics of the Entire Sample

Variables

(N=959

% of the total sample

Background Characteristics Variables(BCV) (Demographic) Gender: Male Female (Socio-economic status) Under$3000-$19,999 $20,000-$24,999 $25000-$34999 $35000-49999 $50000-$74999 $75000 & above (Parental education) Father’s education level Grade Sch. Some H. Sch. High Sch. Grad. Some College College Grad. Some Post grad. Grad./ Professional degree Mother’s Educ. Level Grade Sch. Some H. Sch. High Sch. Grad. Some College College Grad. Some Post grad. Grad./ Professional degree

417 542 86 32 47 94 169 531 20 18 79 53 237 14 526 29 17 118 118 359 27 285

43.5 56.5 9.0 3.3 4.9 9.8 17.6 55.4 2.9 1.9 8.7 5.5 24.7 1.5 54.8 3.1 1.8 12.6 12.6 37.4 2.8 29.7

75

(Acad. preparation) SAT scores: Verbal Quantitative College Environment Variables(CEV) Type of college attended: Liberal Arts College Private Research University Public Research University Faculty Interaction Very high Somewhat high Neither high/low Somewhat low Very low Commitment to racial diversity at my college Way too little Somewhat too little Just enough Somewhat too much Way too much Bicultural Experience Variables(BEV) Interracial relations Low Moderate High Closest friends: FRD1: gender Male Female Race of 1st person White Black /African American Hispanic Asian Biracial

723 723 96 558 305 200 359 170 82 16 55 250 310 123 38 237 381 151 279 481 397 142 60 132 32

75.4 75.4 10.0 58.2 31.8 24.1 43.3 20.8 9.9 1.9 7.5 31.9 39.9 15.8 4.9 30.1 48.1 21.8 36.7 63.3 51.9 18.6 7.8 17.3 4.4

76

Extracurricular activities Yes No Degree of racial segregation on campus Very little Slight Some Substantial Very substantial

637 144 66 126 273 254 55

81.6 18.4 8.5 16.3 35.3 32.8 7.1

Table 4.2 shows descriptive statistics of the Black students by nativity (US-born vs. foreign-

born). Of the female respondents, 67.5% were US-born compared and 32.5% were foreign-born.

Of the male students, 70.5% were US-born and 29.5% were foreign-born.

When examining socio-economic status, similarity is seen in the lower annual income

category ($20,000–$24,999) between the US-born (50%) and foreign-born students (50%). For

students in the moderate income bracket ($35,000–$49,999), 56.2% were foreign-born compared

to 43.8% who were US-born. However, for the highest income bracket ($75,000 and above),

65.1% of the students were US-born whereas 34.9% were foreign-born.

The distribution for parental education shows that a higher percentage of parents with

college graduate were mothers,69.1% of US-born and 30.9% of foreign-born; compared with

62.4% US-born and 37.6% of foreign-born fathers. Fathers of foreign-born students attained some

high school diplomas 61.1% compared with their US-born counterparts 38.9%.Similarly, mothers

of foreign-born had more grade school diplomas 51.7% than the mothers of US-born 48.3%.

77

Further, the mothers of US-born, earned more post graduate / professional degrees74.% than the

foreign-born 26%.Similarly,the fathers of US-born had 74.3% graduate/ professional degrees

compared with 25.7% of foreign-born. However, US-born students’ fathers had higher

educational attainment compared to foreign-born students.The SAT scores (verbal and

quantitative) were similar for both US- and foreign-born students, which reflects that these

respondents were drawn from selective institutions with rigorous admission requirements. In

regard to the breakdown by institutional type, 67.7% of US-born students were enrolled in liberal

arts colleges compared to 32.3% of foreign-born students. Further, 69.5% of US-born and 30.5%

of foreign-born Blacks were enrolled in selective private research institutions while 67.9% of US-

born and 32.1% of foreign-born Blacks were enrolled in Public Research Universities.

With regard to the level of faculty interaction with students,70% of US-born indicated that

it was “very high”, compared with 30% of foreign-born.The percentage of US-born students who

indicated that faculty interaction was “very low” was 68.8% compared with foreign-born

31.2%.Whereas 71.2% US born responded “neither high/low”,28.8% of their foreign-born

counterparts responded same for faculty relations on campus.In terms of racial diversity on

campus, a higher percentage of the US-born respondents felt that the commitment to racial

diversity was “way too little” (69.1%) as compared to their foreign-born counterparts (30.9%).

More than two-thirds (67.2%) of the US-born respondents reported that this commitment was

“somewhat too little” compared to 32.8% of their foreign-born peers counterparts. Also, US-born

respondents 70.3% indicated that the commitment to racial diversity was “just enough,”

compared with 29.7% of their foreign-born peers.

The breakdown of the BEV in terms of racial relations showed that of the US-born

respondents, 66.7% indicated a “low” level of bicultural experience, 76.9% said it was

78

“moderate,” and 71.1% reported it as “high.” In terms of the foreign-born respondents, 33.3%

answered “low,” 23.1% answered “moderate,” and 28.9% answered “high.” The gender

distribution of closest friends on campus revealed that 66.3% of US-born respondents had close

female friends compared with 33.7% of their foreign-born counterparts. Similarly, 72.0% of US-

born students had male friends compared with 28% of their foreign-born peers. A similar pattern

was also found in that 68.5% of the US-born respondents had “White” friends, 70.4% had

“Black/African American” friends, 70% had “Hispanic” friends, 68.9% had “Asian” friends, and

65.6% had “Biracial” friends. For foreign-born students, 31.5% had “White” friends, 29.6% had

“Black/African American” friends, 30% had “Hispanic” friends, 31.1% had “Asian” friends, and

34.4% had “Biracial” friends.

With regard to extracurricular activities, 69.1% of the US-born respondents indicated that

they participated in the extracurricular activities compared with 30.9% of their foreign-born

counterparts. Further, 77.3% of the US-born students indicated that there was “very little” racial

segregation on campus compared to 21.8% of their foreign-born peers. The analysis shows that

69.0% of the foreign-born students felt there was a “slight” degree of racial segregation on

campus while only 31% of the US-born students agreed, and 66.7% of the foreign-born students

felt there was “some” degree of racial segregation compared to 33.3% of their US-born

counterparts. Approximately 69% of the US-born respondents indicated there was “substantial”

racial segregation compared with 31.1% of the foreign-born respondents; 76.4% of US-born

resondents said the segregation was “very substantial” compared to 23.4% of those foreign-born.

79

Table 4-2

Descriptive Statistics by Nativity

Variables

% of US-born

(n=660)

% of Foreign-born

(n=297)

Background Characteristics Variables(BCV) (Demographics)Gender: Male Female (Socio-economic status) Family Income Under$3000–$19,999 $20,000–$24,999 $25000–$34999 $35000–$49999 $50000–$74999 $75000 & above (Parental education) Father’s education level Grade Sch. Some H. Sch. High Sch. Grad. Some College College Grad. Some Post Grad. Grad./Professional degree Mother’s Educ. Level Grade Sch. Some H. Sch. High Sch. Grad. Some College College Grad. Some Post Grad. Grad./Professional degree College Environment Variables (CEV) Type of college attended: Liberal Arts College Private Research University Public Research University

70.5 67.5 66.7 50.0 66.7 43.8 55.3 65.1 65.0 38.9 57.0 73.6 62.4 78.6 74.3 48.3 58.8 55.9 71.2 69.1 85.2 74.0 67.7 69.5 67.9

29.5 32.5 33.3 50.0 33.3 56.2 44.7 34.9 35.0 61.1 43.0 26.4 37.6 21.4 25.7 51.7 41.2 44.1 28.8 30.9 14.8 26.0 32.3 30.5 32.1

80

Faculty Relation Very high Somewhat high Neither high/low Somewhat low Very low Commitment to racial diversity at my college Way too little Somewhat too little Just enough Somewhat too much Way too much Bicultural Experience Variables (BEV) Racial Relation Low Moderate High Closest friends: FRD1: gender Male Female Race of 1st person White Black /African American Hispanic Asian Biracial Extracurricular activities Yes No Degree of racial segregation on campus Very little Slight Some Substantial Very substantial

70.0 64.9 71.2 68.3 68.8 69.1 67.2 70.3 67.5 73.7 66.7 76.9 71.1 72.0 66.3 68.5 70.4 70.0 68.9 65.6 69.1 70.8 77.3 69.0 66.7 68.9 76.4

30.0 35.1 28.8 31.7 31.2 30.9 32.8 29.7 32.5 26.3 33.3 23.1 28.9 28.0 33.7 31.5 29.6 30.0 31.1 34.4 30.9 29.2 21.8 31.0 33.3 31.1 23.6

Table 4-3 presents the mean and standard deviation values for the continuous variables

(precollege academic preparation) measured by SAT scores (verbal and quantitative) for the US-

81

born and foreign-born participants in the sample. The verbal score for the US-born subgroup in

the total sample has a mean value of 683.31 and a standard deviation of 121.63 while the foreign-

born subgroup has a mean value of 693.73 and a standard deviation of 124.54. The quantitative

score has a mean value of 692.88 and a standard deviation of 128.91 for the US-born respondents

and a mean value of 698.47 and a standard deviation of 126.03 for the foreign-born respondents.

This analysis reveals that there is little difference between these two groups based on standardized

test scores.

Table 4-3

Descriptive Statistics of the Continuous Variable

Variable

US-born

Mean

SD

F-born

Mean

SD

Verbal

Score

683.31 121.63 693.73 124.54

Quantitative

Score

692.88

128.91

698.47

126.03

Table 4-4 presents summary statistics of the graduation rates for the total sample. The participants

who graduated within four years represent 75% of the total sample, compared with an overall

graduation rate of 90% within six years.

82

Table 4-4

Graduation Rates for the Total Sample

Total sample

(n=959)

Graduated % Not graduated %

Grad time 4 years 714 75.1 237 24.9

Grad time 6 years 853 89.7 98 10.3

Table 4-5 summarizes the four-year and six-year graduation rates by nativity. As indicated below,

76.5% of US-born graduated within 4years while 71.8% of foreign-born graduated within 4years.

Furthermore, 90.7% of US-born graduated within 6years while 87.4% of foreign-born graduated

within 6years.This shows that US-born Black students had a slightly higher graduation rate for

both the 4-year and 6-year as compared to foreign-born Black students.

Table 4-5

Descriptive Statistics for the Dependent Variables by Nativity (N=959)

Variable

US Born

(n=655) (%)

Foreign born

(n=297) (%)

Graduation within 4 years

Graduated

Not graduated

Total

501 76.5

154 23.5

655 100.0

211 71.8

83 28.2

294 100.0

83

Graduation within 6 years

Graduated

Not graduated

Total

594 90.7

61 9.3

655 100.0

257 87.4

37 12.6

297 100.0

The descriptive statistical analyses reveal that there are some notable differences in

demographic backgrounds between the foreign- and US-born Black students. Interestingly, a

larger proportion of US-born Black students came from low- and upper-income brackets as

compared to the foreign-born Black subgroup. Foreign-born Black students’ parents had lower

levels of educational attainment compared to their US-born counterparts. Foreign-born Black

students’ precollege academic preparation, as measured by SAT test scores, were slightly higher

than that of the Black students born in the United States. Foreign-born Black students had a

slightly lower rate of both four- and six-year graduation compared to the US-born Black student

subgroup.

