LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE N RETURN BOX to nmovothb checkout from you "cord. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or bdoro dd. duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE f MSU InAnNIInndIvo WM Opponunky Imam Wanna-m DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZED ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS: A STUDY OF RECENT IMMIGRANTS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN BY John Phillip Kemppainen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1995 ABSTRACT DETERMINANTS OF PARTICIPATION IN ORGANIZED ADULT EDUCATION PROGRAMS: A STUDY OF RECENT IMMIGRANTS OF HISPANIC ORIGIN BY John Phillip Kemppainen This is a study of the determinants of participation in organized adult education programs by Hispanic adult immigrants in Dade County, Florida. Motivational and deterrent forces to participation were compared. The sample population included 250 Hispanic adult immigrants out of 1,228 who had applied for admission to the Wolfson Campus or the InterAmerican Center of Miami—Dade Community College during the 1994-95 academic year who never matriculated for any classes at any time during the year. This research, classified as descriptive, incorporated two different survey procedures. The instruments were translated into Spanish to accommodate the language of preference of the subject population. The data were analyzed to identify important determinant forces in both ’survey procedures to find any similarities and/or differences. Differences in the demographic responses were analyzed using t-tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). This study found that Hispanic adult immigrants were motivated to apply for admission for Professional Advancement, Social Welfare, and Cognitive Interest reasons while Cost and Institutional/Program Constraints appeared to be deterrent forces. Both survey procedures were generally similar in their results with the exception of the Institutional/Program Constraints force which only appeared in the interview portion. This research also confirmed previous research by Houle, Boshier, Cross, and Darkenwald and Valentine in identifying the determinants which effect participation. Although not generalizable to the Hispanic population in general, the results of this study indicate that this sample population is not unlike the populations of previous research in terms of the motivational forces which influenced their decision to apply for admission and the deterrent forces which inhibited their participation. It is concluded that more research into the determinants of participation in adult education is needed and, in particular, with minority groups. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like express my thanks and sincere appreciation to the many people who supported me, encouraged me, were patient with me, and who guided me through the course of study for my doctoral program. To Dr. S. Joseph Levine, my committee chairperson and mentor, without whose guidance, this would not have been possible. To my committee members, Dr. Charles McKee, Dr. James Bristor and Dr. Vincent Hoffman, whose willingness to meet upon short notices and whose advice and counsel were invaluable throughout the entire process. Special thanks is also given to Dr. Eduardo Padron, President of Miami-Dade Community College, whose support and encouragement allowed me the time and the opportunity to complete this degree. To my family and friends who were always there when I needed them and to my mother, Mrs. Elma Kemppainen, whose love and support were always with me. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ...................................... viii CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM INTRODUCTION ...................................... 1 BACKGROUND ........................................ 4 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM .......................... 7 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY .............................. 9 DEFINITION OF TERMS ............................... 10 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ......................... 12 Methodology for the Study .................... 13 SUMMARY ........................................... 14 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE LEARNING THEORY ................................... 16 MOTIVATIONAL THEORY ............................... l7 DETERRENT THEORY .................................. 25 SUMMARY ........................................... 30 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION ...................................... 33 SELECTION OF METHOD ............................... 34 INSTRUMENTATION ................................... 35 Mailed Questionnaire ......................... 35 Motivational forces ..................... 37 Deterrent forces ........................ 37 Background information .................. 38 Guided Personal Interviews .................... 39 Focus of the interviews ................. 42 Background information .................. 45 SAMPLE POPULATION ................................. 46 Mailed Questionnaire ......................... 46 V Guided Personal Interview .................... 48 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION ...................................... SO MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE FINDINGS ..................... 51 Demographic Findings ......................... 51 Motivational Forces .......................... 57 Deterrent Forces ............................ 64 Interpretation of Categories ................. 71 Motivational forces ..................... 72 Deterrent forces ........................ 73 Tests of Significance ........................ 74 T-test results .......................... 75 Analysis of variance .................... 88 Mailed Questionnaire Data analysis ........... 96 Motivational categories ................. 96 Deterrent categories .................... 100 Summary of mailed questionnaire data .... 103 GUIDED PERSONAL INTERVIEW FINDINGS ............... 105 Demographic Findings ......................... 106 Interview Summaries .......................... 111 Guided Personal Interview Results ............ 128 Comparing Mailed Questionnaire Data with Guided Personal Interview Data ................ 131 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION ...................................... 134 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ............................... 134 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........... _ ................... 135 Mailed Questionnaire ......................... 136 Guided Personal Interview .................... 136 Review of the Results ........................ 137 Mailed questionnaire - motivational forces ................................... 137 Mailed questionnaire - deterrent forces .................................. 138 Guided personal interviews - motivational forces ................................... 139 Guided personal interviews - deterrent forces .................................. 139 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY .......................... 140 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY ......................... 140 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 142 Implications for Hispanic Immigrants ......... 145 Institutional Responses ...................... 145 Language as a Barrier ........................ 147 vi Determinants of Drop-Outs .................... 148 Motivational and Deterrent Forces ............ 149 Research Involving Hispanic Minorities ....... 149 The Role of the Church ....................... 150 REFLECTIONS OF THE RESEARCHER ..................... 1 5 1 APPENDICES ...................................... 156 - 212 REFERENCES ............................................. 2 1 3 vii Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table N koooqmmow 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LIST OF TABLES Page Demographic Characteristics of Mailed Questionnaire Sample .................. 52—53 Motivational Categories of Determinants ............................ 58 Professional Advancement ................ 59 Social Welfare .......................... 60 Cognitive Interest ...................... 61 Escape/Stimulation ...................... 62 External Expectation .................... 63 Deterrent Categories of Determinants 65 Lack of Confidence ...................... 66 Institutional/Programs Constraints ...... 67 Time Constraints ........................ 68 Low Personal Priority ................... 69 Cost .................................... 70 Personal Problems ....................... 71 T-test results by Gender ................ 76 T—test results by Age ................... 77 T-test results by Marital Status ........ 79 T-test results by Employment Status ..... 80 T-test results by Other Languages Besides Spanish ......................... 81 T-test results by Financial Support Provided for Others ..................... 82 T-test results by Living Arrangements in the United States .................... 84 T-test results by Living Arrangements in Native Country ....................... 85 T-test results by Church Participation in Native Country ....................... 86 T—test results by Church Participation in the United States .................... 87 ANOVA results by Annual Earnings ........ 89 ANOVA results by Time in the United States ........................... 9O ANOVA results by Educational Attainment .............................. 91 ANOVA results by Country of Origin ...... 93 viii Table Table Table Table 29 30 31 32 Occurrence of Significant Differences Between Grouping Variables and Deterrent Categories ............................ 94-95 Demographic Characteristics of Guided Personal Interview Sample .... 107-108 Motivational Forces which Influenced Decision to apply for Admission ......... 128 Deterrent Forces which Prohibited Participation ........................... 130 ix CHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM INTRODUCTION Participation is the central issue to any viable adult education program or activity, and when participation is enhanced or inhibited for whatever reasons, program planners and organizers take great interest (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982). Consequently, the issue of who participates in organized adult education programs and why they participate, has been the focus of numerous studies. However, more research is still needed, particularly as it applies to the different minority groups represented in the United States. The Hispanic minority population of the United States has been growing at an accelerated rate over the past decade. Several studies have predicted that by the year 2005, Hispanics will surpass the African-Americans as the largest ethnic minority in the United States (Wirsching and Stenberg, 1992). The 1990 population census reported 22.4 million Hispanics living in this country making the United States the fifth largest Spanish speaking country in the world. Only Mexico, Spain, Colombia, and Argentina have larger Spanish speaking populations (Boswell, 1994). Increased immigration from Cuba, as well as Central and South America, and a higher fertility rate among Hispanic females are principal reasons for this rapid growth. 2 It should be noted, however, that the term Hispanic has been generally used to refer to all persons of Hispanic origin. It does not take into account the differences among the cultures of the different Hispanic nations, nor does it take into account the regional differences which may be evident within those countries. When asking a Hispanic person to identify his or her cultural background, his or her response would be directly related to the country, and often the region within that country, from which they came. They do not say they are Hispanic, and only those from Spain identify themselves as Spanish. With the United States of America often described as a melting pot of all other cultures of the world, the need for sensitivity to the cultural values of those from other countries becomes extremely important. An important question to consider is, "Are our educators and educational institutions adequately informed about the determinants of participation so that they can design programs that recognize needs and present them in such a manner as to encourage the participation of all adults, including minorities throughout their lifespan?" As the field of adult education continues to grow, researchers must continue to explore those reasons which motivate or deter the adult populations of all ethnicities to participate in these programs. By so doing, they will not only enhance the quality and diversity of their programs, 3 but increase the number of programs available to the educative community, as well. Educators and planners must be sensitive to what people want and need, not to what is perceived to be wanted or needed by directors and administrators. The increasing need for adult education in our society, as well as wide spread interest and general recognition, has stimulated this researcher to explore those forces which not only motivate, but also deter participation in organized adult education programs, particularly in the Hispanic population. Research conducted in the United States on the determinants to participation in organized adult education has closely followed the psychological approach. There are two main foci, or orientations, which have been the subject of extensive research. Motivational forces and deterrent forces both are viewed as contributing to one’s decision to participate. Both have attempted to establish a construct by which these forces can be measured. Therefore, if adult education programs are expected to provide the bridge which will prepare adults from other countries with the knowledge, language, and skills necessary, not only to adjust to a new environment, but to succeed and become productive members of our communities, it becomes the responsibility of the program directors and planners to be cognizant of the determinants in order to 4 meet this ever increasing need. BACKGROUND When the term "adult education" first came into general use in 1924 as a generic term to describe previously unrelated activities, there was an attempt to see how broad a meaning could be given it (Courtney: in Merriam and Cunningham, 1989). The result was that dozens of definitions surfaced over the years. Cross’ book, Adults as Learners, (1981) which attempted to define the term, listed seventeen. The truth is, it may be a while before there is a readily accepted definition for adult education. And should this happen, we may have a greater cause to be concerned. Definitions are usually developed with special ideologies in mind, which are consistent with the way different people are socialized into their field. Rather than attempting to define adult education, Courtney (1989) gives a perspective of the overall picture of adult education in the United States. He lists five basic perspectives which encompass the entire field. These are: 1) that adult education is seen as the work of institutions and organizations, 2) that it has been described as a special kind of relationship, as in the concept of andragogy, or the distinction between adult education and education for adults, 3) that it has been 5 considered a profession or a scientific discipline, 4) that its beginning is from a historical definition with spontaneous social movements, and 5) that it has been distinguished from other kinds of education by its goals and functions. It has often been said that America is graying; not only is she graying, the color of her skin is also changing. Yet minority participation in adult education in the United States has basically been ignored over the years. And while the age of the anglo majority is increasing, the average age of minorities, and in particular Hispanics, is decreasing. Minorities tend to cluster together by their own . ethnicity, and usually in large metropolitan areas. Some disturbing statistics show that the majority of Hispanic workers remains in unskilled occupations and the household incomes have actually decreased (Sotomayor, 1988). The number of female-headed households is also increasing among Hispanics, and Hispanic children are more likely to live in poverty (Valdivieso, 1985). The educational picture for Hispanics also raises many concerns. The average number of years of formal education among Hispanics is 10.5 years compared to 12.5 for the majority anglo population (Sotomayor, 1988; HACU, 1994). Forty percent of all Hispanics, age 20-24, did not graduate from high school and 31% of all 18 year olds did not complete high school or obtain a general equivalency degree 6 (GED) (Sotomayor, 1988). According to the U.S. Bureau of Census report (1990), Hispanics had the lowest high school completion rate (52%) of the groups identified. Although there are numerous studies relating to the motivation for participation in organized adult education programs, (Houle 1961, Boshier 1971 & 1977, Morstain & Smart 1974), the literature appears to be void of any studies regarding motivation as it relates to specifically Hispanic participation in organized programs of adult education. Deterrents have also been studied and documented using white, middle class populations by researchers (Cross 1981, Darkenwald and Associates, 1982, 1984, 1985 & 1990). Deterrents for Hispanics and other minorities have sparsely been reported and usually refer to the practice of grouping or tracking along ethnic lines, which many minorities view to be discriminatory (Valdivieso, 1985; Darling~Hammond, 1985; Sotomayor, 1988; Rendon, 1989 & 1993; and Wirshing & Stenberg, 1992). There is also evidence which suggests that an insensitivity to cultural and language differences creates barriers, particularly in education (Vontress, 1969). While it appears that most organized adult education programs in the United States represent middle-class values, many who come from other cultures often choose not to participate because they feel they are outside of the mainstream of participants. (Mezirow, 1985; Darkenwald, 1985; Knox, 1985). STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Within the framework of the determinants to participation in organized adult education programs, two main forces are recognized: 1) The motivational forces which influence one’s participation in organized adult education programs, and 2) The deterrent forces which prohibit one’s participation in organized adult education programs. Many in our society contend that our educational institutions should be designed to provide learning opportunities for everyone, including adults. It is also believed that educational opportunities should be available to anyone who wishes to participate. Therefore, program planners and educators must not only be cognizant of what the needs of the learners are throughout their lifespan, they must also be aware of the motivational and deterrent forces which influence or inhibit potential learners' participation. This is especially true for minorities within our population, including the Hispanic minority. Some of the current literature suggests that large numbers of minorities are already involved in adult education programs. Inaccurate statistics, however, arise from a lack of recordkeeping and documentation of their participation. Without information regarding the programs 8 and numbers involved, the determinants become even more difficult to assess. As educational institutions begin to plan for the let century, the needs of all adults must be of paramount importance. A concerted effort to encourage more research into issues concerning minorities and their participation in organized adult education programs must be made if the field is going to maintain itself as a legitimate discipline. This study is concerned with those forces which motivate Hispanic adult immigrants to apply for admission to organized programs in adult education, as well as the deterrent forces which prohibit their participation. Because large numbers of Hispanics living in the United States are adult immigrants whose primary and secondary education was received in their native countries, information on how to best serve this population must be forthcoming. With such limited information available, it is the intent of this study to open the door to a population which has received only minimal attention from past research. Others are encouraged to conduct further research which focuses on minority participation in organized adult education programs. Adult education can and should play a major role in the bridging of America with other cultures of the world through program designs which encourage and enhance the participation of all members in our society. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study is to examine the determinants of participation by Hispanic adult immigrants in organized programs of adult education. With increased program offerings for adults originating from institutions of higher education, it is of great concern that program developers be able to identify the determinants of participation in these programs and, in particular, as they address the needs of minorities. The early work done by Houle, Boshier, Morstain & Smart, Cross, Darkenwald, Merriam and Valentine provides an excellent framework from which to guide our research. Although much of the research does not reflect how programs have influenced minorities, it does establish meaningful results by which future research can be modeled. It would be helpful to know whether similar demographic characteristics of Hispanic adult immigrants in this study produce similar results as previous research or whether the findings are‘ unique and only generalizable to Hispanic populations. It would also be helpful to know if what have been identified as determinants for non-minority populations holds true for Hispanic minority populations. How are these determinants related to each other? These are some of the concerns which prompted this research. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to examine the determinants of participation by Hispanic adult immigrants 10 in organized adult education programs. The determinants being the: 1) Motivational forces which influence Hispanic adult immigrants to apply for admission to an organized program in adult education. 2) Deterrent forces which prohibit these same Hispanic adult immigrants from participating in an organized program of adult education. DEFINITION OF TERMS The following terms are utilized in this research and are defined to provide greater clarity and accuracy in the interpretation of the data presented. Adult. For this study, an adult is anyone who has reached the age of 18 and is no longer involved in a full- time course of study. Derived score. For this study, the derived scores are mean scores which have been calculated by computing the mean of the individual respondent means for each category. Determinants to participation. Those factors which either motivate or influence, as well as deter or inhibit one’s participation in organized adult education programs. Deterrent forces. The categories identified in the Deterrents to Participation Scale - Generic (DPS-G) as factors which deter or serve as barriers to participation in adult education programs. 11 Guided personal interview. A survey procedure in which the research was conducted via a one-on-one, in-depth interview with the subject in an effort to identify the motivational forces which influenced the subject’s decision to apply for admission to an organized adult education program and the deterrent forces which prohibited their participation in the same program. Hispanic adult immigrant. An adult of Hispanic origin who has immigrated to the United States but is not a naturalized citizen. Those subjects who were born in Puerto Rico and are United States citizens, and who have relocated to the Dade County, Florida area are included in this definition. Lifespan. The period of time of a human life extending from birth to death. This study focuses upon the stage of the lifespan beginning at age 18 throughout the continuum of life. Mailed questionnaire. A survey procedure in which a written questionnaire was prepared incorporating questions from already established instruments to collect written information. Motivational forces. The categories identified in the Education Participation Scale (EPS) as factors which motivate or influence the subject’s decision to apply for admission to an organized program in adult education. Organized adult education. Any class or course offered 12 for credit, non-credit, or vocational credit, including English as a Second Language, at a recognized, accredited institution of higher education. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Previous research has focused on a variety of factors which might affect an individual's decision to participate in adult education programs. These factors are grouped into one of two different foci: 1) Motivational forces, or 2) Deterrents to participation. In most of the previous studies, the focus has been either on the motivational forces or on the deterrent forces. One study was conducted at a major urban university in the south (Henry and Basile, 1994) which incorporated both motivational theory and deterrents to participation in the same research. The motivational forces analyzed involved students who did enroll for classes and were already participating in the program. The deterrents analyzed came from a list of names of those who had called for information about the program but never matriculated. Two separate sample populations, those attending and those who did not attend, were part of their study. This study is significant in that it is the same population which is being analyzed for both the motivational forces which influence the individuals’ decision to apply for admission, as well as the deterrent forces which 13 prohibit their participation. Also significant is the composition of the population. All are Hispanic immigrants, the majority having less than five years residency in the United States. When one considers that the vast majority of this population speaks only Spanish, numerous cultural values, as well as possible changes in often reported demographics, must also be considered. Methodology for the Studv The study includes two separate survey procedures. The mailed questionnaire, a quantitative approach and the guided personal interview, a qualitative approach. The mailed questionnaire, the quantitative approach, focuses on the collection of data from pre-determined questions incorporated from established instruments with some minor modifications to adapt it to the study. The subjects were unknown to the researcher and the only information reported is the self-disclosure made by the subjects in writing on the questionnaire. The data were analyzed using established quantitative statistical procedures. The guided personal interview, or qualitative approach, focuses on one-to-one interviews with the subjects, asking each to state the reasons they applied for admission and also the reasons they did not attend. In this instance, the subjects met with the researcher and the opportunity for verbal interaction was possible. Although the interviews 14 had the same focus as the mailed questionnaire, the subjects were permitted to respond to open—ended questions whereby they provided motivational and deterrent reasons. The results of the two approaches were compared. Differences and similarities in the information are reported and recommendations for future research are made. SUMMARY This study focuses on the determinants of participation by Hispanic adult immigrants in organized adult education programs. Whereas previous studies have addressed the issue of determinants of participation in organized adult education programs, little research is available as it relates to the specific determinants of participation by Hispanic adult immigrants in organized programs of adult education. With Hispanics rapidly becoming the largest minority in the United States it will be important for planners and organizers of adult education programs to be aware of the determinants of participation for this group. Research indicates there is much concern about the educational preparedness of this Hispanic subgroup and it appears that program planners and directors of adult education programs can make significant strides by incorporating Hispanics into programs which can prepare them for a better life. It will be necessary for directors and planners to be 15 aware of the motivational forces, as well as the deterrents, as they plan to address the issue of Hispanic participation in organized adult education. Considering only one of the forces will not be sufficient. Both are important and they must be considered together. In order to obtain a better understanding of the needs of Hispanic immigrants and to motivate them to participate and also eliminate the deterrents, more research will be required. The work of Freire, Horton, and Mezirow may serve as a foundation upon which non-traditional strategies can be developed and tested. The America of the let century must include all races, all ethnicities, and all people regardless of their life-stage or social status to maintain its leadership position in the world. The role of adult education in this process is eminent. Adult educators, planners and directors must take the initiative to reach out to those who have been excluded or overlooked in the past and design programs which will address the needs of all. Motivational forces and deterrent forces are important factors to be considered when assessing needs. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE LEARNING THEORY Teaching and learning is as old as our civilization itself. What has been learned by man antedates recorded history. Jesus is portrayed as a dedicated teacher in the Gospel of St. Matthew in the New Testament. He used stories and examples to convey his teachings to his followers. Decades earlier, Rabbi Hillel (c. 70 B.C. - 10 A.D.), dedicated his time to the study and organization of Jewish Law. The school he founded in Jerusalem became a major center of learning which carried his name (Nault, 1972). Centuries before, the ancient Greek philosopher Plato (427- 347 B.C.) engaged in lively dialogues and his Academy became famous as a teaching institution (Phillips & Soltis, 1991). It is not just the fact that people learned, but how people learned, which stimulated considerable discussion and debate and still continues to challenge researchers today. Plato theorized that knowledge is innate, that it is in place in the mind at the time of birth. Seventeenth century British philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), disagreed with Plato and instead claimed that an infant comes into the world with a blank mind. The mental abilities which allow learning to take place are "wired in" and these abilities are part of the biological equipment of the human species 16 17 (Phillips & Soltis, 1991). More than a century later, Darwin (1809-1882) proposed his theory of evolution which suggested that human beings should be seen as a "biological continuum" with the animal kingdom. Although controversial, this theory spurred interest about how animals learn which later served as a basis for how human beings learn. Watson (1878-1958), Pavlov (1849-1936), Thorndike (1874-1949), Skinner (1904— 1990) and others developed the behaviorist orientation as an explanation for how people learn. This concept was followed by other theories including the cognitive orientation theory as presented by Piaget (1966) and Ausubel (1967); the humanistic orientation theory developed by Rogers (1983) and Maslow (1970); and the social learning theory as set forth by Bandura (1976), Lefrancois (1982), and Hergenhahn (1988). Knowles' (1968, 1980, 1984) theory of andragogy is closely linked to the humanistic orientation. MOTIVATIONAL THEORY While much attention was being directed toward how people learn, a new theory was beginning to surface as to "why" people learn, and in particular, adults. One of the earliest significant studies about what motivates peOple to engage in continuous learning was undertaken by Cyril O. Houle in 1960 and published in The Inquiring Mind (1961). Houle conducted a series of in-depth interviews with twenty- 18 two adults in the greater Chicago area who were engaged in various types of continuous learning. He suggests that all participants in adult education programs fall into one of three distinct and identifiable categories. He identified these categories as: 1) goal—oriented, those who use education as a means of accomplishing a fairly clear-cut objective; 2) activity-oriented, those who take part for the sake