Logistic Regression

This section explains the binary logistic analysis, as represented in the related tables. A

binary logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between the

predictor variables (background characteristics variables, college environment variables, and

bicultural experience variables) and the outcome variable (graduation within four and six years).

Three logistic regression models were run for the entire Black students, foreign-born Black

students’ subgroup as well as the US-born Black student subgroup. In the following logistics

regression tables, odds ratios over 1 show an increased likelihood of graduating within four or six

84

years while odds ratios under 1 indicate a significantly lower probability of graduating within four

or six years.

The logistic regression results for the entire sample are displayed in Table 4-6. For the

whole group, almost all of the control variables, including gender, nativity, and parental education

but excluding family income, were not found to be statistically significant (p>.05) predictors of

graduation within four years. In other words, being born in the US was not associated with a

greater chance of four-year graduation when controlling for other variables. Interestingly, having

a higher family income was associated with a lower likelihood of four-year graduation by 2%

(odds ratio=.982, p<.004). In terms of precollege academic preparation, SAT scores were not

related to four-year graduation.

Attending public research institutions was found to be statistically significant in terms of

predicting four-year graduation (odds ratio=3.283, p<.001). In fact, the odds of four-year

graduation for students who attended public institutions were three times higher than those for

students who attended liberal art colleges (reference group). This may because the public

institutions receive support from state government operating subsidies, which might have a direct

impact on lower tuition rates for in-state student populations.

Controlling for all other factors, Black students with higher levels of interracial relations

had statistically significantly lower odds of graduating within four years (odds ratio=.386,

p<.033). This finding is in contrast with previous studies that suggest a positive relationship

between interracial relations on campus and student educational outcomes (Bowen et al., 2009;

Hurtado et al., 1998). However, Black students’ perceptions of institutional commitment to

diversity were not associated with the odds of four-year graduation, nor were the students’

experiences with campus segregation. In sum, the results of the logistic regression for the entire

85

sample show that family income, attendance of public institutions, and interracial relations are

strong predictors of four-year graduation.

Table 4-6

Logistic Regression Predicting the Academic Achievement of the Whole Sample of Black Students

in 4-year Overall Graduation

Variables Log odds

SE Odds ratio

Background Characteristics Variables (BCV) Gender: Male US-born Family income Father’s education level Mother’s education level SAT: Verbal score Quantitative score College Environment variables (CEV) Type of college attended: Private Public Faculty interaction Commitment to racial diversity Bicultural Experience Variables (BEV) Interracial relation FRD1: gender Black Extracurricular activities Campus racial segregation

-.047 .199 -.018*** .009 -.010 .000 .000 -.146 1.189*** -.129 .044 -.951* -.227 .044 .164 -.174

.246 .249 .006 .012 .013 .001 .001 .425 .419 .127 .115 .446 .238 .300 .303 .119

.959 1.220 .982 1.009 .990 1.000 1.000 .865 3.283 .879 1.045 .386 .797 1.045 1.178 .841

Note: SE=Standard error, OR=Odds ratio, Significance: p<0.001***; p<0.01**; p<0.05*

86

The logistic regression was performed to examine the relationship between a number of factors

and the odds of six-year graduation among all Black students, as shown in Table 4-7. Similar to

the four-year graduation results, family income was found to be statistically significant in

predicting six-year graduation (odds ratio=.976, p<.05), revealing that students with higher family

income were 3% less likely to graduate within six years. While institutional type (attendance of

public institution) was shown to relate to the odds of four-year graduation, this predictor was not

found to be statistically significant for six-year graduation. None of the institutional/campus

environmental factors were found to be statistically significant. With regard to the effects of

bicultural experiences on educational outcomes, students’ experience with campus racial

segregation was statistically significant in predicting six-year graduation (odds ratio=.642,

p<0.01). In other words, students who experienced a higher degree of racial segregation on

campus were less likely to graduate within six years. Similar to previous studies, racial

segregation was shown to be one of the strongest predictors of ethnic minorities’

underperformance at selective universities (Chatman, 2008; Cole & Jackson, 2005; Owens &

Lynch, 2012; Owens & Massey, 2011).

Table 4-7

Logistic Regression Predicting the Academic Achievement of the Whole Sample of Black Students

in 6-year Overall Graduation

Variables Log odds

SE Odds ratio

Background Characteristics

87

Variables (BCV) Gender: Male US-born Family income Father’s education level Mother’s education level SAT: Verbal score Quantitative score College Environment variables (CEV) Type of college attended: Private Public Faculty interaction Commitment to racial diversity Bicultural Experience Variables (BEV) Interracial relation FRD1: gender Black Extracurricular activities Campus racial segregation

-.150 .506 -.024* .112 .105 .003 .000 -.393 .059 .017 -.443 -.776 -.143 -.422 -.293 -.443**

.349 .342 .007 .119 .105 .002 .002 .543 .546 .175 .152 .619 .340 .462 .416 .181

.861 1.659 .976 1.119 1.035 1.003 1.000 .675 1.061 1.017 .821 .460 .867 .656 .746 .642


Examining the statistically significant explanatory predictors from the BCV, ICEV and BSV,

family income, public universities, and interracial relations were associated with the odds of four-

year graduation and family income and campus racial segregation were found to be statistically

significant in predicting six-year graduation for all the Black students. In sum, bicultural

88

experiences are associated with the likelihood of Black students graduating within four and six

years at selective PWIs, regardless of their nativity.

Subgroup Analysis by Nativity

US-born Black Student Sub-Group Analysis. Logistic regression was performed to

examine the relationship between a number of factors and the US-born Black students’ four-year

graduation (shown in Table 4-8). Unlike the logistic regression results for the entire group’s four-

year graduation, none of the control variables or institutional factors were found to be statistically

significant in predicting the odds of four-year graduation for the US-born Black student subgroup.

The variables related to bicultural experiences were nonsignificant in predicting the odds of four-

year graduation of the US-born Black students. This finding suggests that Black students who

were born in the US might not need to learn to function both in their own culture and the

mainstream culture to the extent to which Black immigrant students may need to learn the process

of negotiating the values and practices of the host country and their country of origin in order to

successfully adapt to the new environment.

Table 4-8

Logistic Regression Results for US-born Black students’ 4-year Graduation

Variables Log odds

SE Odds ratio

Background Characteristics Variables (BCV) Gender: Male Family income Father’s education level Mother’s education level SAT: Verbal score Quantitative score

-.072 -.014 -.006 .013 -.001 .000

.295 .008 .013 .019 .002 .001

.931 .986 .994 1.013 .999 1.000

89

College Environment variables (CEV) Type of college attended: Private Public Faculty interaction Commitment to racial diversity Bicultural Experience Variables (BEV) Interracial relation FRD1: gender Black Extracurricular activities Campus racial segregation

-.421 .816 -.095 .151 -.596 -.086 .150 .116 -.082

.490 .482 .147 .144 .554 .284 .348 .354 .137

.656 2.261 .910 1.123 .551 .918 1.162 1.123 .921

Note: SE=Standard error, OR= Odds ratio, Significance: p<0.001***; p<0.01**; p<0.05*

Logistic regression was also performed to examine the relationship between a number of

factors and the US-born Black students’ six-year graduation (shown in Table 4-9). Similar to the

results of the logistic regression for the four-year graduation above, none of the control variables

or institutional factors were found to be statistically significant in predicting the odds of six-year

graduation for the US-born Black student group.

However, one of the variables related to the bicultural experiences, campus racial

segregation, was found to be negatively associated with six-year graduation (odds ratio = .566,

p<.01). That is, US-born students who experienced more racial segregation on campus were less

likely to graduate within six years, supporting the notion that campus racial segregation

contributes to US-born Black students’ educational attainment.

90

Table 4-9

Logistic Regression Predicting the Academic Achievement of Black US-born Students in 6-year

Overall Graduation

Variables Log odds

SE Odds ratio

Background Characteristics Variables (BCV) Gender: Male Family income Father’s education level Mother’s education level SAT: Verbal score Quantitative score College Environment variables (CEV) Type of college attended: Private Public Faculty interaction Commitment to racial diversity Bicultural Experience Variables (BEV) Interracial relation FRD1: gender Black Extracurricular activities Campus racial segregation

-.129 -.017 .083 .160 .003 .001 -1.154 -.881 .067 .110 -1.104 .548 -.200 -.705 -.570**

.470 .009 .167 .182 .002 .002 .653 .653 .225 .219 .779 .461 .549 .494 .225

.879 .983 1.086 1.173 1.003 1.001 .315 .415 1.069 1,116 .332 1.730 .818 .494 .566


91

Foreign-born Black Student Subgroup Analysis. As shown in Table 4-10, logistic

regression was performed to examine the relationship between a number of factors and the

foreign-born Black students’ four-year graduation. Similar to the results of the logistic regression

for the entire group’s four-year graduation, among the control variables, family income was found

to be statistically significant in predicting the odds of four-year graduation for the foreign-born

Black student group (odds ratio=.968, p<.001). In terms of the institutional/environmental factors,

enrolling in public institutions was associated with a greater likelihood of graduating within four

years (odds ratio=7.764, p<.001), suggesting that foreign-born Black students are far more likely

to graduate within four years when they attended public institutions than when they attend liberal

arts colleges.

With regard to the variables related to bicultural experiences, two predictors were

associated with the foreign-born Black students’ four-year graduation. Specifically, the foreign-

born Black students who engaged in more interracial interactions were less likely to graduate

within four years (odds ratio=.193, p<.05). This might indicate that the extent to which foreign-

born Black students interact across groups could likely diminish the extent to which they interact

with their own racial/ethnic groups, which might account for the positive effect of within-group

interaction on their educational outcomes. In contrast, campus racial segregation was negatively

related to the odds of four-year graduation among the foreign-born Black students (odds

ratio=.478, p<.001), indicating that as there is more racial segregation on campus, the likelihood

of four-year graduation diminishes.

92

Table 4-10 Logistic Regression Predicting the Academic Achievement of Foreign-born Black Students in 4-year Overall Graduation Variables Log

odds SE Odds

ratio Background Characteristics Variables (BCV) Gender: Male Family income Father’s education level Mother’s education level SAT: Verbal score Quantitative score College Environment variables (CEV) Type of college attended: Private Public Faculty interaction Commitment to racial diversity Bicultural Experience Variables (BEV) Racial relation FRD1: gender Black Extracurricular activities Campus racial segregation

.000 -.033*** .057 -.077 .001 .001 .427 2.050* -.427 -.192 -1.648** -.605 -.357 .887 -.739**

.488 .012 .091 .095 .002 .003 .947 .941 .290 .226 .840 .487 .698 .728 .297

1.000 .967 1.059 .926 1.001 .999 1.532 7.764 .652 .825 .193 .546 .700 2.428 .478


93

Finally, logistic regression was performed to examine the relationship between a number

of factors and the foreign-born Black students’ six-year graduation. Similar to the results of the

logistic regression for the entire group’s four-year graduation, among the control variables, family

income was consistently found to be statistically significant in predicting the odds of six-year

graduation for the foreign-born Black student subgroup (odds ratio=.952, p<.01). In terms of the

institutional/environmental factors, enrolling in public institutions was not associated with a

greater likelihood of graduating within six years, which was found to be significant in predicting

four-year graduation.