of the activity itself rather than to develop a skill or learn the subject matter; and 3) learning—oriented, those who seek knowledge for the sake of learning or gaining new information. Boshier (1971), using Houle’s typology in a New Zealand study, developed a factor analysis measure for motivation using 233 adult education participants selected randomly from three different institutions. Boshier (1971) suggests that motives for participation were more complex than reported by Houle in his 1961 study, and proposed fourteen factors or motivational labels. He identified these fourteen factors as: social welfare, social contact, other- directed professional advancement, intellectual recreation, inner-directed professional advancement, social conformity, educational preparedness, cognitive interest, educational compensation, social sharing, television abhorrence, social improvement and escape, interpersonal facilitation, and educational supplementation. He concluded that all adult education participants are l9 motivated. What motivates them is the issue to be studied. He suggested that there is a tension increase, some action to address this increase in tension, and then satisfaction or a decrease in tension. This lends itself to the homeostasis principles set forth by Cannon (1932) in holistic psychology which suggests that people have the tendency to maintain a state of equilibrium between their constituent parts. Using Maslow’s distinction between "deficiency" and "growth," Boshier (1971) suggests that all participants in adult education programs are predominantly "growth" or "deficiency" motivated. Thus those who are deficiency motivated are motivated in order to remove some deficiency which will lead them to equilibrium or homeostasis and those who are growth motivated are seeking to go beyond this equilibrium to new heights, interests, careers, to something he identified as heterostasis. Maslow (1954, 1970) refers to this as self-actualization. Morstain and Smart (1974), in an effort to replicate Boshier's New Zealand study in the United States, administered Boshier’s Education Participation Scale (EPS) to 611 students enrolled in adult education classes at a college in the United States. They found many similarities with the New Zealand study in the reasons for participation in a university sponsored adult education program. Based upon a factor analysis of eleven factors, Morstain and Smart (1974) concluded that six factors should be retained. These 20 six are included in groupings representing: 1) social relationships, 2) external relationships, 3) social welfare, 4) professional advancement, 5) escape/stimulation, and 6) cognitive interest. They did find noticeable differences, however, when the individuals were classified into different age-sex groupings. Younger adults tended to score higher on the Social Relationship scale than older adults. Male participants also appeared to be more motivated than female participants on the External Expectations scale, while female participants tended to score higher on the Cognitive Interest scale. In the area of Social Welfare, male and female participants had relatively similar scores; however, the scores for females appeared to decline as their age increased (Morstain and Smart, 1974). Burgess (1971), using 1,046 participants in adult education programs in St. Louis, Missouri, also set out to explore the educational orientations as developed by Houle. He hypothesized eight motivational clusters which revealed seven interpretable factors including: 1) desire to know, 2) desire to reach a personal goal, 3) desire to reach a social goal, 4) desire to reach a religious goal, 5) desire to escape, 6) desire to take part in a social activity, and 7) desire to comply with formal requirements. The Commission for Non-Traditional Study (CNS) added two more they felt were important: the desire for personal fulfillment and the desire for cultural knowledge. Burgess (1971) concluded 21 that the reasons men and women participate in educational activities can be factored into a limited number of groups. Boshier (1977) presented a model for participation in adult education programs based upon Maslow’s psychological characteristics of deficiency and growth and his earlier research. Growth or "life-space" oriented people are those who participate in adult education classes for expression or because they enjoy learning new things. Deficiency or "Life-chance" oriented people, on the other hand, are those who participate because there is a need, such as survival, or to acquire new knowledge and skills in order to advance. The life-chance motivation, according to Boshier, is more closely associated with Maslow’s lower-order needs including physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging and esteem. Life-space oriented people have, for the most part, satisfied these lower-order needs and are inner-directed, autonomous and open to new experiences and are approaching what Maslow identifies as self-actualization. Further discussion centers around whether the life- chance and life-space orientations are at opposite ends of a single continuum. Boshier recognized that some aspects of people's lives may be to satisfy lower-order or life-chance needs, with other aspects seeking to expand both social and vocational horizons which may be life-space needs. He also suggests that future research may show that the life- chance/life-space motivations may cut across all reasons for 22 participation. Houle’s (1961) study classified people according to their reasons for participation. They were either goal- oriented, activity oriented or learning oriented in their motivation. Whereas this information may be helpful in identifying the reason for participation, Boshier (1977) suggests that the life—space/life chance model more adequately addresses some of the social and psychological reasons for participation. Maslow (1954) suggests that individuals who are growth oriented are motivated by inner forces and are less likely to respond to external forces. Deficiency oriented people, on the other hand, are more inclined to be motivated by some external forces as well as those inner forces needed for survival. Relating this to Boshier's model, life-space participants are self-actualizing and as gratification increases so does motivation. The assumption is made that participation in adult education programs is determined by how people feel about themselves and the match between themselves and the educational environment. It has been suggested by some that participation in adult education programs can be explained as a function of maturation (Havighurst, 1972 & Levinson, 1978, 1986). Erikson's (1959) psycho—social stages suggest that individuals must respond to these critical stages in their 23 life, and thus, motives for participation change as one ages. Johnstone and Rivera (1965) found that young people were more motivated toward participation for job-centered reasons whereas older adults tended to be less pragmatic and leaned more toward the leisure centered goals. Yet Erikson (1959) suggests that adults may be growth or life-space oriented until middle adulthood and then, depending on the person’s own circumstances, may return to a more deficiency or life-chance orientation. Whether or not adults become more life-chance oriented in late adulthood because of social factors or biological or psychological decline, Boshier (1977) suggests that older adults participating in adult education are usually an elite not suffering the adversities of disengagement. The socio-economic factors associated with adult motives for participation must also be considered. Wirsching and Stenberg (1992) include educational attainment, occupational status and income as principle determinants of socio-economic status. It could further be argued that one’s living arrangements, their spoken language, participation in activities outside the home, i.e. the church, and whether one provides financially for the support of someone else, could also be included in establishing one's socio-economic status. Although usually not included, marital status, and in the case of this study, the amount of time living in the United States, arguably 24 have an impact on one’s socio—economic status. Whether one is in the lower, middle, or upper socio- economic class, each group has associated motives for participation. Most data suggest that a larger portion of adult education participants come from the upper socio- economic class and are more life-space oriented than those who come from the lower economic status (Boshier, 1977). He suggests that as learners move up the socio-economic ladder they become more life-space oriented. On the other hand, those on the lower end of the scale are usually fixated at Maslow’s lower levels and are therefore more life—chance oriented. The participation of those from the lower socio- economic levels in adult education classes is usually to remove a deficiency. Johnstone and Rivera (1965) concluded that adults in the lower socio-economic levels enroll in adult education classes to learn to cope with everyday life. Men tended to enroll more for vocational reasons while women enrolled for vocational or home-making reasons. These would appear to be identified with Boshier’s life-chance motives for participation. In a study of 242 participants in Vancouver, Canada, Boshier (1977) suggested five clusters or groups as motivational factors for participation. These five include: escape/stimulation, professional advancement, social welfare, external relationships, and cognitive interest. 25 His model describes adult participation as either life— chance or life—space motivated. Acknowledging that participants in adult education programs usually represent the socio-economic elite and are disproportionately drawn from elite segments of the general population, Boshier concluded that motivational orientations appear to be more than just superficial clusters of reasons for participation. He suggested that they may be manifestations of psychological states which are probably related to the psycho—social conditions in various age and socio-economic groups. He further suggested that one reason for the low participation of the people from lower socio-economic groups is the fact that they feel incongruent with the adult education environment. DETERRENT THEORY On the reverse side of the motivational factors are the deterrents to participation. Why don’t people participate in adult education programs? Although the numerous studies on motivation have given us a better understanding of the reasons why people participate in adult education activities, they are not helpful or successful in predicting participation in these activities (Ordos, 1980). In order to have a better understanding of the full picture of the determinants of participation in adult education programs, one must also consider the deterrents. 26 Johnstone and Rivera (1965) listed ten potential barriers to participation, which they grouped into two categories: external, or situational, barriers and internal, or dispositional, barriers. Demographic characteristics were matched to these barriers which showed older adults citing more internal or dispositional barriers while younger people were more constrained by external or situational barriers. They also noted that persons of the lower socio—economic status encountered both situational and dispositional barriers. Cross (1981), using data collected from a national survey conducted by the Commission on Non-traditional Study (Carp, Peterson, and Roelfs, 1974), classified barriers to participation under three general headings. She identified them as: 1) situational barriers, arising from one’s situation in life at a given time; 2) institutional barriers, consisting of those practices and procedures that exclude or discourage adults from participation, such as inconvenient schedules or locations, and inappropriate courses; and 3) dispositional barriers, which are related to attitudes and self—perception about oneself as a learner. She cautions, however, that the two most common methods used to identify these barriers, interviews and questionnaires, do not go far enough or deep enough to be able to tell us the real reasons for non-participation. Cost, for example, is an exceptionally difficult barrier to study via the 27 survey method (Cross, 1981). The reason being that many adults who cite cost as a barrier may not have any idea of what the cost is and what some of the options may be. "Because it costs too much" is an acceptable reason in our society for not doing something. Thus saying it costs too much is an easy answer to a much more complex question. Darkenwald and Merriam (1982) also proposed a typology. They too, list situational and institutional barriers but have added "psychosocial" barriers in place of Cross’ dispositional barriers. The psychosocial barriers include beliefs, values, attitudes and perceptions people have about themselves as learners, or about education in general. "I don’t like school" and "I’m afraid I can’t keep up" are examples of psychosocial barriers (Darkenwald and Merriam, 1982). Darkenwald developed a scale of deterrents to participation which went beyond the three-part typology developed by Cross and the four-type developed by Darkenwald and Merriam. The purpose was to develop a scale or instrument where the responses could be factor analyzed to reveal underlying reasons for non-participation. The Deterrent to Participation Scale (DPS) was the instrument developed by Darkenwald and colleagues. Scanlan and Darkenwald (1984), using the Deterrents to Participation Scale (DPS), conducted a study of 479 allied health professionals in New Jersey in an attempt to identify 28 deterrent factors to participation. Six deterrent factors which were identified by the subjects emerged from the study: 1) disengagement, 2) lack of quality, 3) family constraints, 4) cost, 5) lack of benefit, and 6) work constraints. It was concluded that the construct of deterrents to participation does meaningfully contribute to defining participation in adult education programs. Darkenwald and Valentine (1985) modified the DPS to a more generic form (DPS-G) for use on a population of 215 participants from a sample population of 2,000 in Somerset County, New Jersey. The purpose was for the new instrument I to go beyond the narrow, homogeneous population of the 1984 study and one which could be utilized on the general public. Included in this later study were several socio-demographic variables, such as age and sex, in an effort to see if these factors were identified as deterrents to participation. Of interest was the relationship between the socio-demographic factors and the other variables previously identified as being deterrents to participation. The results of the later study were substantially different in all areas except cost from the earlier study. The 1985 study was concerned with the deterrents to participation of the general public, whereas the 1984 study was restricted to those employed in the allied health care field. The 1984 study results were found to be substantially different from the earlier intuitive conceptualization 29 proposed by Cross (1981). With regard to the "situational" category of deterrents, three distinct variables emerged: time constraints, cost, and personal problems. Course relevance was the only factor which emerged in the "institutional" category whereas Cross had listed several. And finally, Lack of Confidence was the only factor which matched Cross’ definition of "dispositional" barriers (Darkenwald and Valentine (1985). The difference in the findings suggests that it may be necessary to develop specific deterrents to participation instruments to measure deterrents for distinctive populations (Darkenwald and Valentine, 1985). They state that the decision not to participate in organized adult education is typically due to a combined or synergistic effect of multiple deterrents. A 1990 study by Darkenwald and Valentine was a re- evaluation of the 1985 study to more fully identify and describe "types" of adults, as defined by their previous perceived deterrents to participation in organized adult education. It is understood that there are an infinite number of barriers toward participation in adult education programs that could exist in the general public, and the notion of barriers is central to most theoretical formulations of participation (Darkenwald and Valentine, 1990). Results from the 1990 study show that 59% of the total sample of potential learners were identified as 3O "externally deterred," that is, the forces which were working against their participation were external to themselves. The remaining 41% of the potential learners were identified as "internally deterred," meaning the deterrent forces were essentially psychological in nature. The labels of "externally" or "internally" deterred participants was extracted from the findings presented by Johnstone and Rivera (1965) in which the ten potential barriers to participation were divided into the two categories. SUMMARY It would be difficult to imagine how one would live in today's society without learning new things. How we learn, has been studied and discussed for decades, even centuries and as a result, numerous learning theories have emerged. Why we learn, and also, why we do not, have been important foci in recent years, particularly in relation to adults. The literature is extensive when it comes to examining the determinants of participation in adult education programs. Reasons why people participate have been the subject of many studies. The results have been inconclusive and many researchers suggest their findings confirm much of Houle’s (1961) typology. Others suggest the need to go beyond the classification of people according to their central reasons for participation and to begin to 31 examine the social and psychological reasons for participation. Boshier (1977) offers a model for participation in adult education programs suggesting a relationship between the psychological factors and the motives for participation. The life-chance/life-space motivational model suggests that all adult learners fall into one or both of these categories depending on their current life situation. Whereas it is important to know and understand the reasons for participation, it is equally important to recognize the reasons for non-participation by adults. Literature on deterrents, or barriers, to participation in adult education programs is extensive; and as with motivational research, numerous models have emerged. Like the typology proposed by Houle for motivation, Cross (1981) proposed a three point model which suggests that the reasons adults do not participate can be classified into one of three different deterrent or barrier categories. Variations of her model have been suggested by others, each identifying categories into which reasons for non-participation can be grouped. Describing previous research on deterrents to participation as, "only the first step", Darkenwald and Valentine (1985) set out to develop a construct of deterrents which could be replicated in future research. They found their results to be substantially different from 32 earlier intuitive conceptualized studies. Sociodemographic variables were studied more critically and they concluded that these variables were related in logical ways to the majority of their deterrent categories. The consensus of the literature in both motivational theory and deterrents to participation is that the individual’s decision to participate or not participate in organized adult education programs is due to a combined or synergistic effect of multiple reasons. This suggests therev may be a need to develop special or modify existing instruments for distinctive subgroups or sub—populations. CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to examine the determinants of participation by Hispanic adult immigrants in organized programs of adult education. The procedures used in this study were of the survey type which included mailed questionnaires and guided personal interviews. Unlike a number of previous studies about determinants of participation in organized adult education programs which have been conducted in other parts of the country and the world using white, middle class populations (Houle, 1961; Boshier, 1971 & 1977; Burgess, 1971; Morstain and Smart, 1974; Cross, 1981; Scanlan and Darkenwald, 1984; Darkenwald and Valentine, 1985), this study focuses on an ethnic minority group, Hispanic adult immigrants, residing in Dade County, Florida. The sample population consisted of a random sample of Hispanic adult immigrants who had applied for admission for the fall semester, beginning in August, 1994 and the winter semester, beginning in January, 1995, to the Wolfson Campus and/or the InterAmerican Center of Miami— Dade Community College, yet failed to matriculate for any classes at Miami-Dade Community College at any time during the 1994-95 academic year. In excess of 3,000 individuals fall into this category each year; more than 1,000 of this 33 34 number are Hispanic. (Institutional Research, Miami—Dade Community College, 1992) This is an exploratory study which focuses on comparing and analyzing the responses of randomly selected individuals from within this population. Motivational responses reported by the individuals reflecting factors which influenced their decision to apply for admission to an organized program in adult education were analyzed. Deterrent responses, as reported by these same individuals, indicating their reasons for not attending, were also analyzed. This was done in an effort to gain a greater understanding of the determinants of participation by this Hispanic subgroup. This information is intended to contribute to the vast body of knowledge already amassed by experts in the field, particularly in relation to Hispanic minorities. It can also provide some immediate and practical benefit to the participating institution. SELECTION OF METHOD This study falls into the category of descriptive research since descriptive research is concerned with determining the nature and degree of existing conditions. Approaches to descriptive research may vary but will usually fall into two general categories; the case study approach and the survey approach. The case study is an in-depth investigation of an individual, group or institution, 35 whereas the survey approach is an attempt to collect data from members of a population in order to determine the current status of the population with respect to one or more variables (Gay, 1992). Samples may be either cross- sectional, where all the data are gathered at one point in time, or longitudinal, where data are gathered over a period of time. This study utilized the cross-sectional survey approach. INSTRUMENTATION After a review of the literature and the different types and formats of data collection procedures, a survey approach was selected that used two different methods for collecting information. The first procedure was a mailed questionnaire and the second was a guided personal interview. Both procedures incorporated questions from already established motivational and deterrent scales as well as some specific questions developed for this research. Mailed Questionnaire The Education Participation Scale (EPS) by Boshier and the Deterrents to Participation Scale-Generic (DPS-G) by Darkenwald and Valentine were the two instruments used as the basis for this study. The reliability and validity for these instruments has been established in earlier studies (Boshier, 1977 & Darkenwald & Valentine, 1985). It was necessary to translate the mailed questionnaire into 36 Spanish, as the largest portion of the surveyed population had only Spanish speaking, reading, and writing abilities. After the mailed questionnaire was translated it was reviewed by Dr. Rene Garcia, both Director of Testing and Evaluation Services at the Wolfson Campus of Miami-Dade Community College and a native Spanish speaking expert in the field of research methodology, to assure that nothing had been lost in the translation. Responses to the mailed questionnaire which asked the subjects to select choices on a linear continuum ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" were recorded on a Likert-type scale. The values assigned to the responses were: strongly agree = five, agree = four, undecided = three, disagree = two, and strongly disagree = one. For this study, a derived score is used which has been calculated by computing the mean of the individual respondent means for each category. Derived scores of four and greater, or two and below, are considered to be important. The mailed questionnaire was pre-tested on two different sample populations, including 25 non-enrollees from the spring/summer semester 1993, and 25 part-time employees at the InterAmerican Center of Miami-Dade Community College. The purpose of the pre-test was to help determine clarity of wording on both the Spanish and English 37 versions of the instrument and to determine internal consistency. The alpha reliability coefficient was established at .73 on the motivational scale and .78 on the deterrent scale. Motivational forces. Part I of the mailed questionnaire identified 24 motivational items, or reasons, to the question, "Why did you apply for admission to Miami- Dade Community College?" The subjects were asked to indicate whether they strongly agreed, agreed, were undecided, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with each motivational item as a reason for applying for admission. The numerical value assigned to each response was: five for strongly agree, four for agree, three for undecided, two for disagree and one for strongly disagree. The 24 items were further divided into five different categories as identified by Boshier (1977). These categories are: escape/stimulation, professional advancement, social welfare, external expectations and cognitive interest. The number of items within each category ranged from no less than four items to no more than five. Deterrent forces. Part II of the mailed questionnaire consisted of 28 deterrent items, or reasons, to the question, "Why did you not register for classes at Miami- Dade Community College this past year?" The Likert-type scale was again employed with the choices ranging from five 38 for strongly agree to one for strongly disagree for each of the items. The subjects were asked to indicate whether they strongly agreed, agreed, were undecided, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the item as a reason for not attending. Numerical values for the responses were: five for strongly agree, four for agree, three for undecided, two for disagree, and one for strongly disagree. The 28 item responses as to why the individuals did not register for any classes during the academic year fall into one of six different categories as identified by Darkenwald & Valentine (1985). These six categories are: lack of confidence, institutional/program constraints, time constraints, low personal priority, cost, and personal problems. No category had less than four items, or more than six. Background information. Part III of the mailed questionnaire included 16 questions which asked the subjects to provide some background information about themselves. These included: gender, age, marital status, country of origin, educational attainment, employment status, other languages spoken besides Spanish, financial support provided for others, time living in the United States, annual earnings, present living arrangements, past or previous living arrangements in native country, church participation in native country, church participation in the United States, groups or organizations participation in native 39 country, and groups or organizations participation in the United States. Due to low response to the questions regarding groups or organizations participation in their native country and groups or organizations participation in the United States, these are not being considered in this study. The sixteen demographic variables served as the independent variables to which the 11 dependent variables, five motivational and six deterrent categories, were measured. Guided Personal Interviews The guided personal interview was developed utilizing the motivational and deterrent forces identified by Boshier and Darkenwald & Valentine. The questions were more open— ended allowing the subjects to respond in an open manner. The open-ended quality provided an opportunity for clarification, elaboration, and the giving of examples. It also provided the interviewer with the opportunity to probe when necessary. Although the instrument was developed in English, the ability of the researcher to do impromptu verbal translation into Spanish allowed for the interviews to be conducted in the subjects' preferred language. The interviews followed a qualitative format to pursue more in-depth accounts of what Hispanics perceived as being motivations or deterrents to organized adult education programs. These interviews were conducted at the convenience of the subjects at an agreed-upon location. A 40 total of 15 interviews were conducted. Thirteen of the 15 interviews were done in a conference room at the InterAmerican Center. The conference room was chosen by these subjects in preference to participating in the interview at their home. The remaining two were interviewed in their own homes. The times of the interviews varied from early morning, to mid-afternoon, to evening, as well as on weekends. Every effort was made to accommodate the subjects at a time convenient to them. At the beginning of each interview the subjects were asked which language they preferred and fourteen of the fifteen preferred to speak in Spanish. The one remaining subject indicated no preference and the interview was conducted in both languages, alternating between Spanish and English depending on the preference of the subject. A few minutes were spent with each subject discussing non-research related topics to put the subjects at ease so they would be as comfortable as possible with the interview situation. In every instance the subjects stated they had never been interviewed before. The idea of interviews was explored for a few minutes and situations such as visits to a doctor, a lawyer, or even a job interview were mentioned as possible interview situations they had experienced in the past. When they realized that they had indeed been interviewed before, but not in the same context as this study, they seemed to be more at ease and appeared to be 41 ready to start. Each interview began with an explanation of the research and the obtaining of a verbal statement granting permission to proceed with the interview. Each subject was then asked to sign a permission statement which was their consent to participate in the interview. Before the interview actually began the subjects were asked if they were ready, and upon receiving an affirmative response, the interview was started. This was the point at which the tape recorder was turned on for those interviews where such permission was granted. Each interview lasted approximately 45 minutes and nine of the fifteen subjects allowed their interview to be recorded on tape. For these subjects no notes were taken during the interview. Notes were taken after the interviews using the tape recordings. Written notes were taken during the other six interviews. The instrument was pre-tested on five part-time employees of the InterAmerican Center. The purpose of the pre-test was to establish clarity of wording and also to check on internal consistency. Reliability was further enhanced by the many years of professional experience and training of the interviewer. A conscientious attempt was made on the part of the interviewer to eliminate any biases. This was done by following the same format with each topic beginning with general open-ended questions and then moving 42 to more specific or direct probes as the interview proceeded. Focus of the interviews. Each interview began with the question, "Tell me the reasons why you applied for admission to Miami-Dade Community College?", to elicit comments regarding the subject’s motivation to apply. When it appeared that the subject had finished and had nothing more to say, further prompting was done by saying, "That is very interesting, can you tell me more?" This usually elicited additional comments. When the interview again seemed to be coming to a standstill, the same prompting procedure and question would follow. When the subject reached the point of saying there was nothing else, specific probes into other possible motivations for applying for admission were explored. These additional probes were asked in an indirect manner such as, "Tell me something about your work situation," or "Are your friends or co- workers taking classes anywhere?" This usually produced additional comments. When it appeared that ideas and comments were becoming redundant, the major points of the interview were reviewed with the subject. After the subject acknowledged these points to be accurate the subject was asked to indicate which one or two were the most important to them and why. Again, notes were taken and the important categories noted. The five motivational categories: 1) escape/ 43 stimulation, 2) professional advancement, 3) social welfare, 4) external expectations, and 5) cognitive interest were considered in the life-chance, life-space grouping or type as defined by Boshier (1977). Life-space oriented people are those who participate in adult education classes as an expression rather than to cope. Life-chance oriented people are those who participate to obtain skills and knowledge to survive. Escape/stimulation, professional advancement and external expectations are typed or grouped as life-chance orientations while social welfare and cognitive interest are grouped or typed as life-space orientations. At this point, the focus of the interview shifted to eliciting comments regarding the subject’s reasons for not attending. Each subject was asked why they did not matriculate. Again, encouragement was given each time they responded. During this part of the interview some hesitancy to respond was noted with several of the subjects. It appeared they were not as willing to talk about their reasons for not attending as they were to talk about their reasons for applying for admission. Their answers were shorter and they would begin to fidget or wiggle around more in their chairs. There was a noticeable change in their comfort level. Different techniques, such as telling them to relax, or take their time in answering, were used in attempt to put them at 44 ease. They were also reminded that they did not have to answer if they did not want to. Probing was used to encourage the subjects to go beyond their initial comments. When it appeared they were unwilling to go further, or redundancy began to occur, the probing would stop. A review of the major points as to why they did not attend was done with the subjects and they were asked to rank which one or two of the reasons stated were the most important. The six deterrent categories: 1) lack of confidence, 2) institutional/program constraints, 3) time constraints, 4) low personal priority, 5) cost, and 6) personal problems as established by Valentine and Darkenwald (1990) were considered. The responses were further analyzed to determine whether these forces were externally deterrent or internally deterrent forces as to why they did not enroll. Externally deterrent forces are those forces which are external to the individuals and work against their participation. Institutional/program constraints, time constraints and cost would be considered "external" deterrent forces. Internally deterrent forces would be those reasons expressed by the subject for non-participation which come from within themselves. Lack of confidence, low personal priority and personal problems would be considered "internally" deterrent forces. 45 At the end of the interview the tape recorder was turned off and the pencil was put down. A few minutes were spent in casual conversation not related to the study. Each subject was informed of his or her right to see, review and receive a copy of the abstract of the study at its conclusion. Several indicated an interest in seeing it and stated they would contact the office in the future to obtain a copy. At the end of each interview the subject was thanked for his or her willingness to participate and each was presented with a five dollar gift certificate to a local fast-food establishment as a token of appreciation for their co-operation. Background information. Prior to the start of each interview, the subjects were asked to complete, in writing, a background information sheet consisting of the same 16 demographic items requested of the mailed questionnaire survey subjects. These items include: gender, age, marital status, country of origin, educational attainment, employment status, other languages spoken besides Spanish, financial support provided for others, time living in the United States, annual earnings, present living arrangements, past or previous living arrangements in native country, church participation in native country, church participation in the United States, groups or organizations belonged to in native country, and groups or organizations currently 46 belonging to in the United States. Two of the demographic variables: club, group and/or organization participation in their native country and club, group, and/or organization participation since arriving in the United States were not used as independent variables due to the low response by the subjects. The fourteen remaining demographic variables served as the independent variables to which the 11, five motivational and six deterrent, dependent variables were measured. SAMPLE POPULATION Mailed Questionnaire A list of all Hispanic surnamed, non—enrollees to the Wolfson Campus and the InterAmerican Center of Miami-Dade Community College for the 1994—95 academic year was obtained from the applications for admission submitted for the fall semester 1994, which began in August, 1994, and the winter semester 1994, which began in January, 1995. A total of 1,228 individuals were identified in this group which included 677 females (55.1%) and 551 males (44.9%). A gender stratified, random sample using a random table of numbers of 250 participants was selected from the total of 1,228 applications with Hispanic surnames for the two semesters. The random sample of 250 included 135 female subjects, or 54% and 115 male subjects, or 46%. It was important to 47 utilize the gender stratified random sample because there was a greater number of females than males with Hispanic surnames in the population. Therefore, the sample population reflects the makeup of the total population of Hispanic surnamed applicants. The survey questionnaire, written in both English and Spanish, (see Appendices A & B) was mailed to each of the selected individuals with an appropriate cover letter (see Appendices C & D) also written in both English and Spanish, explaining the purpose and significance of the study. A self-addressed stamped envelope was also included to facilitate an easy return of the survey questionnaire. Confidentiality was assured to each individual in the text of the letter and each was advised that their participation was voluntary. Each questionnaire was coded to facilitate easy follow up on those who did not return the survey questionnaire. Approximately 10 days after the initial mailing, follow-up letters (see Appendices E & F) were sent to those who had not yet returned the questionnaire, encouraging them to do so or to contact the researcher in the event they had not received the initial survey. It also gave the subjects the opportunity to contact the researcher in the event they had questions concerning the research project or the survey. A third mailing was done approximately 10 days after the second reminder letter was sent and approximately 20 48 days after the initial mailing. In the third mailing, the original questionnaires in both Spanish and English were again included as well as a cover letter, again in both Spanish and English, and a self-addressed, stamped envelope. A final telephone call follow-up procedure was conducted approximately 10 days after the third mailing or 30 days after the initial mailing which involved telephoning the remaining subjects who had not yet returned the questionnaire. Each subject or household contacted via telephone was reminded of the survey and was encouraged to participate in the study. The surveys were collected and analyzed using the Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Basic statistical procedures were used to develop frequency tables. A frequency distribution analysis was done to compile descriptive statistics for each of the five motivational categories in Boshier’s Education Participation Scale as well as the six deterrent categories included in Darkenwald & Valentine's Deterrents to Participation Scale. Guided Personal Interview Of those individuals not selected for the motivational questionnaire survey, a smaller sample of 15 subjects, seven male and eight female, were selected following the convenience or purposeful sample method for personal interviews. The gender stratification was maintained to parallel the mailed questionnaire sample. Using the lists 49 of those subjects not selected for the mailed questionnaires, telephone calls were made to those individuals whose names appeared on the lists at their listed telephone number. The calls were made in the order in which the names appeared on the list. Disconnected telephones and wrong numbers were passed over and the next number called. This was done until 15 interviews, seven male and eight female, had been secured. No-shows were called back and encouraged to participate. In those instances where it was apparent that the subject was not going to keep the appointment, the next name on the list was called until a replacement interview could be secured. The data collected via the written survey questionnaires were compared to the data obtained via personal interviews in an attempt to ascertain any similarities and/or differences, and if there was any new or additional information not addressed in this research study or in any previous research. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this research was to examine the determinants of participation by Hispanic adult immigrants in organized programs of adult education. Two separate survey procedures were used: the mailed questionnaire and the guided personal interview. The population selected for this study consisted of Hispanic adult immigrants residing in Dade County, Florida who had applied for admission to either the Wolfson Campus or the InterAmerican Center of Miami—Dade Community College, yet did not matriculate for any classes during the 1994-95 academic year. In addition to demographic data, the motivational forces which influenced the subjects' decision to apply for admission and the deterrent forces which prohibited their attendance were examined. In the mailed questionnaire the data were gathered from a 52 item written questionnaire and in the guided personal interview the data were gathered from information provided in a personal, one-on-one, interview. The data from the two separate approaches were compared to identify similarities and/or differences, and to further affirm the findings. 50 51 MAI LED QUESTIONNAIRE F INDINGS A gender stratified random sample of 250 subjects was selected from a population of 1,228 subjects with Hispanic surnames who had applied for admission to either the Wolfson Campus or the InterAmerican Center of Miami—Dade Community College and failed to matriculate for any classes during the 1994-95 academic year. Fifty-five percent of the sample was female and 45% was male to parallel the population. Of the 250 mailed questionnaires sent to the subjects’ last known addresses, 51 or 20.4% were returned due to incorrect or unknown addresses. In a telephone call follow- up procedure of subjects who had not returned their questionnaires, an additional 22 subjects’ telephone numbers were reported as disconnected, unknown, or moved and whereabouts unknown. Of the 250 mailed questionnaires sent, 100 completed questionnaires were received. This equals a 40% return rate. Considering the transient nature of recent immigrants, many who have resided in the United States for less than one year, the 40% response rate was considered to be sufficient to proceed with the data analysis. Demographic Findings The 16 demographic variables for the mailed questionnaire are shown in Table 1. 52 prscflusouv H manB e.m m ooo.omm can» muos G.NH HH ooo.omm - ooo.mam m.m m ooo.mam - ooo.mam H.m m non H swan muos m.mm mm ooo.mam - ooo.mw m.om om s-m omsoHdsm m.e¢ mm ooo.mm swan mmmfl m.mm mm s-m cmonmsm mmmwmmmwlflmmmmfl m.mm mm UmxoamEmss mm mm pmuuommuc: NH NH mm% m m mmnmmp HmcoflmmmOOHm 4m: CH osfiumafiofluumm m m mumzpmsm mmmaaou coflumNfichHo no mQSHO m.mm mm mmmHHoo meow m.m¢ ma mumscmum .m.m pm pm omLAOQmucs H.mH NH .m.m :mnu mmma ma ma mm> MdMHdflNMMfl >HDGSOO m>Humz CH Admmwmmwmmw coflummflcmguo Ho mQSHO H H pmzopfl3 m.mm am on H.m m pmono>flp v.b¢ we mm» 6 e pmumummmm msmsuo “Om pmpfl>0Hm ¢.bm hm pmHHHmE unocasm Hmflosmcam m.m¢ we mamcfim maumum Hmuflumz m.mm Hm nmflsmmm >Hco .0: 6.66 we mm> om om mHmEmu Sufism m mmpflmmm cs 06 mHmE M m mmcmsucmq Hmnuo M m Hmpsmw moflumwumuomnmsu moflumflumuomsmnu Ufi£QMHmOEmo UfinmmumOEmD ooauz mHQEmm muflmccoflummso pmfiflmz mo mofiumfihwuomumnu UHSQMHmOEmQ H mHQMB 53 mb.m mv.om mm mmHmEmm mH.m mm.mm ow mmHmz em.m mm Gm soHumHsmom mm mm mummHoHuumm Doc Op mm a m wmfl mm mm mummHoHuHmm on a AmmHHDCSOU mcflxmmmm GOHDMQHOHuHmm QUHSSU schmdm unmummeHo m.mH mH NH maHosHoch umnuo e.om mm mudeoHunmd uoc 6H6 m m mHmsumcm> m.mm Hm mummHoHuumd 6H6 m m MHQEOHOO NHDCSOO m>Humz H.m m UHHQDQmm GmoHGHEOQ CH coHumaHUHuHmm QUHSSO H.m m dhmm H.m m mmuspcom m.om mm usmEuHmmm\mEon s30 EH H.¢H ¢H msmmumon H.mm mm mpsmHHM\>HHEmM nuHS ¢.mm mm mnsu wammmu CHUHHO mo >Hucdou m>Humz CH musmEmUCmuhfl 3 «.mm mm mummk m cmnu whoa mm mm mumm» m Cu m m.¢¢ me ucmsunmmm\mEO£ :30 SH m.mm Hm mumms m on H m.mm mm mocmHum\>HHsmw nuHs m.vH MH Ham» H cmnu mmmH mwmwawmmMMMd M m de CH UCH>HH mEHB M m mmwfiwammwmwmm moHumHumDUMHmnO moHumHHmDUMHmnO UHnmmumOEmQ UHSQMHmOEmQ AUmSCHDGOUV H mHQmB 54 Gender. The mailed questionnaire was sent to 135 female subjects and 115 male subjects which mirrored the gender stratification in the population. As is shown in Table 1, 60 females and 40 males returned their surveys. This indicates that the sample is slightly different than the population in terms of gender stratification, though it is not seen as great enough to be of concern. Aggp As is shown in Table 1, a mean age of 29.00 years was reported for the sample population. The mean age reported for the males was 26.93 years, while the mean age reported for the females was 30.48 years. Marital status. As is shown in Table 1, forty—eight percent indicated their marital status to be single. Thirty—seven percent reported they were married, while four percent indicated they were separated. Nine percent indicated they were divorced and one percent reported being widowed. Country of origin. As is shown in Table 1, Cuba had the highest representation in the sample with 39%. Fourteen percent indicated their native country to be Nicaragua, While eight percent were reported each from Honduras and Peru. Six percent reported being from the Dominican Republic, while Colombia and Venezuela were indicated by three percent each. Nineteen others indicated one of 12 different Hispanic nations or Puerto Rico, none with more than two percent of the subjects. 