Of those variables related to institutional/environmental factors, institutional commitment

to diversity was significant in predicting the foreign-born Black student subgroup’s six-year

graduation (odds ratio=.383, p<.001), suggesting that the foreign-born Black students who

perceived the institution to be more committed to campus diversity were less likely to graduate

within six years. This may because a large amount of interracial contacts between students of the

mainstream culture and students of the heritage culture could generate improved attitudinal

relationships based on the objectivity of such curricular or co-curricular programs. However,

some mixed evidence identified neutral and negative interactional effects of racial interactions on

academic outcomes based on whether they were measured by the generational composition of the

friend groups (Antonio, 2004b) or when the students shared a race with their closest friends (Park,

2012). This further explains that different forms of unconducive institutional racial climates could

exacerbate racial segregation, conflicts, and tensions on campus (Stearns et al., 2009).

Although attending public institutions was positively related to the likelihood of

graduating within four years, this predictor had an insignificant effect on six-year graduation.

94

With regard to the variables related to bicultural experiences, only the gender of friends was

associated with the foreign-born students’ six-year graduation.

Table 4-11

Logistic Regression Predicting the Academic Achievement of Foreign-born Black Students in 6-

year Overall Graduation

Variables Log odds

SE Odds ratio

Background Characteristics Variables (BCV) Gender: Male Family income Father’s education level Mother’s education level SAT: Verbal score Quantitative score College Environment variables (CEV) Type of college attended: Private Public Faculty interaction Commitment to racial diversity Bicultural Experience Variables (BEV) Racial relation FRD1: gender Black Extracurricular activities Campus racial segregation

-.047-.049** .083 -.030 .004 -.001 1.371 1.772 -.273 -.960*** -.627 -1.542* -1.019 1.112 -.540

.663 .014 .199 .048 .004 .004 1.294 1.290 .376 .344 1.186 .700 1.165 1.112 .386

.954 .952 1.087 .971 1.004 .999 3.941 5.884 .761 .383 .534 .214 .361 3.041 1.242


95

Summary of Results by Subgroup Analysis

In further exploring the relationship between a number of factors and the odds of four- and

six-year graduation, it should be noted that marked differences are found in the effect of

predictors on the educational outcomes between US-born and foreign-born Black students. The

findings of the study indicate that none of the predictors in the logistic regressions models are

associated with the likelihood of either four- or six-year graduation for US-born Black students.

The regression analysis showed that family income was consistently statistically significant in

predicting four- and six-year graduation for Black students born abroad.

Other factors found to be statistically significant for four-year graduation were public

institution, racial relations, and campus racial segregation. The findings of the study indicate that

these predictors in the logistic model are associated with the likelihood of four-year graduation

for the foreign-born Blacks. Although public institution, racial relations, and campus racial

segregation were statistically significantly in terms of four-year graduation, they were not found

to be significant in predicting six-year graduation. Interestingly, racial diversity on campus was

negatively associated with the likelihood of six-year graduation among foreign-born Black

students, which is contrary to the extant literature arguing that institutions that promote campus

diversity foster interracial friendships and derive educational benefits (Bowman, 2012). This

feature implies that the greater the commitment to racial diversity, the less likely foreign-born

Black students will graduate within 150% of the standard time.

96

Previous research indicate that students of color at PWIs have far fewer same-race peers

available to them and consequently, they tend to cleave to their subgroups with metaperceptions

of isolation and dislike from peers of other groups (Blascovich et al., 2001; Wout, Murphy,

&Steele, 2010;Bowman & Park, 2014). Furthermore, White students express unwelcoming

attitudes toward Black students that have special attachments toward their own group (Anglin &

Wade, 2007; Bentley-Edwards & Chapman-Hilliard, 2014) or are excelling academically (Harper

et al., 2009). Previous studies have found that gender is related to intergroup friendships on

campus and indirectly associated with positive academic outcomes, and to some degree, the value

and quality of friendships vary by gender (Bowman, 2012; Martinez Aleman, 1997).

Combining the statistically significant explanatory predictors from the background

characteristics variables, college environment variables, and bicultural socialization variables,

family income, public universities, interracial relations, and campus racial segregation were

associated with the odds of four-year graduation while family income, gender of best friend, and

commitment to racial diversity were found to be statistically significant in predicting six-year

graduation.

In sum, bicultural experiences were associated with the educational outcomes of the Black

immigrant students at selective PWIs. However, while bicultural experiences were related to the

educational outcomes of Black students who immigrated to the United States, the level of

bicultural experiences of Black students born in the United States were not related to positive

educational outcomes.

97

Summary

This chapter presented the results of the statistical findings of the descriptive and binary

regression analysis, showing the impact of the bicultural socialization experiences of Black

students by nativity on academic achievement, as measured by four- and six-year graduation. The

binary logistic regression analyses were discussed in detail, revealing the relation between the

predictors and outcome variables (family income, institutional type, institutional commitment to

diversity, perception of racial segregation). The final chapter discusses these findings in relation

to the extant literature and provides recommendations for policy and practice as well as directions

for future research.

98

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION

This study explores the relationship between Black immigrant students’ bicultural

socialization experiences and academic achievement. More specifically, it examines what

differences, if any, bicultural experiences have on educational outcomes between US-born and

foreign-born Blacks enrolled in PWIs. It compares whether the demographic characteristics of

Black immigrant students differ from those of US-born Black students and if academic success

(measured by four- and six-year graduation) differs between US-born and foreign-born students.

The results of the study shed light on the extent to which within-group differences exist among

immigrant and native-born Black students across collegiate experiences and outcomes. This study

calls into question the monolithic treatment and overgeneralization of Black students’ collegiate

experiences and suggests policies and practices that appropriately address the unique needs of

immigrant-origin Black students while promoting their academic success in traditionally White

institutions.

Overview of the Study

Higher education literature identifies a broad spectrum of predictors related to academic

success for traditionally underrepresented minority students in college. Numerous empirical

studies have identified a balanced racial identity as having a positive impact on the academic

achievement of minority student populations (Carini, Kuh, & Klen, 2006; Kartouti, 2016; Turiac

& Liem, 2012).

Several theoretical models have been proposed to explain the degree to which students

socialize within college environments (e.g., Astin’s input-environmental outcome model/theory of

involvement, 1970, 1991; Weidman’s theory of undergraduate socialization 1989; Tinto’s theory

99

of student departure 1993; Ogbu’s cultural-ecological theory 1998). Although theoretical

frameworks are useful in understanding the collegiate outcomes of immigrant-origin Black

students, Phinney and Devich-Navarro’s (1997) bicultural identity model is most suitable for

providing a rationale for their adjustment to mainstream American culture in PWIs.

The dominant deficit thinking frames Black students as inferior to Whites and lacking the

intellectual capacity to be academically successful (Museus et al., 2010; Yosso, 2005).

Consequently, higher education administrators and policymakers overlook the diversity of the

Black student population and neglect their educational needs and interests. Thus, this study

challenges the assumption of treating Black students as a homogeneous group and fills a gap in

what education administrators and practitioners should know about immigrant-origin Black

students.

By disaggregating the Black student population by nativity, this study aims to look more

closely at the variations in educational outcomes among Black students (Rong & Brown, 2010;

Rong & Fitchett, 2008). Using the NLSF, this study was guided by the following questions:

1. What the characteristics of foreign-born Blacks (e.g., demographic background,

socioeconomic background, precollege preparations) compared to those of US-born Black

students? Does the (four –year /six-year graduation) rate for foreign-born Black students

differ from that of US-born Black students?

2. What influence, if any, do college environments (e.g., type of college attended, faculty

interaction, commitment to racial diversity) have on academic achievement for each group

of students?

3. Controlling for student background and college institutional/environmental

characteristics, do bicultural experiences contribute to academic achievement as measured

100

by four- and six-year graduation for Black immigrant students compared to US-born

Black students? If so, to what extent?

Drawing upon bicultural socialization as a conceptual framework (Phinney & Devich-

Navarro, 1997), this study analyzed the data. Descriptive statistics were performed including

frequency and cross-tabulations to identify the trends and patterns among the dependent and

independent variables. A binary logistic regression was employed to examine whether foreign-

born students are more likely than US-born students to succeed in college, as measured by four-

and six-year graduation. The predictors were clustered into the three main categories—

background characteristic variables, college environmental variables, and bicultural socialization

variables—to explore the relationship between these predictors and the educational attainment of

native-born and foreign-born Blacks.

This chapter summarizes the findings of the study and presents discussions on the findings

pertinent to the existing literature. It also offers implications for policy and practice as well as

providing suggestions for future research.

Summary of Findings

The findings of the descriptive statistics indicate that the foreign-born and US-born

students have similar demographic backgrounds, although there are differences that are worth

mentioning. The foreign-born Black students had lower socio-economic backgrounds than their

US-born counterparts in terms of family income and parental educational attainment. Despite this,

the Black immigrant students had slightly higher levels of academic preparation, as measured by

SAT scores.

With regard to educational attainment, the rates of both four- and six-year graduation were

slightly lower for foreign-born Black students than for their US-born Black peers. This finding

101

challenges previous research showing that Black students with immigrant backgrounds fare better

than native-born Black students (Bennette & Luz, 2009; Massey et al., 2007). Although Massey et

al. (2007) found that Black students with an immigrant origin were more likely to attend highly

selective institutions than US-born African American students, the finding of the present study

suggests that immigrant-origin Black students may face additional challenges to success in these

selective PWIs compared to their native-born Black peers.

The logistic regression results indicate that for the entire sample, among the control

variables, only family income was statistically significant in predicting the odds of graduating

within four years. Nativity (either born in the US or overseas) was not related to four-year

graduation. Interestingly, institutional type was related to four-year graduation. Specifically,

attending a public institution was positively associated with the likelihood of four-year

graduation. In addition, interracial relations were negatively related to four-year graduation,

suggesting that having more interracial relationships decreases the chance of graduating within

four years.

Similar to four-year graduation, family income was negatively associated with the chance

of graduating within six years. However, unlike four-year graduation, attending a public

institution did not play a role in increasing the odds of six-year graduation. Students’ experiences

of campus racial segregation were negatively associated with the likelihood of six-year

graduation.

The results of the logistic regression for the US-born subgroup’s four-year graduation

reveal that none of the predictors were statistically significant. Interestingly, when demographic

characteristics and institutional environmental variables were controlled, the campus racial

segregation variable was negatively associated with six-year graduation. Thus, the more US-born

102

students experienced racial segregation on campus, the less likely they were to graduate within six

years.

The findings of the study suggest that the four variables contributed to the outcome

variable (four-year graduation) when examining the disaggregated data of the foreign-born Black

student subgroup: family income (negative effect), public institution (positive effect), interracial

relation (negative effect), and racial segregation (negative effect).

Considering the outcome variable of six-year graduation, three variables were identified as

contributing factors: family income (negative effect), institutional commitment to diversity

(negative effect), and gender of close friends (negative effect). Taken together, the disaggregated

data analysis implies that the variables that contributed to predicting four-year graduation for the

foreign-born Black subgroup most likely accounted for the likelihood of the outcome variable for

the whole group, whereas the variables did not contribute to the subgroups’ likelihood of four –

year graduation.

When closely examining the analysis of the six-year graduation outcomes, family income

and campus racial segregation were contributing predictors for the entire group. In the

disaggregated data analysis, only campus racial segregation was significant for the US-born

subsample, while family income, commitment to racial diversity, and gender of best friends were

significant predictors for the foreign-born subsample.

This study hypothesized that the more bicultural students become, the more likely they are

to succeed in college, as measured by four- and six-year graduation. Based on the data analysis,

the results of the study are somewhat inconsistent with the hypothesis. Among the bicultural

socialization variables, having more interracial relations lowered the likelihood of four-year

graduation for the entire sample and the foreign-born subsample but not for the US-born sample,

103

suggesting that foreign-born students were more likely to be affected by interracial relations than

their US-born Black counterparts.

With regard to the effect of institutional factors on educational attainment, attending a

public institution was positively associated with four-year graduation for the entire group and the

foreign-born subgroup (shown in Table 5-1). Notably, none of the predictors in the regression

model for the US-born student subsample were found to be statistically significant in terms of

predicting four-year graduation. This could be because the educational outcome (four-year college

graduation) may be more affected by students’ academic performance than by the other factors

included in the model. However, this study did not include college GPA, which is frequently used

to measure students’ academic success and is directly related to college completion (Denson &

Chang, 2009). While the NLSF includes questions related to students’ academic performance (the

grade a respondent earned in each course during college years), the dataset did not provide

cumulative college GPA.

Given that the respondents in the sample attended one of the most selective institutions in

the country, Black students born in the US were culturally acculturated into the mainstream

culture as well as academically well prepared for college level work. Future inquiries should

further examine how academic performance is related to college completion according to nativity.

As the focus of this study was on the effect of bicultural socialization on educational

attainment, the results related to the outcome of six-year graduation were not similar to the

findings related to the outcome of four-year graduation, except for the family income variable.

Regardless of nativity, family income was consistently negatively related to both four- and six-

year graduation among the demographic control variables (see Table 5-1 and Table 5-2).

104

However, it should be noted that the effect of family income on the outcome variables was

markedly small. The negative effect of campus racial segregation persisted in the overall sample

and in the US-born subsample but not in the foreign-born subsample, while having female peers

as best friends was negatively associated with six-year graduation among foreign- born Black

students. Additionally, the finding that commitment to racial diversity was negatively related to

the six-year graduation of Black immigrant students disconfirms previous studies supporting the

educational benefits of student diversity (Chatman, 2008; Bowman, 2010d). This could indicate

that Black immigrant students may not reap as many of the benefits of campus racial diversity as

other racial/ethnic groups.

It appears that perceiving the institution to be more committed to racial diversity lowers

the likelihood of six-year graduation among Black immigrant students. Thus, the tight-knit nature

of the student subculture formed by Black immigrant students may deter interracial interaction.

Overall, the findings underscore the importance of bicultural experiences in fostering educational

attainment as well as the heterogeneity based on immigrant status that exists within the Black

student population.

Table 5-1

Summary of Predictors for 4-year Graduation (Entire group, US-born, and Foreign-born)

Category of Factors Entire group US-born Foreign-born Demographic Institutional Bicultural

Family income (-) Public (+) Interracial relation (-)

Family income (-) Public (+) Interracial relation (-)

105

Campus racial segregation (-)

Table 5-2 Summary of Predictors for 6-year Graduation (Entire group, US-born, and Foreign-born) Category of Factors Entire group US-born Foreign-born Demographic Institutional Bicultural

Family income (-) Campus racial segregation (-)

Campus racial segregation (-)

Family income (-) Commitment to racial diversity (-) Gender of best friend (-)

Discussion of Findings

Drawing upon bicultural socialization as a conceptual framework, this study explores the

predictability of various factors on academic outcomes among foreign-born immigrant students as

compared to US-born Black students. With regard to the role of friendship in bicultural

socialization, the gender of the best friend was negatively related to the probability of six-year

graduation among Black immigrant students. As the findings of the present study indicate, the

extant literature suggests that gender is related to intergroup friendships on campus and is

associated with positive academic outcomes, suggesting that the value and quality of friendships

may depend on gender (Bowman, 2012b; Martinez Aleman, 1997).

The values of friendship are evidenced by numerous studies: promoting knowledge of

outgroups (Schofield et al., 2010) and intergroup closeness (Tropp, 2007) reduces contemporary

racism (McClelland & Linnader, 2006) and shapes intergroup attitudes toward diversity (Denson

& Bowman, 2013). While previous literature has shown that males are more likely than females

to develop interracial friendships (Schofield et al., 2010; Steams et al., 2009; Zeng & Zie, 2008),

106

in this study gender does not contribute to either encouraging or discouraging interracial

relationships. Regarding racial segregation, previous studies underscore that gender and race

intersect to the disadvantage of men, as they are more likely than women to internalize negative

stereotypes (Massey, 2005).

The findings reveal that relationships exist between family income and college

completion, as measured by four- and six-year graduation rates both in the entire group analysis

and the subgroup analysis. Having a higher family income contributes more than having a lower

family income to lowering the probability of graduating from college.

Consistent with previous research, “Black students with higher socioeconomic status may

be more likely to engage in interethnic conversations with White students” (Thomas, 2014,

p.96).Therefore, policymakers should pay attention to all factors that reduce disparity on campus

and provide standard opportunities that improve students’ quality of life and support their

academic achievement.

The college environment variables were used to examine the relationship between

institutional type, relation with faculty, and commitment to racial diversity on campus and

graduation rates. The present study found that the institutional commitment to diversity variable

was negatively related to the outcome variable of six-year graduation among Black immigrant

students. Prior research on the effect of institutional factors on graduation has shown varying

effects of different racial groups and factors such as institutional resources and the faculty–student

ratio (Bound, Lovenheim, & Turner,2012; Cullinane & Lincove, 2014). Further, some studies

have identified diversity programs on campus as a means to foster positive interacial relations

(Antonio, 2004; Bowman & Park, 2014; Denson, 2009).

107

This study shows that both US- and foreign-born students experience high degrees of

racial separation on campus, which is consistent with the findings in the existing literature that

improved racial relations positively impact social and academic outcomes (Bowman, 2010;

Denson & Chang, 2009; Reid, 2013; Robichaud & Soares, 2014). Intergroup friendships on

campus can be facilitated through the socialization experiences of students with their peers/faculty

and create a positive diversity experience on campus.

The more racially segregated a campus was, the less likely Black immigrant students were

to graduate within four years. Given the tremendous interpersonal, psychosocial, and cognitive

benefits of exuberant campus climate, institutional administrators and policymakers are

encouraged to create a campus climate that promotes healthy student-oriented programs and

engagements that support vibrant and interactive interracial relationships on campus (Chang,

Denson, Saenz, & Misa, 2006).

It could be the case that Black immigrant students are more sensitive to experiences with

racial segregation than their US-born Black peers, which in turn could affect their academic

success. Research shows that Black students tend to be socially and academically alienated in

racially segregated institutions, and their wellbeing and academic attainment are then exposed to

unconscionable risks (Fries-Britt & Turner, 2001; Solórzano, Ceja, &Yosso, 2000). This study

underscores the notion that intergroup friendships on campus can be facilitated through the

socialization experiences of students with their peers/faculty. Hence, this study maintains that a

better appreciation of intragroup characteristics provides an opportunity for objective relations

and predictability in promoting knowledge of outgroups, intergroup affinity, curbing

contemporary racism, and shaping intergroup attitudes towards diversity.

108

Theoretical Implications

Key to any quantitative study are the issues of instrumentation and measurement.

Research with ethnic groups is faced with the challenge of recognizing appropriate outcome

measures. For instance, Guiffrida (2006) reiterates that Tinto’s conceptualization of student

commitment to the institutional dynamics has attracted criticisms because “the theory fails to

provide clearer understanding of students motivational orientations to such commitment”

(Guiffrida, 2006, p. 452).

However, the extant literature contends that the motivational orientations of minority

students may differ from those of their White peers (Kuh & Love, 2000; Rendon et al., 2000). The

conceptual model posits how individuals manage the complicated retention of their ethnic

cultures while integrating into the mainstream of the wider society. The variables included in this

study incorporated demographic information, collegiate, and bicultural variables as major

predictors of balanced integration culture. Phinney and Devich-Navarro’s (1997) conceptual

model of bicultural identity is useful in this study for understanding how minority adolescents

retain, establish, and maintain relationships in two (ethnic and mainstream) cultures. Thus, the

conceptual model used in this study identifies the relevance of exploring the relationship between

a set of predictors to identify marked differences in the educational attainment between US- and

foreign-born Black students.

Minority students employ their cultural and racial identities to adjust to college life in

American colleges and institutions. However, immigrants’ efforts to assimilate into the

mainstream culture have not been equally successful for all minority groups. This issue sets the

109

background for this study. Students’ viewpoints on racial diversity on campus speak volumes

about how they perceive the world around them. Black immigrant students’ perceptions of

institutional commitment to diversity and their experiences with campus segregation impact their

academic attainment, whether they are US-born or foreign-born immigrants.

Contributions of the Study

1. This study examines Black immigrant students’ bicultural socialization and identity

factors in relation to their educational outcomes as compared to their US-born counterparts. One

of the key contributions this study makes to the literature is that it looks at the diversity within the

Black student population based on nativity rather than lumping two groups together.

2. Black immigrant students have non-monolithic backgrounds and yet share common

needs and experiences based on philosophical and historical factors (Stebleton, 2007). This

dissertation lends support to the existing literature related to factors impacting the educational

learning outcomes of Black immigrant students.

3. Understanding the different dynamics behind the heterogeneous backgrounds of

foreign- and native-born Blacks sheds light on their college experiences and their challenges with

integration while in college (Charles et al., 2008, 2015; Massey & Fischer, 2005, 2006). This

study identifies that negative racial relations and campus racial segregation are inimical to the

diversity rendering of the institutional vision for creating a conducive environment aimed at

promoting academic excellence.

4. This study underscores that intergroup friendships on campus can be facilitated through

the socialization experiences of students with their peers/faculty. Hence, this study maintains that

a better appreciation of intragroup characteristics provides an opportunity for objective relations

110

and predictability in promoting knowledge of outgroups, intergroup affinity, curbing

contemporary racism, and shaping intergroup attitudes towards diversity.

5. Underpinning the bicultural experiences of Black immigrant students is relevant to higher

education, as immigrants across several generations are rapidly becoming broadly representative of

college life. Since biculturalism is identified with ethnic cultures and often applied to the internal

or external interactions of any pair of two cultures, the current study demonstrates that research

based on the created model provides insight into the adjustment dynamics of Black immigrant

students.

6. This study explores the distinctive attributes of Black immigrant students that could

provide indications for policymakers regarding how to situate the challenges related to the

interaction and integration of students into the mainstream culture. The bicultural socialization

experiences of immigrant students create a huge opportunity for cultural interpenetration. This

study corroborates previous studies showing that biculturalism has a strong, positive association

with academic achievement and multicultural competency (Nguyen & Benet-Martinez, 2007).

Implications for Policy and Practice

Explanatory predictors useful for predicting college graduation. The student-level and

institutional-level predictors in the study are useful for predicting four- and six-year graduation.