55 Educational attainment. As is shown in Table 1, only 12% reported having less than a high school education. Forty-five percent reported having graduated from high school, while 28% indicated having some college. Eight percent said they had graduated from college, while six percent reported having professional degrees. Employment status. As is shown in Table 1, 32% reported being unemployed at the time of the survey. Twenty-eight percent reported having part—time employment, while 30% reported being employed full-time. Nine percent reported having more than one job. Annual earnings. As is shown in Table 1, 39% reported their annual earnings to be less than $8,000. Twenty-six percent reported annual earnings between $8,000 - $12,000, while eight percent reported annual earnings between $12,000 - $16,000. Eleven percent reported annual earning of between $16,000 -$20,000, while only three percent reported earning more than $20,000 per year. Other languages spoken besides Spanish. As is shown in Table 1 regarding other languages spoken besides Spanish, 51% reported they did not speak another language, while 46% reported they did. Financial support provided for others. As is shown in Table 1 concerning whether the subjects contributed financially toward the support of someone else, 51% reported they did not contribute financially toward the support of 56 someone else, while 46% reported they did. Time in the United States. As is shown in Table 1, 13% reported living in the United States for less than one year. Twenty-one percent reported living in the United States between one to three years, while 22% reported living in the United States between three to five years. Thirty-two percent reported living in the United States for more than five years. Current living arrangements. As is shown in Table 1, 53% reported they were living with a relative or friend, while 42% reported having their own home or apartment. Living arrangements in native country. As is shown in Table 1, 38% reported they lived with a relative or friend, while 56% reported they lived in their own home or apartment. Church participation in native country. As is shown in Table 1, 64% reported they did participate in church activities in their native countries, while 28% reported they did not. Church participation in the United States. As is shown in Table 1, 55% reported they do participate in church activities in the United States, while 38% reported they do not. Clubs, groups or communitv organizations participation in native country. As is shown in Table 1, only 13% responded to this question indicating they did participate 57 in these types of activities. Eighty-seven percent did not respond to this question. Clubs, groups or community organizations participation in the United States. As is shown in Table 1, only 12% responded to this question indicating participation in these types of activities. Eighty-eight percent did not respond to this question. Due to the low response to the last two questions, they were removed from consideration in the data analysis and were not included as independent variables. Motivational Forces "Why did you apply for admission to Miami—Dade Community College?", was the question which framed the focus of the motivational section of this study. Each of the motivational categories addressed the question and included a series of items or statements which were most closely related to that category. The number of items or statements varied from between four and five for each category and the subjects were asked to indicate on a five point Likert-type scale whether they "strongly agreed" to "strongly disagreed" with each item. If they "strongly agreed" they were to mark a five; "agreed", a four, "undecided" a three, "disagreed" a two, and "strongly disagreed" a one. The mean scores of the items within each category were calculated and these scores were used to arrive at the derived scores for each category. Derived scores for each category are, therefore, a mean 58 score which has been calculated by computing the mean of the individual respondent means for each category. In some cases the subjects did not respond to all of the items thereby resulting in missing scores. For the purpose of this study, missing scores were ignored and only the reported scores were used to calculate the means and the derived scores. A derived score was used for this study. The important derived scores were those of four and greater or those of two and below. Table 2 lists the five motivational categories and their derived scores as included in this study. Table 2 Motivational Categories of Determinants N=100 Derived Category Score SQ p Professional Advancement 4.33 .73 96 Social Welfare 4.07 .81 95 Cognitive Interest 4.00 .73 97 Escape/Stimulation 2.44 .88 90 External Expectation 2.36 .99 88 As is shown in Table 2, Professional Advancement, Social Welfare and Cognitive Interest had derived scores above 4.00 which would indicate that these categories were considered important in this study as being influential in 59 the subject’s decision to apply for admission. The categories of Escape/Stimulation and External lepectation had derived scores of less than 4.00 but greater tlnan 2.00 which would indicate that these categories were ruot considered to be important in this study as being influential in the subject’s decision to apply for admission. Table 3 lists the set of items for Professional Advancement and the mean score for each item. Table 3 Professional Advancement N = 100 Item Item Mean SE p To be able to get a 4.66 .87 96 better job To earn a degree or 4.51 .93 96 certificate To clarify what I want 4.21 1.22 96 to be 5 years from now To help me become 4.06 1.33 96 certified in my career or field Because the program 4.05 1.06 96 had a good reputation As is shown in Table 3, all of the items had mean SCKDres above 4.00 which would indicate, according to the CI‘iteria defined for this study, that they were important in 6O influencing the subject’s decision to apply for admission. No item had a mean score below 4.00 and above 2.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that the item was not important for this study, nor did any item have a mean score below 2.00 which would indicate that the item definitely did not have an influence in the subject’s decision to apply for admission. Table 4 lists the set of items for Social Welfare and the mean score for each item mean. Table 4 Social Welfare N = 100 Item Item Mean S.D. p To improve my abilities 4.38 .96 95 to communicate with others To be able to adjust 4.26 1.10 95 to a new culture and environment To improve my abilities 4.19 1.00 95 to serve mankind To become a better 3.81 1.39 95 citizen To be able to help my 3.39 1.52 95 children with their school homework As is shown in Table 4, "To improve my abilities to communicate with others", "To be able to adjust to a new culture and environment", and "To improve my abilities to 61 serve mankind" had mean scores above 4.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that they were important in influencing the subject’s decision to apply for admission. "To become a better citizen" and "To be able to help my children with their school homework" had mean scores below 4.00 and above 2.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that they were not important in influencing the subject’s decision to apply for admission. Table 5 lists the set of items for Cognitive Interest and the mean score for each item. Table 5 Cognitive Interest N = 100 Item Item Mean SD p Because learning new 4.54 .70 97 things is important to me Because I like to 4.46 .91 97 learn new things ~ To help me learn 4.08 1.47 97 English To keep up with 3.73 1.35 97 modern technology To challenge my way 3.11 1.51 97 of thinking As is shown in Table 5, "Because learning new things is important to me", "Because I like to learn new things", and 62 "To help me learn English" had mean scores above 4.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that they were important in influencing the subject’s decision to apply for admission. "To keep up with modern technology" and "To challenge my way of thinking" had mean scores below 4.00 and above 2.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that they were not important in influencing the subject’s decision to apply for admission. Table 6 lists the set of items for Escape/Simulation and the mean score for each item. Table 6 Escape/Stimulation N = 100 Item Item Mean SQ p To be with other 3.02 1.29 90 people To do something 2.67 1.40 90 different away from home and work To make new friends 2.61 1.32 90 To get away from 1.91 1.15 90 the frustrations of everyday life To get relief from 1.85 1.11 90 boredom As is shown in Table 6, none of the items had means 63 above 4.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that they were not important in influencing the subject’s decision to apply for admission. "To get away from the frustrations of everyday life" and "To get relief from boredom" had mean scores below 2.00 which would indicate that they definitely did not influence the subject’s decision to apply for admission. Table 7 lists the set of items for External Expectations and the mean score for each item. Table 7 External Expectations N = 100 Item Item Mean SQ p Because it was 2.92 1.37 88 expected of me Because my family 2.41 1.37 88 wanted me to Because my friends 2.13 1.19 88 wanted me to Because my boss 1.83 1.08 88 required it of me As is shown in Table 7, none of the items had a mean score above 4.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that they were not important in influencing the subject's decision to apply for 64 admission. "Because my boss required it of me" had a mean score below 2.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that it definitely was not a reason in influencing the subject's decision to apply for admission. Deterrent Forces "Why did you not register for classes at Miami—Dade Community College this year?", was the question developed to assess the deterrent forces which prohibited the subject's participation. The deterrent forces were made up of six different deterrent categories with each category including a series of items or statements which were most closely related to that category. The number of items varied from between four and six for each category and the subjects were asked to indicate on a five point Likert-type scale whether they "strongly agreed", "agreed", "were undecided", "disagreed", or "strongly disagreed" with each item as a reason for not attending. Derived scores were again calculated for each deterrent category in the same manner as the derived scores were calculated for the motivational categories. Derived scores for each deterrent category are, therefore, a mean score which has been calculated by computing the mean of the individual respondent means for each category. Missing scores were again ignored and only the reported scores were used to calculate the means and the derived scores. 65 Derived scores of greater than 4.00 and less than 2.00 were established as important for this study. Table 8 lists the six deterrent categories and their derived scores as included in this study. Table 8 Deterrent Categories of Determinants N = 100 Derived Category Score SQ p Cost 3.34 1.13 92 Time Constraints 2.01 .87 87 Personal Problems 1.95 .99 92 Low Personal Priority 1.78 .76 90 Institutional/Program 1.66 .63 88 Constraints Lack of Confidence 1.46 .63 88 As is shown in Table 8, none of the six categories had derived scores above 4.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that no category of deterrents was seen as an important barrier to matriculating for classes. However, the categories of "Lack of Confidence", "Institutional/Program Constraints", "Low Personal Priority" and "Personal Problems" all had derived scores below a 2.00 which would indicate that these four Categories of deterrents were definitely not seen as 66 barriers to matriculating for classes. Table 9 lists the set items for Lack of Confidence and the item mean score for each item. Table 9 Lack of Confidence N = 100 Item Item Mean S.D. p I did not think the 1.52 .77 88 course would help me progress I did not think I 1.47 .76 88 could learn I did not want to have 1.43 .61 88 answer questions in class I believe I am too 1.41 .77 88 old to learn I felt I could not 1.38 .58 88 compete with the younger students My friends and co- 1.36 .51 88 workers did not want me to attend As is shown in Table 9, none of the items had mean scores above a 4.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that none of these items were seen as important barriers for matriculating for classes. However, all six items had item mean scores below 67 a 2.00 which would indicate they were definitely not barriers which prohibited the subjects from matriculating for classes. Table 10 lists the set of items for Institutional/ Program Constraints and the item mean score for each item. Table 10 Institutional/Program Constraints N = 100 Item Item Mean S.D. p The course was 1.76 .98 88 already filled I had heard complaints 1.75 .95 88 about the institution The course was offered 1.61 .85 88 in an unsafe neighborhood I had heard bad things 1.56 .70 88 about the program I had heard the 1.46 .59 88 instructors were not , very friendly As is shown in Table 10, none of the items had mean scores above a 4.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that none of these items were seen as important barriers for matriculating for classes. However, all five items had mean scores below a 2.00 which would indicate that they were definitely not 68 barriers which prohibited the subjects from matriculating for classes. Table 11 lists the set of items for Time Constraints and the item mean score for each item. Table 11 Time Constraints N = 100 Item Item Mean S.D. p I did not have enough 2.23 1.32 87 time to attend the course The course was offered 2.15 1.32 87 at an inconvenient time It would take too long 1.87 .95 87 to complete the program There was too much 1.59 .75 87 homework in the course As is shown in Table 11, none of the items had mean scores above a 4.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that none of these items were seen as important barriers for matriculating for classes. Two of the items, "There was too much homework in the course" and "It would take too long to complete the program" had item mean scores below a 2.00 indicating they were definitely not barriers which prohibited the subjects 69 from matriculating for any classes. Table 12 lists the set of items for Low Personal Priority and the mean score for each item. Table 12 Low Personal Priority N = 100 Item Item Mean S.D. p It was more important 2.43 1.41 90 for me to get a job than to attend I did not know anyone 1.59 .77 90 taking classes at that location It was not important 1.58 .87 90 to me at this time I did not like the other 1.43 .59 90 students in the program I did not want to 1.48 .59 90 attend the course alone As is shown in Table 12, none of the items had mean scores above a 4.00 indicating that none of the items, according to the criteria defined for this study, were seen as important barriers for matriculating for classes. One item had a mean score of less than 4.00 but greater than 2.00 indicating, according to the criteria defined for this study, that it was not important. Four of the items had mean scores below 2.00 indicating they were definitely not 7O barriers for matriculating for classes. Table 13 lists the set of items for Cost and the mean scores for each item. Table 13 Cost N = 100 Item Item Mean S.D p I could not afford 3.92 1.45 92 the cost I could not afford 3.58 1.45 92 books, supplies and travel expenses I did not qualify for 3.35 1.56 92 any type of F.A. I thought the course 2.28 1.40 92 was free As is shown in Table 13, none of the items had mean scores above a 4.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that none of the items were seen as important barriers for matriculating for classes. All of the items had mean scores greater than 2.00 which would indicate that they were not important, according to the criteria defined for this study. Table 14 lists the set of items for Personal Problems and the mean scores for each item. 71 Table 14 Personal Problems N = 100 Item Item Mean S.D. p I did not have 2.23 1.29 92 transportation to get to class I moved to another 1.87 1.14 92 part of town and travel, etc. I had family problems 1.71 1.01 92 I had health problems 1.70 .99 92 As is shown in Table 14, none of the items had mean scores above 4.00 which would indicate, according to the criteria defined for this study, that none of the items were seen as important barriers for matriculating for classes. Three items had mean scores below 2.00 which would indicate they were definitely not barriers which prohibited the subjects from matriculating for classes. Integpretation of Categories Narrative descriptions of the 11 determinant categories are given in the following paragraphs. Items used for each category in this instrument were found in the existing instruments established by Boshier and Darkenwald & Valentine with several items developed specifically for this study. 