Consistent with previous research (Astin, 1993), the results of the study show that graduation is

positively influenced by college experience—the extent to which the student is satisfied with the

environment, family income, enrollment in public institutions, and campus racial segregation are

statistically significant in terms of four- and six-year graduation.

Promote interactive and interracial campus culture. One of the key contributions this

study makes to the literature is that it looks at the diversity within the Black student population

111

based on nativity rather than lumping two groups together. The findings have important

theoretical implications in terms of appreciating intergroup relations in immigrants’ adjustment to

college within the dominant culture (Goclowska & Crisp, 2014). The current study demonstrates

that research based on the created model provides insight into the adjustment dynamics of Black

immigrant students in the diverse environment of PWIs.

The more racially segregated a campus is, the less likely Black immigrant students were to

graduate within 4 years. It could be the case that Black immigrant students are more sensitive to

experiences with racial segregation than their US-born Black peers, which could affect their

academic success in turn. However, it should be noted that racial segregation was not associated

with the Black immigrant students’ six-year graduation but was related to the six-year graduation

of the US-born Black students. Therefore, it can be concluded that campus racial segregation is

related to Black students’ college completion overall at selective PWIs.

Research shows that Black students tend to be socially and academically alienated in

racially segregated institutions. Consequently, their wellbeing and academic attainment is at risk

when they experience racial segregation, discrimination, and macroaggression on campus (Fries-

Britt & Turner, 2001; Solórzano et al., 2000).

Previous studies (Antonio, 2001; Hurtado et al., 1992) have identified the role of

institutional efforts in improving campus race relations. This study underscores that intragroup

friendships on campus can be facilitated through the socialization experiences of students with

their peers/faculty. Phinney and Devich-Navarro’s (1997) conceptual theory of blended

biculturalism aptly captures the attendant characteristics and inherent resources predictable to the

adjustment of Black immigrant students to the mainstream culture.

112

Given the interpersonal, psychosocial, and cognitive benefits of campus climate,

institutional administrators and policymakers should make efforts to create racially and culturally

welcoming and inclusive campus climates that provide healthy student-oriented programs and

engagements that support and facilitate interracial relationships on campus (Chang et al., 2006).

Improve the institutional climate. Institutional/environmental factors play a crucial role

in promoting or impeding the success of Black students. In terms of students’ bicultural

experiences, the level of balanced campus climate can affect the attitudes, expectations, and

interracial relations of the students (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Petersen, & Allen, 1999). When

leaders of universities and colleges promote a positive institutional climate, campuses will

become more enlightened. Racist activities will be depopularized, while prompt interventions will

be ready when necessary. Such approaches have positive implications for both the students and

institutions. While students’ confidence levels in areas of security, general well-being, and equity

are promoted, institutional credibility is also sustained. Consequently, more interracial diversity

on campus impacts access, retention, and college graduation.

Since it is the primary institutional responsibility to discourage any activity that fosters

racially toxic environments, Kezar and Eckel (2002a) recommend that institutional leaders and

researchers should proactively assess their campus climates to ensure that their students are able

to maintain their ethnic cultures while adjusting to the attitudes, values, and behaviors of the

college norm.

Develop a strategic plan to close achievement gap. This study explores the distinctive attributes

of Black immigrant students that could inform policymakers, university administrators, and

student affairs personnel with regard to how to foster the integration of Black immigrant students

into the mainstream culture.

113

Out-of-class contacts are beneficial to students. Previous research (Einarson & Clarkberg,

2010) has shown that African Americans benefit more from participating in research projects with

faculty than from in-class activities. Therefore, programs that promote student–faculty out-of-

class contacts will help Black immigrant students to achieve academic success. Institutions should

make concerted efforts to implement policies and practices to encourage Black immigrant

students to adjust to PWIs. Rovai, Gallien Jr., and Stiff-Williams (2007) have reviewed several

models geared towards closing the Black immigrant student’s achievement gap, such as

multicultural centers, faculty–student mentoring programs, and peer advisor programs.

Washington State University has a structured and advanced multicultural center serving minority

groups on campus under a multi-administrative base, with subsidiary centers attending to the

advisory and counseling needs of different racial groups.

The four subsidiary centers cover African American, Native American, Chicano/Latino

American, and Pacific American students (Jones, 2004). Each of the centers has developed

initiatives for academic advising, social support, and generating awareness of academic programs,

internships, and scholarships as well as making referrals to appropriate departments on campus

(Rovai, Gallien Jr., & Stiff-Williams (2007).

Furthermore, the University of Virginia offers personalized services to Black immigrant

freshmen and transfer students, familiarizing them with facilities and resources on campus while

fostering academic success (Turner, 2004).

The Faculty–Student Mentoring Program at the University of Virginia, which is nestled in

the Office of African American Affairs and had over 112 faculty–student pairs as of 2002,

supports students by fostering structured and valuable relationships with university faculty,

114

administrators, and graduate students and ultimately helps to build positive identification with the

campus environment (Turner, 2004).

Other strategies that promote inclusiveness include “employing diverse teaching styles,

drawing from the principles of andragogy and self-directed learning, fostering intrinsic motivation

in students, creating learning communities that facilitate collaborative work, providing remedial

and support programs to close the preparation gap” (Rovai et al., 2007, p. 66).

Cultivate intercultural and interracial relations on campus. This study examines Black

immigrant students’ bicultural socialization and identifies factors related to their educational

outcomes as compared to their US-born counterparts. Understanding the different dynamics

behind the heterogeneous backgrounds of foreign- and native-born Blacks provides insight into

their college experiences and their integration challenges while in college (Massey & Fischer,

2006; Massey et al., 2007).

College practitioners and faculty should be more cognizant of the backgrounds and

histories of Black immigrant students and should not treat Black students as a homogenous

population. Institutional leaders should cultivate culturally sensitive and inclusive campus

environments that value individual differences, attitudes, beliefs, and help Black immigrant

students feel welcome and succeed in college. Hosting networking events with well-defined

objectives to acculturate freshmen into the dominant college culture will allow incoming students

to adjust to the new college environment and facilitate the socialization process.

Further, providing opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities may create

intra- and interracial group interactions that can lead to educational benefits (Phinney, Ferguson,

& Tate, 1997). Understanding students’ cultural experiences informs the efforts of higher

115

education institutions when considering appropriate strategies for promoting social and academic

engagement in college.

In addition, colleges and universities may consider conducting campus climate surveys to

gain a better understanding of their Black and minority students’ (including immigrants)

experiences with racial and cultural diversity and what unique issues they face. These data could

be used to improve the conditions on campus and make it more welcoming for all students.

Promote peer/faculty involvement. Previous research has identified the crucial roles of

cultural translators (immigrant families and ethnic peers) and cultural mediators (counselors and

advisors) in the socialization of Black immigrant students (Kim, 2014). Appropriate resource

allocation should be a top priority for institutional leaders in order to promote target programs that

facilitate integration and benefit students of color.

In addition, a campus environment that encourages the administration, faculty, and staff to

assume responsibilities that ensure better opportunities and improved support systems will aid

Black immigrant students and African American students in navigating the college environment.

Value of Cultural/Ethnic Organizations

Cultural/ethnic organizations are platforms for intragroup interactions. Often, Black

students in PWIs feel the weight of segregation. Offering validation and protection, broad

cultural/ethnic organizations play an important role in fostering the ethnic and cultural identities

of Black immigrant students. For instance, although about 54 countries make up the African

continent, Black immigrant students tend to feel ethnic rapport, comfort, and solidarity with peers

who have a similar language affinity, cultural values, and respect.

Cultural and ethnic organizations such as the African American Student Alliance and the

Black Student Union, which usually operate on racial rather than on gender and nationality paths,

116

strive to socialize, organize, and render all types of support through orientations, regular

conferences, and mentoring programs aimed at diffusing racism and providing encouragement

that supports academic success (Bentley-Edwards & Chapman-Hilliard, 2015; Fries-Britt, 2001).

Suggestions for Future Research

This study examined the bicultural experiences of Black immigrant students (US-born and

foreign-born) and how demographic, collegiate, and bicultural experiences in college impact their

college completion (four- and six-year graduation). The degree to which institutions are able to

respond to the unique needs of Black immigrant students is hindered by the limited research and

the common practice that merges Black students into a single African American Black student

category. This study cautions against the view of Black students as a homogenous group and

offers a more nuanced understanding. Given that existing research on Black immigrant students’

collegiate experiences and outcomes is sparse, more research is needed to explore how the

dynamics of Black immigrant group diversity could engender academic success while allowing

the students to negotiate the mainstream culture of American higher institutions.

Suggestions for future research are as follows:

1. Given that diversity exists within Black immigrants, future inquiries should look at

country of origin, generational status (first-generation, second-generation, and international

students who have nonimmigrant status; immigrant-origin women vs. men, Anglophone immigrant

students vs. those from areas where English is not the lingua franca), and the level of integration

into the mainstream American culture.

Future research should compare US-born Black students with other significant pools of

Black immigrants from Sub-Saharan African, Central African, Caribbean, and Latin American

regions, examine these groups’ adaptation patterns in college.

117

2. Additional research on the effect of socioeconomic background on educational outcomes

could extend to the Black student population in other types of institutions beyond the most selective

American four-year institutions. Would the family income variable play a negative role in four- and

six-year college graduation for those Black students enrolled in less selective institutions? As

previous research has shown that Black students are more sensitive to tuition and financial aid

(Hoxby, 2004), future research should take into consideration these two variables and how they are

related to Black immigrant students’ college completion as compared to their US-born counterparts.

3. The dataset used in this study did not distinguish Black immigrant students from Black

international students who stay in the US on a temporary visa. Thus, future inquiries should explore

the factors that contribute to educational outcomes based on immigration status (Black immigrant

students vs. Black international students).

4. There is a need to expand research on the Black immigrant students at less selective four-

year HBCUs and two-year colleges that have a large proportion of Black students in order to explore

how these institutions serve the needs of Black immigrant students and how their bicultural

socialization contributes to college completion.

5. This study focused on the impact of bicultural socialization on the college completion of

US- and foreign-born Black students, using the preexisting set of variables provided by the NLSF.

While previous research has shown that bicultural socialization is key to academic success among

immigrant students, academic performance measured by GPA should be included as an important

predictor in future research in order to develop a more robust model. Previous studies have shown

that the use of students’ GPAs rather than self-reporting increases accuracy (Komarraju et al., 2010;

Noftle & Robins, 2007). A study should be conducted including more measures related to academic

performance with regard to degree completion.

118

6. Qualitative research should be conducted to identify what factors contribute to Black

immigrant students’ college persistence and completion at various types of institutions, as

quantitative analysis often fails to capture the nuances and complexities inherent in experiences and

attitudes (Park, 2009). Since the current research indicates that interracial friendships were

negatively associated with educational outcomes, future research needs to explore why this could

be the case by conducting in-depth interviews with Black immigrant students. It would be worth

exploring whether the perceptions of campus racial climate and racial segregation experience differ

between Black immigrant students and their native-born Black peers and how campus climate and

the degree of racial segregation on campus influence their collegiate experience and resultant

college completion.

119

References

Adelman, C. The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through

college. 2006, Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Altbach, P. G., Reisberg, L., &, Rumbley, L. E. (2009). Trends in global higher education:

Tracking an academic revolution. A report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World

Conference on Higher Education. UNESCO: France.

Alex-Assenssoh, Y. M. (2009). African immigrants and African-Americans: An analysis of

voluntary African immigration and the evolution of Black ethic politics in America.

African & Asian Studies, 8, 89–124.

Alex-Assenssoh, Y. M., & Hanks, L. J. (2000). Black and multicultural politics in America.

New York: New York University Press.

Allen, T. D., &, Eby, L. T. (2007). Common bonds: An integrative perspective on mentoring. In

T. D. Allen & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple

perspectives approach (pp. 397–419). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Amaral, K. E. &, Vala, M. (2009). What teaching teaches: Mentoring and the performance

gains of mentors. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(5), 630–633.

Anglin, D. M. & Wade, J. C. (2007). The effects of racial socialization and racial identity on

black students’ adjustment to college. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,

13, 207-215.

Antonio, A. L., (2001). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. The Review

Of Higher Education, 25(1), 63–89.

Antonio, A. L. (2004).When does race matter in college friendships? Exploring the role of race

120

within men’s diverse and homogeneous friendship groups. Review of Higher Education,

27(4), 553–575.

Astin, A. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact. Sociology of

Education, 43, 437–450.

Astin, A. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and

Evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan.

Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., & Tahan, K. (2011). The

condition of education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kenna, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., Wang, X., & Zhang, J.

(2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012-045). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013).

The condition of education 2013 (NCES 2013-037). Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.) (2004). Handbook of research on multicultural

education (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from www.josseybass.com

Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of

development education in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges,

145, 11–30. doi:10.1002/cc.352

Barnes, M. L., Chemerinsky, E., &, Jones, T. (2010). A post-race equal protection? The

121

Georgetown Law Journal, 98(4), 967–1004.

Baum, S., & Flores, S.M. (2011). Higher education and children in immigrant families. Future

of Children, 2(1), 171–193.

Baxter Magolda, M.B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher

education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Benet-Martínez, V., Leu, J., Lee, F., & Morris, M. W. (2002). Negotiating biculturalism:

Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural

identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(5), 492–516.

Bennett, P. R., & Lutz, A. (2009). How African American is the net Black advantage?

Differences in college attendance among immigrant Blacks, native Blacks, and whites.

Sociology of Education, 82(1), 70–100.

Bentley-Edwards, K. L., & Chapman-Hilliard, C. (2015). Doing race in different places: Black

racial cohesion on Black and white college campuses. Journal of Diversity in Higher

Education, 8, 43–60.

Berry, J.W. (1990).Psychology of acculturation. In J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural

perspectives: Nebraska Symposium on motivation (pp. 201-234). Lincoln: University of

Nebraska Press.

Berry, J. W. (1993). Ethnic identities in plural societies. In M. E. Bernal, & G. P. Knight (Eds.),

Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among Hispanics and other minorities

(pp. 271–296). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Berry, J. W. (1997).Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 46, 5–68.

122

Berry, J. (2004). Fundamental psychological processes in intercultural relations. In D. Landis, J.

Bennett, & M. Genneth (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (3rd ed.) (pp. 166–

184). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; New York University Press.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations,29, 697–712.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigration youth in cultural

transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and human diversity in a multicultural society. In E. J.

Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in

context (pp. 261–284). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001). Perceiver

threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 80, 253–267.

Bound, J., Lovenheim, M. F., & Turner, S. (2010). Why have college completion rates

declined? An analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources.

American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(3), 129–157

Bound, J., Lovenhein, M. F., & Turner, S. (2012). Increasing time to baccalaureate degree in

the United States. Educational Finance and Policy, 7(4), 375–424.

Boski, P. (2008). Five meanings of integration in acculturation research. International Journal of

Intercultural relations, 32(2):142-153 ·

Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing

college at America’s public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

123

Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river. Long term consequences of

considering race in college and University Admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Bowman N. A. (2010) Dissonance and resolution: The non-linear effects of diversity courses

on well-being and orientations toward diversity. Review of Higher Education, 33, 543–

568.

Bowman,N.A.(2011). Promoting participation in a diverse democracy: A meta-analysis of

college diversity experiences and civic engagement. Review of Education Research, 81,

9.

Bowman, N. A., & Denson, N. (2012). What’s past is prologue: How precollege exposure to

racial diversity shapes the impact of college on interracial interactions. Research in

Higher Education, 53(4), 406–425.

Bowman, N. A. (2013). The conditional effects of interracial interactions on college student

outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 54(3), 322–328.

Bowman, N. A., & Park, J. J. (2014). Interracial contact on college campuses: Comparing and

contrasting predictors of cross-racial interaction and interracial friendship. The Journal of

Higher Education, Volume 85, Number 5, September/October 2014, pp. 660-690.

Burnam, M. A., Hough, R.L., Karno, M., Escobar, J. I., & Telles, C. A. (1987). “Acculturation

and Lifetime Prevalence of Psychiatric Disorders among Mexican Americans in Los

Angeles,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1987, pp. 89-102.

Burke, J. C., Minassians, H., & Yang, P. (2002). State Performance reporting indicators: What

do they indicate? Planning for Higher Education, 31(1), 15–29.

124

Capps, R., McCabe, K., & Fix, M. (2011). New streams: Black African migration to the United

States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Capps, R., McCabe, K., & Fix, M. (2012). New streams: Black African migration to the United

States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute.

Carini, R. M., Kuh, G., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning:

Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 1–32.

Chang, M., Astin, A. W., & Kim, D. (2004) Cross-racial interaction among undergraduates:

Some consequences, causes, and patterns. Research in Higher Education, 45(5), 529–

553.

Chang, M. J., Denson, N., Sáenz, V., & Misa, K. (2006). The educational benefits of

sustaining cross-racial interaction among undergraduates. Journal of Higher

Education, 77(3), 430–455.

Charles, C. Z., Kramer, R. A., Torres, K.C., & Brunn-Bevel, R. J. (2015). Intergroup

heterogeneity and Blackness: Effects of racial classification, immigrant origins, social

class, and social context on the racial identity of elite college students. Race and Social

Problems, 7(4), 281–299.

Charles, C. Z., Torres, K. C., & Brunn, R. J. (2008). Black like who? Exploring the racial,

ethnic and class diversity of Black students at selective colleges and universities. In n

post-race America: New theories, new directions (pp. 247–265). Chapel Hill, NC:

Social Forces.

125

Chatman, S. (2008). Does diversity matter in the education process? An exploration of

student interactions by wealth, religion, politics, race, ethnicity and immigrant status at

the University of California. Retrieved from

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502803.pdf

Chavous, T. M., Harris, A., Rivas, D., Helaire, L., & Green, L. (2004). Racial stereotypes and

gender in context: African Americans at predominantly Black and predominantly white

colleges. Sex Roles, 51(1/2), 1–16.

Chen, S. X., Benet-Martínez, V., Wu, W. C. H., Lam, B. C. P., & Bond, M. H. (2013). The role of

dialectical self and bicultural identity integration in psychological adjustment. Journal of

Personality, 81, 61–75.

Chickering, A., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Choy, S. (2001). The condition of education, 2001. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Statistics. Retrieved from www.nces.ed.gov

Clark, M. K. (2008) Identity among first and second generation African immigrants in the United

States. African Identities, 6(2),169-181.

Clark, M., Kauffman, S., & Pierce, R. C. (1976). Explorations of acculturation: Toward a model

ethnic identity. Human Organizations, 3, 231–238.

Cole, D., & Jackson, J. (2005). Racial integration in higher education and students educational

satisfaction 50 years beyond Brown. In D. N. Byrne (Ed.), Brown v. Board of Education:

Its impact on public education 1954–2004. New York, NY: The Thurgood Marshall

Scholarship Fund.

Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact

and intellectual self-concept. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 249–281.

126

Cole, D. (2010). The effects of student-faculty interactions on minority student’s college grades:

Differences between aggregated and disaggregated data. The Journal of the Professoriate,

3(2) 137-160.

Cole, E. R., Case, K. A., Rios, D., & Curtin, N. (2011). Understanding what students bring to

the classroom: Moderators of the effects of diversity courses on student attitudes. Cultural

Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(4), 397–405.

Coleman,J.S.(1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal of

Sociology 94, S95-S120.

Cook, B., & Pullaro N., (2010). College graduation rates: Behind the numbers. Washington, DC:

American Council on Education (ACE).

Conklin,K.& Wellner, J. (2004). Linking tuition and financial aid policy: The gubernational

perspective. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.

Cox, B. E., & Orehovec, E. (2007). Faculty – student interaction out of class: A typology from

a residential college. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 343–362.

Crain, W. (2000). Theories of development: Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Saddle

River: Prentice Hall.

Cramer, R. J., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (2007). Caring for the whole person: Guidelines for advancing

undergraduate mentorship. College Student Journal, 41(4), 771–778.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

127

Cullinane, J., & Lincove, J. A. (2014). The effects of institutional inputs on time to degree for

traditional and nontraditional college students. Texas Workforce Data Quality Initiative

Working Paper. Ray Marshall Center, University of Texas at Austin.

DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). Completing college:

Assessing graduation rates at four-year institutions. Los Angeles: Higher Education

Research Institute, UCLA.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New

York University Press.

Deming, J. D. Hasting, J. S., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2011). School choice, school quality

and postsecondary attainment (NBER Working Paper No. 17438).

New York, NY: New York University Press.

Denson, N., & Chang, M. J. (2009). Racial diversity matters: The impact of diversity-related

student engagement and institutional context. American Educational Research Journal,

46, 322–353.

Denson, N., & Bowman, N. (2013). University diversity and preparation for a global society:

The role of diversity in shaping intergroup attitudes and civic outcomes. Studies in Higher

Education, 38(4), 555–570.

Derby, D. C., & Smith, T. (2004). On orientation course and community college retention.

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 763–773.

Dixon, K. G. (2003). Factors associated with academic and social integration of freshmen

students in the first year college at North Carolina State University (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). North Carolina State University.

128

Douglas, J. A., & Douthit, G. (2010).The immigrant’s university: A study of academic

performance and the experiences of recent immigrant groups at the University of

California. Higher Education Policy, 23(4), 451–474.

DuBois, D. L., & Karcher, M. J. (2005). Youth mentoring: Theory, research, and practice. In

D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 2–11). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. (2008). Does mentoring matter? A

multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored

individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 254–267.

Einarson, M., & Clarkberg, M. E. (2010). Race differences in the impact of student–faculty

interactions on undergraduate outcomes. Journal of the Professoriate, 3(2), 101–135.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college, theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass;

John Wiley and Sons.

Feagin, J. R., & McKinney, K. D. (2002). The many costs of racism. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Feldman, K., & Newcomb, T. (1969). The impact of college on students (2 vols.). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Feldman, K. A, Ethington, C. A., & Smart, J. C. (2001). A further investigation of major field

129

and person-environment fit: Sociological versus psychological interpretations of Holland’s

theory. Journal of Higher Education, 2001, 72, 6 (November/December), pp. 670-698.

Flowers, L. A. (2004). Examining the effects of student involvement on African American

college student development. Journal of College Student Development, 45(6), 633–654.

Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of

‘acting white’.”Urban Review, 18, 176.