72 Motivational forces. Individuals who scored high in the Escape/Stimulation category were motivated to apply for admission because of a need for personal association, participation in group activities, or making new friends to correct deficiencies in their social life. They viewed adult education programs as a means to address that need. Individuals who scored high in the Professional Advancement category were motivated to apply for admission because they viewed educational preparation as a means leading to greater competence and a higher status in their chosen profession. Individuals who scored high in the Social Welfare category were motivated to apply for admission as preparation for participation in community affairs and service to mankind. They viewed adult education programs as a means to address humanitarian concerns. Individuals who scored high in the External Expectations category were motivated to apply for admission because of suggestions or requirements from individuals or agencies with whom they were associated. In this category, individuals were fulfilling the expectations of others as opposed to their own, and view adult education as a means to address this deficiency. Individuals who scored high in the Cognitive Interest category were motivated to apply for admission to satisfy a need to learn new things. They learn for the sake of 73 learning and viewed adult education programs as a means to satisfy this quest to learn. Deterrent forces. Individuals who scored high in the Lack of Confidence category were deterred from participation because of self-doubt or diffidence. The decision not to attend was an internal decision. Individuals who scored high in the Institutional/ Program Constraints category were deterred from participation because of the courses being offered at inconvenient times, they had received negative information about the instruction or because the program was being offered in an unsafe neighborhood. The decision not to attend was because of external factors. Individuals who scored high in the Time Constraints category were deterred because they did not have the time and the commitment was too great. The decision not to attend was an internal decision. Individuals who scored high in the Low Personal Priority category were deterred by lack of motivation or interest with respect to engaging in adult education programs. They viewed participation as an infringement on their personal time. The decision not to attend was an internal decision. Individuals who scored high in the Cost category were deterred from participation due to the high cost factors. Not having sufficient funds, and not being eligible for any 74 type of aid were the principle reasons for not attending. The decision not to attend was because of external factors. Individuals who scored high in the Personal Problems category were deterred from participation due to problems relating to self and/or family. They focused on problems of health or family situations. The decision not to attend was because of external factors. Tests of Significance Sixteen demographic variables were identified in this study. Two were excluded from analysis due to a low response from the subjects. The 14 remaining demographic variables were categorical data divided into two or more different groups within each variable. Age was divided into a young group and an old group in order to determine if there were differences at the extreme ends of the age range. In order to obtain a sufficient number of subjects in both groups, the distance of three- quarters of a standard deviation from the mean was used. The younger group included all 18 - 22 year old subjects while the older group included all of the 36 - 64 year old subjects in the sample population. In the grouping variables, marital status and employment status subjects were collapsed into two groups: unmarried and married, and unemployed and employed. Those who had never been married before were grouped as unmarried while those who were or had been married before and were 75 grouped as married. Also, those who were not currently employed were grouped as unemployed and those who had some type of employment were grouped as employed. Differences in the mean scores in the groups’ responses to the dependent variables, the five motivational and six deterrent categories, were calculated using the two—tailed t-test and the analysis of variance (ANOVA). An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. T-test results. T—tests were used to see if there was a significant statistical difference between the means of the groups within the grouping variables. Gender, ages, marital status, employment status, other languages spoken besides Spanish, financial support provided for others, current living arrangements in the United States, previous living arrangements in native country, church participation in native country, and church participation since arriving in the United States were all analyzed using the t-test. Table 15 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by gender. As is shown in Table 15, only the category of Professional Advancement had a statistically significant difference between males and females. Table 16 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by age. As is shown in Table 16, the categories of Professional Advancement, Cognitive Interest, Lack of Confidence, Time 76 $0.va _o>o_ mo. up Embargo 22.632935 * CTN «Nd mm; mod mm; mm." had FN.N moé 3.? and 225.“. as; Ed No.9 mmé N04 an... moé mad moé pmé MEN 2o: .. 33.00 Brock. 35.5250 mEmfioE .2522. 3523.60 SEEK 3:03.50 7.23:. acozouoocxm 28.03 EoEooca>p< cot-EEG 033:.) .2829... 300 26.. Eat. 3:25:35 .0 so... ozzcoou .2:on Boom .chmmoEi 3303 9.3320 mm4m PZmDmemo 00F n Z motommamu EmEEtmumo HF 65 to». Space >2 gamut 33.... m H 2me 77 50. Va. _o>m_ mo. up Emfitfi >_Emo_:c9m .. 3d mm...” m TN mvd nod omH mmé mod o¢.v $6 and «ppm mm; «Nd em... 55H em; mm... cod GEN mad. mmé mud «TE 0 t o 0 0 MOO< >503“. 35.59.00 mEoBoi .2883 3:58:00 Enact 352.50 328:. acozcuuonxm 22.25 EoEooca>p< co_~o_:E=m o_noto> 3:028 500 26.. 2:: 3:35:35 .0 sun... ozgcuou 353.6 Boom 3.33335 Honuuum 9.3320 mm4m .HZmoszmo 02 u z motommamo EmEEtmumo F H 9.: 8.. om< >n gamma 639—. 0.. Ban... 78 Constraints and Low Personal Priority had statistically significant differences between the 18-22 year old group and the 36-64 year old group. Table 17 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by marital status. As is shown in Table 17, only Lack of Confidence had a statistically significant difference between unmarried and married. Table 18 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by employment status. As is shown in Table 18, none of the categories had statistically significant difference between unemployed and employed. Table 19 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by other languages spoken beside Spanish.. As is shown in Table 19, only External Expectation had statistically significant differences between those who do speak another language besides Spanish and those who do not. Table 20 shows the data for all 11 categories when the data are grouped by whether or not the respondent provides financial support for others. As is shown in Table 20, only Time Constraints had a statistically significant difference between those who did provide financial support for others and those who did not. Table 21 shows the data for all 11 categories when 79 .mo.vn: .m>o_ mo. 3 520:5 >=cmoEc9m .. Pod mud no; afim on; mm; mm...” and n. c mwé mn.~ pat-2 mm; m¢.m 2H 3.. 5.. an; .36 GEN mad 3.: mad 00:35:: . «Baum 5.32 3.8:: £587.50 2:299: .3029“. 5:55:00 522:: 3:25:00 328:. 3238090 28.02, 225.0554 8.2.355 0.93.5 3:88.. :30 2.3 06:. 3:25:35 .0 v.03 35:30 .3366 .303 35.382: .383 @5320 wm4m PZwDZwmmD 00F u Z 3.53me EmEEtopmn. P H 9: to“. «3me .mEmE .3 3.33m. 53.... h _. v.93. mm; ON.m mm; nod #04 cc... Noxv th mpé mmé hmd to>2nEm 80 :N —c.m ow; mmé mm... mm; had mmfl #md nwé mm.~ 00.3.0805. 038w EoE>5aEw >505. «2.23:00 080.00.... 3:00:00 9:320:00 60500.". 00:25:00 “00.00:. mcozgooaxw 0.2.02. 0:063:02; c5335“ 0.:e.:0> 3:00.00 $00 .53 08F 3:033:05 .0 0.00.. 020.300 .050wa .0_0om .0:0.000.0& .0033 050320 mmqmflHm¢> BZWQmemQ ooauz mmflhommumu ucmcflEHmumD HH mnu MOM maumum quE>OHQEm >3 muHSmmm ummu-B ma mHQMB 81 .mo.Vn: _0>0_ mo. 00 000.0020 300005.55 w mm.— Om...” on...” ma; 5; cm; no.0 mm.N Nwé hNé Raw 02 2..— :.m 05— mo.N mm; mm; mad npd ha...” #9... N¢.N 00> ‘ . 000005.. 5.00:0 0050:0000 «£03000 3:00.00 350.0300 6050.; 00:00:50 «00.00:. 30.080098 20:02. 0:063:02; 0030.06.30. 0.00:0) 3:020... 0000 30.. 25... 300.5505 00 0.004 030.0000 .0535 .0_00m 305000020 .0033 050380 mmddem¢> BZWQmemD ooanz mmfluommumu ucmcfiEHmumD HH mnu MOM smflcmmm wwwflmmm Gmxomm mmmmsmcmq Hmnuo >0 muasmmm ummuue ma mHQMB 82 .mO.Vn: _0>0_ mo. «0 30.0.3.0 >=:00.::m_m t 8.. 0.2m 3.. 0... 00.. 0.... 3... $0 8.0 .0... 03 oz __ 8.. and 8.. «2 00.. 9.. 8.0 and 0.... B... 02 00> . tonnam .0.0:0:.n. 3.8.x. 03.05300 «£0.09; .3020... 03.03300 50.00... 3:00.300 00200:. 30.080096 20:03 33.03033 5.3.05.5 0.00:0> .3020: .000 30.. 05F 3:02:53. .0 0.00.. 030.500 .0505 .0.00w .0:0.mmo.0£ .00000m 3.0305 mmqdemafiw BZmQmemQ ooauz mmauommumu uCMCHEHmumo HH 030 new mhmnuo MOM UOUH>OHQ uHoszm Hmfluamcflm >3 muadmmm 0000-9 om mHQMB 83 grouped by current living arrangements in the United States. As is shown in Table 21, none of the categories had statistically significant differences between those who lived with a friend or relative and those who lived in their own home or apartment since coming to the United States. Table 22 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by the respondent’s living arrangement in his/her native country before coming to the United States. As is shown in Table 22, only Low Personal Priority had a statistically significant difference between those who lived with a friend or relative in their native country and those who lived in their own home or apartment in their native country. Table 23 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by the respondent’s participation in church activities in his/her native country. As is shown in Table 23, Escape/Stimulation, Cognitive Interest, Lack of Confidence, and Institutional/Program Constraints had statistically significant differences between those who did participate in church activities and those who did not participate in church activities while in their native countries. Table 24 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by church participation in the United States. As is shown in Table 24, Social Welfare, Cognitive Interest and Low Personal Priority had statistically 84 225.23 3 2:0: cod a; 5; SN mu." 5... 3...” «MN 26 36 5d :30 5 038.0: 3 cm; Ed on; mm; mm; on; 36 and has. and had acct”. 55> £239.22 9.32 5250 3.3:.“ 8:35300 «8032; 3:35.. 85.5300 883... 3:3ch 388:. 3238096 23.25 EoEouco>u< cot-38.5 033:5 .2323 $8 33 oEF 35:33:. 3 .83 25:58 353.0 Eoom 3.8.338; 39.03 9.3320 mm4m .eroszmo 00.. n 2 8:03me EmEECSmD P P 9: .3 335 3th m5 5 mucmEomcmta. 9.33 5950 >9 3.3mm."— 53-... em 033. 85 .8. vi. _c>o. mo. 3 228% 288.33% .. EoEtun< .o oEoz nod ~m.m mm; mo.N no; on... Noé mm.~ o...v mu... ¢~.N :30 c. 028.3. 8 on; $6 mm; mm; g; cm; 36 mm.~ cod nmé cod acct“. 5.? .. 3:58 3.32 c. 62.39.83 9.3... 3.8.x. 252355 2:39.. .2390“. 8526.80 5950:. 3:33:00 «no.8... 2.0580096 88.25 EoEoocn>u< co.~a.:E=m o.no.3> .2823. $00 26.. 06F .3255»... .o .33 03:58 35086 Ecom 35.380... .385 05.520 mmamfimgw Emozwmmo __ ooauz mmumum pmuflcb m£u ou mGHEOU mHOMwm >uucnou m>fiumz ca mucmEmmamnud mnfl>fla ha muasmmm umwuue NN MHQMH 86 .mo.v.= .96. 8. s 222.6 >_E8=_=m_m .. N5. mod on; mm; 9v.— mm... de Fwd hm...” nNé 2d 02 mod med um; mod whé mm:— m—é med Fmé nmé and mo> . .. . . 3:500 azuaz .rnm 223:0 >355. 352.200 mEchi .mcomsn wucizmcou EEmoi 8.52?an 523:. macaw—03$ 2233 EoEoucn>u< coca—aguw o_nu_5> .2559". $00 26.. 2E... .ucozazmc. .0 sun. 32.500 .mfiowxw Eucm 3:29.29... \oanuww 9.3390 mmqmaHmd> BZMQmemQ ooanz mmflhommumu ucmcHEumuwo HH mnu Hem >Mussoo m>flumz CH mMflufl>fluo< noussu as Goflummfloflunmm >3 muasmmm ummulh mm 0HQMB .mo.Vn= _o>m_ mo. «a «c0835 22.85ch t 87 mm; :6 mm; Pod no... we; and and 3d «Ne and 02 mod mm.m mm." mm; mm; hvé ¢~é med mNé mné mvN uo> .. o o (w: .tum £055 3.8.5 352.250 «5030:. .2520... 35.5300 622:; 352300 323:. 23330096 $8.03 EoEooco>n< cow-.255 o.no_.o> .2589”. $00 30.. 25... 35.552: .0 “.03 023.500 353.6 .o.oom 25.382; 3903 9.3320 mmqdemsw BZmQmemn ooauz mmflnommumv ucmcflEHmumo Ha Ham HOm mmumum pwufiGD mnu as coflummflofluhmm SUMDSU >3 muHSmmm ummB-B ¢N mHQMB 88 significant differences between those who do participate in church activities and those who do not participate in church activities in the United States. Analysis of variance. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for differences in the means of the grouping variables with three or more groups. Annual earnings, time living in the United States, educational attainment, and country of origin were the four grouping variables in which the ANOVA was used. Table 25 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by annual earnings. As is shown in Table 25, Lack of Confidence had a statistically significant difference between those who earn more than $20,000 per year and the other groupings. Low Personal Priority had a statistically significant difference between those earning less than $8,000 per year and the other groupings. Table 26 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by the amount of time the respondent has lived in the United States. As is shown in Table 26, only Lack of Confidence had a statistically significant differences between those who had lived in the United States from between 5 years to 10 years and the other groupings. Table 27 shows the date for all 11 categories when grouped by educational attainment. 89 SQVE _o>m_ mo. 5 592:... 2535.55 .. ooodN¢ oo.N mod mm P on; oN F 00; 590 mm; cod nmé no; :2... 90$. 000.8. mm.— mm...” mN N m—N mo N mm... mod mmN 51¢ 56 No.N - Good; Good 3 —N.N em...” an N mmN R F no; moi mmN m—é mpé moN . SON; ooo.N 3 on; mod co — mo.N me P mNé wad vQN N—é Omé ¢N.N - 80.3 08.3 NON de N@ P am; we P mfié mod SN #0.». NN.v N¢.N :2... 3o.— .. . 355.5 .352 5:25 85235.0 2.23:. .2829; 3583.50 Enact. 3:02:50 523:. acozoaoonxm 03:03 acoEooco>u< cote-:Ezm 033:5 .9520; «30 26.. 08:. 3:25:35 3 .33 35.58 358.6 3.09% 3:03:35 \onoouw 9.3390 mm4m HZmDmemD cop n 2 wmtommumo EmEEEEQ P F 9: .8 3553 .maccd. >3 3.3mm: <>Oz< mN 22m... 9O 30.va _m>o_ mo. 3 «.3335 >_a:mo_::m_m .. 23> o— mmé Nm.N we; oo.N mm.— mmé on...” :N and vmé Nm.N 35. 20.2 23> EN :4” SN CNN 5.. 54 mm.» God .36 oeé Nm.N 0—- m 83> me; mod @9- NoN mm; pm; hoé N¢.N ooé N—.¢ NYN m- m 23> vNN Ned om; NON an; be; 22¢ VNN hmé mpé ON.N m . p 30> - mmé 3.4” mm; #0.. 9!. NM; 50.? mmN N p 6 Nmé CON :2: 33 .. (m: :_ 05F 3:03. 35235.0 3339: 3:33.. 95835.0 Euaoi 332300 «3.3:. «323396 23.03 32.30321 5:33.55 0.335 .333: 300 33 oEF 3:03:53. 3 33 02:38 .3360 .825 3:033:31 333m 0:33.20 mmqdem¢> BZMQ2mme . ooauz mmfihommumu unmaflshmumn HH man How mmumum UmuHGD mzu Ga mcfl>fiq msflu >3 muHSmmm «>024 mm mHQMB 91 00.000 mYN and 3N cm; mNé 0N; no.0 9N 0N6 00.0 OWN 300.0020... 80000.0 :4 EN 00.. mod 00.. mm; mm...” NN.N 00... 3.0 3.. 000.30 000.30 5.. 000 00.. NN.N mm; 0N; omé 9N 0N6 00.0 and 2:00 03000.0 3.. 0N.m 00.. 3.— N0; N0; 00.0 and 3...” 9.0 m¢.N 30:00 :0... .850 :2: NN.N NN.m I... 00.. Po; 2.; mm...” SN 0.... 00.0 3d :2... 000.. acoE:.0z< 3:003:00 3.3.5 8:350:00 060.00.: 3:020: 8:33:00 5200.: 00:03:00 «0200:. 03.030098 03.33 305000264. 3.3.08.3 0.00:; 3:00:05. .000 30.. 0:5 3:00:53. .0 .30.. 0203000 3500.0 3.000 300.320.: 30000.0 05000.0 mm...m<.m<> HZmDmewo oop n z 00.50030 33.8330 F F 05 .0. 0:08:33... 33.3003. >0 0:000”. <>OZ< 5N 0.00.. 92 As is shown in Table 27, none of the categories had significant differences between the different levels of educational attainment. Table 28 shows the data for all 11 categories when grouped by country of origin. As is shown in Table 28, only Institutional/Program (Constraints had statistically significant differences between ‘those subjects from Venezuela and the other countries from ‘NhiCh the subjects came. The grouping variables and the determinant categories \nere analyzed to determine the number of occurrences of significant differences. Table 29 lists each determinant category and the grouping variables where instances of significant differences occurred. As is shown in Table 29, Age indicates five occurrences of significant differences in the various determinant categories. Church Participation in Native Country had four 'while Church Participation in the United States had three significant differences in the various determinant categories. Annual Earnings had two while Gender, Martial Status, Country of Origin, Other Languages Spoken besides Spanish, Financial Support Provided for Others, and Living Arrangements in Native Country each had one occurrence of a significant difference in the determinant categories. Educational Attainment, Employment Status, Time in the United States, and Current Living Arrangements had no occurrences of 93 Gov“: .92 no. a 220:... 20:85:20 .. Om; «9.0. mm — mm; 5.4 0.0.— 056 mod mud Omé mvd 2050 8.0 8 v 80 :5 8.0 8.0. 8... 0.2 m3 mm... 8.0 22.35; t...” mm.m on P mmd cod C... 8.0 Omé 00d 00...” OYN 0380.00 0:03000 mm; mod 00 F m0... Nm... 0.... 