Foner, N. (Ed.) (2001). Islands in the city: West Indian migration to New York. Los Angeles:

University of California Press.

Fries-Britt, S. L., & Turner, B. (2001). Facing stereotypes: A case study of Black students on a

white campus. Journal of College Student Development, 42(5), 420–429.

Fuligni, A. J., Witkow, M., & Garcia, C. (2005). Ethnic identity and the academic

adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds.

Developmental Psychology, 41(5), 799–811.

Gershenfeld, S. (2014). A review of undergraduate mentoring programs. Review of Educational

Research,84(3), 365–391.

Gibson, M. A. (2001). Immigrant adaptation and patterns of acculturation. Human Development,

44, 19–23.

Gilbert, S. (2009). A Study of Ogbu and Simons’ thesis regarding Black children’s immigration

and non-immigration status and school achievement. Negro Educational Review, 60, 71–

91.

Glick, J. E., & Bryndl, H. (2007). Academic performance of young children in immigrant

families: The significance of race, ethnicity, and national origins. International Migration

Review,41, 371–402.

130

Gocłowska, M. A., & Crisp, R. J. (2014). How dual identity processes foster creativity. Review

of General Psychology, 18(3), 216–236.

Goff, A. M. (2011). Stressors, academic performance, and learned resourcefulness in

baccalaureate nursing students. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship,

8,1-15.

Griffin, K., del Pilar, W., McIntosh, K., & Griffin. (2012). “Oh, of course I’m going to College”:

Understanding how habitus shapes the college choice process of Black immigrant

students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(2), 96–111.

Guiffrida, D. A. (2005). To break away or strengthen ties to home: A complex question for

African American students attending a predominantly white institution. Equity and

Excellence in Education, 38(1), 49–60.

Guiffrida, D. A. (2005). The emergence model: An alternative pedagogy for facilitating self-

reflection and theoretical fit in counseling students, Counselor Education and Supervision

,Volume 44, Issue 3, pages 201–213.

Guiffrida, D. A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto’s theory. The Review of

Higher Education, 4, 451–472.

Guiffrida, D. A., & Douthit, K. Z. (2010). The Black student experience at predominantly white

colleges: Implications for school and college counselors. Journal of Counselling

Association, 88, 311–318.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory

and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review,72 (3),330-366.

Haritatos, J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2002). Bicultural identities: The interface of cultural,

131

personality, and socio-cognitive processes. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 598–

606.

Harper, S. R. (2012). Black men student success in higher education: A report from the National

Black Male College Achievement Study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education.

Harper, S. R., Patton, L. D., & Wooden, O. S. (2009). Access and equity for African American

students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. Journal of


Harushimana, I., &Awokoya, J. (2011). African-born Immigrants in US schools: An

intercultural perspective on schooling and diversity. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural

Education, 6(1), 34–48.

Haskins, R. 2007. Economic mobility of immigrants in the United States. Washington, D.C.:

Brookings Institution.

Heo, H., & Kim, M. (2013). Outcome-oriented and process-oriented frameworks on

biculturalism. Journal of Interaction Studies,14:1,81-106.

Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work

environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Horn, L., & Nevill, S. (2006). Profile of undergraduates in U.S. postsecondary education

institutions: 2003–04: With a special analysis of community college students (NCES

2006-184). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

John Wiley & Sons.

132

Hoxby, C. M. (Ed.) (2004). College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go and how

to pay for it. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2001). Computing experience and good practices in undergraduate

education: Does the degree of campus “wiredness” matter? Education Policy Analysis

Archive,9(49).

Hurtado, S. (1992). Campus racial climates: Contexts of conflict. Journal of Higher Education

63(5), 539–569.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Petersen, A., & Allen, R. (1998). Enhancing campus

climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher

Education, 21(3), 279–302.

Hurtado, S. (2007). Linking diversity with educational and civic missions of higher education.

The Review of Higher Education, 30, 185–196.

Huynh, Q., Devos, T., & Goldberg, R. (2014). The role of ethnic and national identifications in

perceived discrimination for Asian Americans: Toward a better understanding of the

buffering effect of group identifications on psychological distress. Asian American

Journal of Psychology, 5(3), 161–171.

Jambunathan, S., Burts, D., & Pierce, S. (2000). Comparisons of parenting attitudes among five

ethnic groups in the United States. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31(4), 395–

406.

Jones, D. P., & Paulson, K. (2001). Some next steps for states: A follow-up to measuring up 2000.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Jones, L. (2004). The development of a multicultural student services and retention

133

strategy for minority students. In F.W. Hale (Ed.), What makes racial diversity work in

higher education: Academic leaders present successful policies and strategies (pp. 124–

145). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Jung, M. (2009). The racial unconscious of assimilation theory. Du Bois Review: Social

Science Research on Race, 6(2), 375–395.

Kao, G., & Thompson, T. S. (2003). Racial & ethnic stratification in educational achievement and

attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 417–442.

Karkouti, I. M. (2016). Black students’ educational experiences in predominantly white

universities: A review of the related literature. College Student Journal, 50(1), 59–70.

Keels, M. (2013). Getting them enrolled is only half the battle: College success as a function of

race or ethnicity, gender, and class. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2(3), 310–322.

Kena, G., Aud, S., Johnson, F., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., & Kristapovich, P. (2014).

The condition of education 2014 (NCES 2014-083). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. D. (2002a). The effect of institutional cultures on change strategies in

higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? Journal of


Kim, E., & Diaz, J. (2013). Immigrant students and higher education. ASHE Higher Education

Report, 38(6). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kim, Y. M. (2011). Minorities in higher education. Twenty-fourth status report. Washington, DC:

American Council on Education.

Kim, E., (2014). Bicultural socialization experiences of Black immigrant students at a

predominantly white institution. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(4), 580–594.

134

King, J. (2006). Gender equity in higher education. Washington, DC: American Council on

Education.

King, J. (2010). Gender equity in higher education: Are male students at a disadvantage?

Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to

socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago:

Rand McNally.

Komarraju, M., Musulkin, S., & Bhattacharya, G. (2010). Role of student-faculty interactions in

developing college students’ academic self concept, motivation, and achievement. Journal

of College Student Development, 51(3), 332–342.

Kuh, G. D. (1999). How are we doing? Tracking the quality of the undergraduate experience,

1960’s to the present. The Review of Higher Education, 22, 99–119.

Kuh, G. D. (2008). High impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them,

and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and

Universities.

Kuh, G. D., & Love, P. G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In J. Braxton

(Ed.), Rethinking the departure puzzle: New theory and research on college student

retention. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism:

Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 395–412.

135

Lindley, L. S (2009). A tribal critical race theory analysis of academic attainment: A qualitative

study of sixteen Northern Arapaho women who earned degrees at the University of

Wyoming (Ph.D. thesis). University of Wyoming.

Long, M. C. (2008). College quality and early adult outcomes. Economics of Education

Review, 27(5), 588–602.

Longwell-Grice, R., & Longwell-Grice, H. (2008). Testing Tinto: How do retention theories work

for first-generation, working-class students? Journal of College Student Retention, 9(4),

407–420.

Lundberg, C. A., & Schreiner, L. A. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interaction

as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student

Development, 45(5), 549–565.

Lynch, J. (2012). FROM FINGERPRINTS TO DNA: Biometric Data Collection in US

Immigrant Communities and Beyond-Special Report. Immigration Policy Center.

American Immigration Council, Washington DC.

Maramba, D. C., & Velasquez, P. (2012). Influences of the campus experience on the ethnic

identity development of students of color. Education and Urban Society, 44(3), 294–317.

Marks, A. K., Patton, F., & Coll, C. N. (2011). Being bicultural: A mixed-methods study of

adolescents’ implicitly and explicitly measured multiethnic identities. Developmental

Psychology, 47(1), 270–288.

Martinez Aleman, A. M. (1997). Understanding and investigating female friendship’s educative

value. The Journal of Higher Education, 68(2), 119–159.

Massey D. S., Charles, C. Z., Lundy G. F, & Fischer M. J. (2003). The source of the river: The

136

social origins of freshmen at America’s selective colleges and universities. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Massey, D. S., & Fischer, M.J. (2005). Stereotype threat and academic performance:

New findings from a racially diverse sample of college freshmen. Du Bois Review, 2(1),

45–67.

Massey, D. S., & Fischer, M. J. (2006). The effect of childhood segregation on minority academic

performance at selective colleges. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 29, 1–26.

Massey, D. S., Mooney, M., Torres, K. C., & Charles, C. Z. (2007). Black immigrants and Black

natives attending selective colleges and universities in the United States. American

Journal of Education, 113(2), 243–271.

Martinez, M. (2001). Supplementary analysis for measuring up 2000: An explanatory report.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.152 North Third Street, Suite

705,San Jose, California 95112.

McClelland, K., & Lininger, E. (2006). The role of contact and information in racial attitude

change among white college students. Sociology Inquiry, 76(1), 81–115.

McKinney, A. P. (2009). Race-based differences in performance measures: Implications for

diversity management in higher education and the workforce. Journal of Diversity

Management,4 (4) 23- 30.

Milam, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1977). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring

the relationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory of student

departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 387–400.

Mok, A., Morris, M., Benet-Martinez, V., & Karakitapoglu-Aygun, Z. (2007). Embracing

137

American culture: Structures of social identity and social networks among first generation

bicultural. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 629–635.

Museus, S. D., Harper, S. R., & Nichols, A. H. Racial differences in postsecondary educational

expectations: A structural model. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 811-842.

Nakamura, J., & Shernoff, D. F. (2009). Good mentoring: Fostering excellent practice in higher

Education. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Nettles, M. T., Millet, C. M., & Ready, D. D. (2003). Attacking the African American-White

achievement gap on college admissions tests. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on

educational policy, 2003 (pp. 215–238). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Neville, H. A., Huntt, M. B., & Chapa, J. (2010). Implementing diversity: contemporary

challenges and best practices at predominantly white universities. Urbana: University of

Illinois, Center on Democracy in a Multiracial Society.

Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big five

correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

93,116–130.

Nguyen, A.M.D., & Benet- Martinez, V. (2012). Biculturalism unpacked: Components,

individual differences, measurement, and outcomes. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 1, 101–114.

Nguyen, A. M. D., & Benet- Martinez, V. (2013). Biculturalism and adjustment: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(1), 122–159.

Nuñez, A.-M. (2004). Using segmented assimilation theory to enhance conceptualization of

college participation. Interactions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies.

Vol. 1, Issue 1, Article 4.

138

Nwadiora, E. (1996). Therapy with African families. Western Journal of Black Studies, 20, 117.

Ogbu, J. (1991). Immigrant and involuntary minorities in perspective. In M. Gibson & J. Ogbu

(Eds.), Minority status and schooling: A comparative study of immigrant and involuntary

minorities (pp. 3–33). New York, NY: Garland.

Ogbu, J. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic

disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ogbu, J. U., & Simmons, H. D. (1998, 1994). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-

ecological theory of social performance with some implications for education.

Anthropology and Quarterly, 29, 155–188.

Okocha, A. A. G. (2008). Racial ethnic identity and career development concerns of college

students from immigrant African and Hmong families. Paper based on a program

presented at the National Career Development Association Global Conference,

Washington, DC.

Ordovensky, J. F., & Hagy, A. P. (1998). Immigrant status, race and institutional choice in

higher education. Washington, DC: Center for Economic Studies.

Owens, J., & Massey, D. S. (2011). Stereotype threat and college performance: A latent variables

approach. Social Science Research, 40, 150–166.

Owens, Jayanti and Scott M. Lynch. 2012. “Black and Hispanic Immigrants’ Resilience against

Negative-Ability Stereotypes at Selective Colleges and Universities in the United States.”

Sociology of Education 85(4): 303-328.

Pace, C. (1988). Measuring the quality of college students’ experiences (rev. ed.). Los

Angeles, CA: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.

Padilla, M. (2006). Bicultural social development. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

139

Sciences, 28(4), 467–497.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual (4th ed). New York, NY: Open University Press,

McGraw-Hill Companies.

Palmer, R. T., Davis, R. J., & Hilton, A. A. (2009). Exploring challenges that threaten to impede

the academic success of academically under-prepared African American collegians at an

HBCU. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 429–445.

Park, J. J. (2009). Are we satisfied? A look at student satisfaction with diversity at traditionally

white institutions. The Review of Higher Education, 32(3), 291–320.

Park, J. J. (2012). When race and religion collide: The effect of religion on interracial

friendship in college. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 5(1), 8–21.

Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environment influences on learning and

cognitive development. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and

research (Vol.1, p. 161). New York, NY: Agathon.

Pascarella, E.T. &Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey- Bass.

Pascarella, L. D., McEwen, M., Rendon, L., & Flowers, L. A. (2004). The role of race in the

development of plans for a graduate degree. The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 299–

320.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How colleges affect students. A third decade of

research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A

scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.

140

Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499–514.

Phinney, J. S., & Devich-Navarro, M. (1997). Variations in bicultural identification among

African American and Mexican American adolescents. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 7(1), 3–32.

Phinney, J. S., Ferguson, D. L., & Tate, J. D. (1997). Intergroup attitudes among ethnic minority

adolescents: A casual model. Child Development, 68(5), 955–969.

Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration,

and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493–510.

Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic self-regulation: The role of

cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of

achievement motivation (pp. 249– 284). San Diego, CA: Academic

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R.G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait. Los Angeles, CA:


Punch, K. F. (2014).Introduction to Social Research, Quantitative and Qualitative approaches, 3rd

ed., Sage Publications Inc. California, p.219.

Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of

minority retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp.

127–156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Robichaud, M., & Soares, J. A. (2014). The effects of racial self-identity on college GPA and

student satisfaction at very selective colleges and universities. International Journal of

Educational Studies, 1(2), 91–108.

Rong, X. L., & Brown, F. (2001). The effects of immigrant generation and ethnicity on

141

educational attainment among young African and Caribbean Blacks in the United States.

Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 536-565.

Rong, X. L., & Fitchett, P. (2008). Socialization and identity transformation of Black immigrant

youth in the United States. Theory into Practice, 47, 35–42.

Rotheram-Borus, M., & Phinney, J. S. (1990). Patterns of social expectations among Black and

Mexican-American children. Child Development, 61, 542–556.

Rovai, A. P, Gallien Jr., L. B., & Stiff – Williams, H.R.(2007). Closing the African

American achievement gap in higher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Rumbaut, R., & Portes, A. (2001). Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America. Berkeley, CA:


Saenz, V. B., Ngai, H. N., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Factors influencing positive interactions across

race for African American, Asian American, Latino, and white college students. Research

in Higher Education, 48, 1, 1-38.

Schofield, J. W., Haussmann, L. R. M., Ye, F., & Woods, R. L. (2010). Intergroup friendships on

campus: Predicting close and casual friendships between white and African first-year

college students. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(5), 585–602

Sherman, R. M. (2010). A theoretical look at biculturalism in inter-country adoption. Journal of

Ethnic and Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 9, 127–142.

Schwartz, S. J. (2010). The role of identity in acculturation among immigrant people: Theoretical

propositions, empirical questions and applied recommendations. Human Development,

49, 1–30.

142

Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., &Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept

of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–

251.

Shih, M., & Sanchez, D. T. (2005). Perspectives and research on the positive and negative

implications of having multiple racial identities. Psychological Bulletin, 131(4), 569–591.

Stokowski, P. R., & Bacallao, M. L. (2007) Acculturation, internalizing mental health

symptoms, and self-esteem: Cultural experiences of Latino adolescents in North Carolina.

Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 37, 273–292.

Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2010). United States, Department of Education: National Center

for Education Statistics Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,

Institute of Education Services.

Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. J. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions,

and campus racial climate: Experiences of African American college students. Journal of

Negro Education, 69(1), 60–73.

Stebleton, M. J. (2007). Career counseling with African immigrant college students: Theoretical

approaches and implications for practice. The Career Development, 55,290-312.

Stearns, E., Buchmann, C., & Bonneau, K. (2009). Interracial friendships in the transition to

college: Do birds of a feather flock together once they leave the nest? Sociology of

Education, 82, 173–195.

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–

175.

Stevenson, J., & Whelan. P. (2013). Synthesis of US literature relating to the retention,

143

progression, completion and attainment of Black and minority ethnic (BME) students in

HE. York: Higher Education Academy.

St. John, E. P., Hu, S., & Tuttle, T. (2000). Persistence by undergraduates in an urban public

university: Understanding the effects of financial aid. Journal of Student Financial Aid,

30(2), 23–38.

Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. M. (2001). Children of immigration. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Suárez-Orozco, C., Suárez-Orozco, M., & Todorova, I. (2008). Learning in a new land:

Immigrant adolescents in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2008). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (5th

ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Swaner, L. E., and J. E. Brownell. 2008. Outcomes of high impact practices for underserved

students: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges

and Universities.

Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2009). Acculturation strategies and integrative

complexity: The cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 40, 105–139.

Tatum, B. D. (2007). Can we talk about race? And other conversations in an era off school

resegregation. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Teranishi, R. T., Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (2011). Immigrants in community

colleges: Toward greater knowledge and awareness.The Future of Children, 21(1), 153-

169.

144

Terenzini, P. T., & Reason, R. D. (2005). Parsing the first year of college: A conceptual

framework for studying college impacts. Philadelphia, PA: Center for the Study of Higher

Education.

Thomas, A. A. (2014). Immigrant and native Black college students: Social experiences and

academic outcomes. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

Thompson, L. A., & Kelly-Vance, L. (2001). The impact of mentoring on academic

achievement of at-risk youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(3), 227–242.

Thomas, K. A., & Tessler, R. C. (2007). Bicultural socialization among adoptive families: Where

there is a will there is a way. Journal of Family Issues, 28(9), 1189–1219.

Ting-Toomey, S., & Chung, L. C. (2005). Understanding intercultural communication. Los

Angeles CA: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent

Research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd

ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Torres, K. (2009). Culture shock: Black students account for their distinctiveness at elite

College. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(5), 883–905.

Torres, V., & Hernandez, E. (2009). Institutional level catalysts and constraints: Influence of

an identified advisor/mentor on urban Latino student’s college experience. Journal of

College Student Retention, 11(1), 141–160.

Tropp, L. R. (2007). Perceived discrimination and interracial contact: Predicting interracial

closeness among Black and white Americans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70(1), 70–81.

145

Turiac, J. J. & Liem, J. H. (2012). Exploring the divergent academic outcomes of U.S. origin

and immigrant-origin Black undergraduates. Divers High Education, 5(4) 1-21.

Turner, M. R. (2004). The office of African American Affairs: A celebration of

success. In F. W. Hale (Ed.), What makes racial diversity work in higher education:

Academic leaders present successful policies and strategies (pp. 112–122). Sterling, VA:

Stylus.

Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Paolini, S., & Christ, O. (2007). Reducing prejudice via

direct and extended cross-group friendship. European Review of Social Psychology, 18,

212–255.

United Nations Population Fund (UNPF). (2007). Framework for action on adolescents and

youth. New York, NY: UNPF.

United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. (2011). World

population prospects: The 2010 revision, volume I: Comprehensive tables.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). The condition of education, 2013. Retrieved from

http://census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html#

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The condition

of education 2007 (NCES 2007-064). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). The condition of

education 2016. Undergraduate retention and graduation rates. (NCES,2016).

Valentine, C. (1971). Deficit, differences & bicultural models of Afro-American

behavior. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 137–157.

vanOudenhoven, J. P., Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. (Eds.) (2006).Attitudes towards immigrants

and immigration. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 637–810.

146

Verbik, L., & Lasanowski, V. (2007). International student mobility: Patterns and trends.

London: The Observatory on Borderless Education

Watson, L. W., & Kuh, G. D. (1996). The influence of dominant race environments on student

involvement, perceptions, and educational gains: A look at historically Black and

predominantly white liberal arts institutions. Journal of College Student Development,

37(4), 415–424.

Weidman, J. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. Smart (Ed.),

Higher education:Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 5, pp. 289–322). New York,

NY: Agathon.

Williamson SY. Academic, institutional, and family factors affecting the persistence of Black

male STEM majors (Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers University, 2007) Dissertation

Abstracts International. 2007;68(5-A):2033.

Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a

friendship network documents on Facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 583–

642.

Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (2001). Influences on

student’s openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third years of college.

Journal of Higher Education, 72, 172–204.

Wout, D. A., Murphy, M. C. & Steele, C. M. (2010). When your friends matter: The effects of

white student’s racial friendship networks on meta-perceptions and perceived identity

contingencies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1035–1041.

Yaffe, K., Bender, C., & Sechrest, L. (2014). How does undergraduate research experience

impact career trajectories and level of career satisfaction: A comparative survey, 44(1).

147

Yoshikawa, H., Kalil, H., Weisner, T. S., & Way, N. (2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative

research in developmental science: Uses and methodological choices. Developmental

Psychology, 44(2), 344–354.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community

cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.

Zambrana, R. E, Ray, R., Espino, M. M., Castro, C., Cohen, B. T., & Eliason, J. (2015). “Don’t

leave us behind”: The importance of mentoring for underrepresented minority faculty.

American Educational Research Journal February, 52(1), 40–72

Zane, N., & Mak, W. (2003). Major approaches to the measurement of acculturation among

ethnic minority populations: A content analysis and an alternative empirical strategy. In K.

M. Chun, P. B. Organista, & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory,

measurement, and applied research (pp. 39–60). Washington, D.C: American

Psychological Association.

148

APPENDIX

RE - IRB FORM

Pre-IRB review is mandatory for all proposals. Proposals that do not have a pre-IRB review will not be

considered by the IRB and will be sent back to the investigator.

Pre-IRB form to be filled by the department/schools:

Investigator(s): Erasmus Okere

Proposal Title: Bicultural Socialization Experiences of Black immigrant students in selective

predominantly White institutions in America

Required statement by pre-IRB reviewer: I have reviewed the proposed research. I state that:

a) the question(s)/hypothesis of the research is sound and is dearly stated; b) the study design is appropriate to answer the question(s) or prove the hypothesis of the research; c) the research has reasonable likelihood of contributing to generalizable knowledge.

My signature (1) affirms that the proposed research is scientifically sound, and (2) represents my approval of the research.

Bicultural Socialization Experiences of Black Immigrant ...

Documents

Transcript of Bicultural Socialization Experiences of Black Immigrant ...