00.0 0m.N mmé no.0 Fwd 0025.55 N»..— mo...” 00 F NYN 00... NN.— m...v QMN mm...” wmé mod 3.0.... «m; mm...” Ow F mm; 00.. mm; mad m—N 00.0 m_..v and 00:30:01 vod mm...” mm F 2d mm; mm...— om.m mod 3.10 nmé de 0:00.022 NON I» m —o.N EN 00... he; #06 wmd m v.0 mNé mod 2.00 . Ego .0 3:500 3.8:; 3:330:00 05050.0 3:00:00 3:350:00 E059... 00:02:50 «00.00:. ncozfiuonxm 0.5.0.5 ~:0E00:0>u< 50:03:50 0.00...0> 3:020: 300 304 0E... 300.5505 .0 0.03 03::000 .0533 3.000 3:07.022: $00000 05030.0 mmqdemdxw Hzmflzmmmo ooanz mwfiuommumo unmcHEkumQ HH map you cflmflho we >Hu:500 ha muHSmmm ¢>OZ¢ mm mHQMB 94 30. V0. .0>0. mo. 00 “00.0.0.0 300003.090 .. 0.005 .0. 000000 3.0000... 00.000 0000000. .0000 00.0.m «00E>0.00.m 000080.82 300300000 0.0.5 .0 300000 030.0 .3002 00< .00000 00.0.00... 3000.0... 0000 30000 $000.00 30.. 80.200000 00.... 0.0.0.3000 0.0.00.0 .00003000. 000000000 .0 .004 «00.000. 030.0000 «00.080096 30.000 0.00.0.5 .0800 00080000310 309000.20 00.00.:Ezm 300000 0.00:; 00.0020 mmqumeafiw BZMQZMQWQ mucmcfiEHmumm 000 manmflum> mmflhommumu 00003000 Gmmzumm mmocmanMHQ uGMUHMfinmflm mo mmocmnudooo 0N maQMB 9S 30.va _o>o_ mo. 5 529:6 2585.55 .. (m: c. coauEqum €55 E2300 0232 c. cozaeoEnm 55:0 25:00 0282 E .EEoucSE as)... cozaazm 9.3... $250 3555 .353 (w: c. 08:. mEchi .ocoflon “moo 3%.... .2320; 33 . 3523.60 05:. 8:33:00 Egaoi 3:255»... 352.50 .0 :03 323:. o>Ecaoo 30580096 3505 22.25 Eoom EoEouca>u< .nco_om2o£ catfisfizm 393m @333) 9.3390 mmddem/Qw BZm—szmmfl AUMSGHuGOUV mm 9239 96 significant differences in the determinant categories. Mailed Questionnaire Data Analysis Motivational categories. The data analysis from the mailed questionnaire shows that subjects in this study were motivated to apply for admission to Miami-Dade Community College for reasons of Professional Advancement, Social Iflelfare, and Cognitive Interest. According to the criteria ciefined for this study, all three categories received scores (of 4.00 or greater. Houle’s (1960) research established three distinct categories into which people motivated to learn could be grouped. The goal-oriented learners were those motivated ‘because of a specific goal or objective. Professional .Advancement parallels the definition established by Houle. .Activity-oriented learners were motivated to participate to be involved in activities. A strong argument can be made which would closely parallel the Social Welfare category with the activity-oriented category as established by Houle. The learning-oriented category consisted of individuals motivated to participate because of their desire and need to learn. The Cognitive Interest category parallels the learning— oriented category as defined by Houle. Escape/Stimulation and External Expectation did not receive scores above 4.00 indicating that these two categories were not important in influencing the subjects of this study in their decision to apply for admission. These 97 two categories were not included as motivational categories in Houle’s research. The results of this study, using Hispanic adult immigrants, appears to confirm Houle’s earlier findings. Boshier (1977) went beyond the research of Houle in an attempt to identify the social and psychological reasons adults participate in adult education programs. Included in IBoshier’s research were the socio-demographic variables as ‘they related to motivational orientations. Boshier found that younger participants were more likely to enroll because (of External Expectation and Cognitive Interest than older jparticipants. The analysis of the data in this study suggests the opposite: The 36-64 year old group had higher ‘mean scores than the 18-22 year old group in both External Expectation and Cognitive Interest indicating the older group ‘was more influenced to apply for admission because of these reasons than the younger group. The Cognitive Interest category and the Professional Advancement category both had statistically significant differences in mean scores, thus this study was unable to confirm Boshier’s findings. Boshier also found that married individuals were more inclined to participate for reasons of Professional Advancement and Cognitive Interest while unmarried individuals were more inclined to participate for reasons of External Expectations. This study supports the findings that unmarried individuals were more inclined to participate than 98 married individuals for reasons of External Expectation, but was unable to confirm that married individuals were more inclined to participate for Professional Advancement and Cognitive Interest reasons than unmarried individuals. The opposite was found in this study, although not statistically significant. In analyzing educational attainment, Boshier found that those with higher educational attainment were more motivated to participate for reasons of Social Welfare, Cognitive Interest and External Expectation while Professional .Advancement indicated they were less motivated. He also found that those individuals with lower levels of educational attainment were more motivated for Professional Advancement reasons. This study confirms Boshier’s findings in the Social Welfare and Cognitive Interest categories but was unable to confirm his findings in the External Expectations and the Professional Advancement categories. Income or annual earnings, was another socio-demographic variable considered by Boshier. He found that individuals with lower incomes were more motivated for reasons of Professional Advancement and External Expectation while those with higher incomes were more motivated for reasons of Escape/Stimulation and Social Welfare. This study was able to confirm Boshier's findings, that those with higher incomes tend to be more motivated for reasons of Social Welfare and less for reasons of External Expectations. However, this 99 study was not able to confirm his findings concerning the categories of Escape/Stimulation and Professional advancement as it relates to annual earnings. Other socio-demographic variables included in this study were gender, employment status, other languages spoken besides Spanish, financial support provided for others, jpresent living arrangements in the United States, previous living arrangements in native country, church participation in native country, church participation in the United States, time living in the United States, and country of origin. In gender males tended to score higher in all motivational categories than females and had statistically significant higher scores in the Professional Advancement category. This would suggest that males tended to be more motivated than females to apply for admission as it relates to the five motivational categories. In the grouping of Employment Status, those who were employed tended to score higher in all categories except Escape/Stimulation. Those who did not speak another language besides Spanish were more inclined to be more motivated than those who did and the difference was statistically significant in the External Expectation category. Whether one provided financial support for someone else or not was not a factor in any of the motivational categories. Neither was one’s living arrangements in their native country nor in the United States. 100 In the grouping variables, Church Participation in Native Country showed that those who did participate in church activities tended to be more motivated to apply for admission than those who did not attend and the differences in the Escape/Stimulation and the Cognitive Interest categories were statistically significant. Those who indicated they do participate in church activities since arriving in the United States also tended to be more motivated to apply for admission and had statistically significant higher mean scores in the Social Welfare and Cognitive Interest categories. Only Burgess (1971) identifies a religious factor in this research which he had identified as a motivational category. The analysis of the data for time living in the United States and country of origin were inconclusive with little difference in scores. Deterrent categories. Data analysis from the mailed questionnaire shows that the subjects in this study were not deterred according to the criteria defined for this study, from registering for classes at Miami-Dade Community College for any of the six deterrent categories. Cross (1981) found that deterrents to participation could be grouped into one of three different categories. Based upon an analysis of previous research from the Commission on Non—traditional Study, she identified these three as situational barriers, dispositional barriers and lOl institutional barriers. Darkenwald and Valentine (1985) identified only one area of agreement, that being cost, with the Cross study. Using the Deterrents to Participation Scale—Generic (DPS-G), Darkenwald and Valentine found the majority of the mean ratings to be low, ranging from between one and two on the Likert scale. One and two correspond directly with the one and two on the instrument used in this study indicating "disagree" or "strongly disagree". As with the Darkenwald and Valentine study, this research also found four of the six determinant categories with mean scores below 2.00. A fifth category, Time Constraints, had a mean score of 2.01 and only one; Cost, had a higher mean score of 3.34, although not important by the criteria defined for this study. In considering the socio-economic variables, Darkenwald and Valentine did find relationships between the socio— demographic characteristics and the deterrent factors. They found that males tended to score higher for reasons of Low Personal Priority. This was not supported by this study, although it was not statistically significant. Darkenwald and Valentine also found Cost and Personal Problems to be greater deterrents for females than males. These findings were supported by this research; however, the differences were not statistically significant. In the age groupings, Darkenwald and Valentine found that older adults tended to be deterred for reasons of Lack 102 of Confidence and Cost, which was also confirmed by this research. In the present study, older adults were more deterred for reasons of Low Personal Priority and Time Constraints and the differences were statistically significant. Darkenwald and Valentine found that those who were employed were more deterred for reasons of Time Constraints and Personal Problems. This finding was confirmed in this research; however, it was not statistically significant. In this study, those who provide financial support for someone else were more deterred for reasons of Time Constraints. Darkenwald and Valentine identified those individuals in the lower income levels to be more deterred for reasons of Lack of Confidence and Cost. This research found that the group earning between $16,000-$20,000 annually were most deterred by those two categories and therefore cannot confirm their findings. Individuals with lower educational attainment were found to be more deterred for reasons of Lack of Confidence and this was supported by this research as well as the research of Darkenwald and Valentine. However, Cost was a deterrent factor in the Darkenwald and Valentine study for those with lower educational attainment, whereas this study found that those most deterred by cost to have the highest educational attainment. Relating to the other grouping variables in this study, 103 married individuals were more deterred by Lack of Confidence than unmarried individuals. Individuals who lived in their own home or apartment in their native country were more deterred for reasons of Low Personal Priority. There was little or no difference in the deterrent variable as it related to the individuals’ living arrangements after arriving in the United States. Individuals who participated in church activities in their native country were more deterred for reasons of Lack of Confidence and Institutional/Program Constraints, while those who are participating in church activities since arriving in the Untied States were more deterred for reasons of Low Personal Priority. Individuals with 5-10 years in the United States were most deterred from participation because of Institutional/Program Constraints as were those individuals who reported that their native country was Venezuela. Summary of mailed questionnaire data. This research was conducted with an all Hispanic population in an effort to identify the determinant factors which motivate and deter participation in organized adult education programs. Previous research on the involvement of minorities, Hispanics in particular, relating to participation in these programs was very limited. . The mailed questionnaire developed for this study incorporated questions from two separate instruments of 104 determinant factors. The motivational questions came primarily from Boshier’s Education Participation Scale and the deterrent questions came primarily from Darkenwald and Valentine’s Deterrents to Participation Scale. Previous research using these instruments was done with primarily non-minority populations. This research focused on a Hispanic minority population in an attempt to identify similarities or differences in the results, as well as to identify the determinants of participation for this population. The results of the mailed questionnaire tend to support the research of Houle. The motivational categories which most influenced this population to apply for admission were for Professional Advancement, Social Welfare and Cognitive Interest which were consistent with Houlesf findings. However, the data as relates to the findings of Boshier is less clear. In a number of different categories the opposite findings were obtained. Age groupings, marital status, educational attainment and annual earnings all had different findings. On reasons for not attending, only Cost seemed to have a relatively strong influence; although by the criteria established for this study, it was not considered to be important. Based on the data received, with the exception of cost and possibly time constraints, the other categories were not considered to be deterrents to participation. 105 Consistent with the Darkenwald and Valentine study, most of the scores ranged from between one and two which would indicate that these categories were not deterrents to participation for this population. GUIDED PERSONAL INTERVIEW FINDINGS A convenience sample, still stratified by gender, was selected from the list of those not selected for the mailed questionnaire sample. The subjects selected were telephoned at the number they provided on their application for admission. They were telephoned in the order their names appeared on the list and, when contacted, they were invited to participate in the study. The telephone calls continued until a sample of 15 subjects, seven males and eight females, was obtained. Two of the original subjects selected for the interviews, who had agreed to participate, were replaced by other subjects when they failed to keep their scheduled appointments, and follow up attempts to re-schedule the interviews were not successful. A total of 117 telephone call attempts were made in order to secure the sample of 15 subjects. Thirty-seven telephone numbers were either disconnected or the subject was no longer available at that telephone number and no additional information as to the subject's whereabouts could be obtained. Sixty-three subjects refused to participate 106 giving reasons such as, they were too busy, they did not understand the study, or they were not interested. The interviews were conducted and completed over a 23 day period which involved the re-scheduling of two subjects and the replacing of two others. Demographic Findings Data showed that all subjects had applied for admission to Miami-Dade Community College for either the fall semester, 1994, or the winter semester 1994, which actually began in January of 1995. It was further determined that all 15 subjects only applied to the InterAmerican Center, a major outreach center of the Wolfson Campus of Miami-Dade Community College, which is located in Miami’s "Little Havana" district approximately four miles from the main campus. All 15 subjects also indicated their country of birth to be Cuba. Table 30 lists the fourteen remaining demographic variables of the Guided Personal Interview sample. Age; The age range of the Guided Personal Interview sample population was 21 years to 55 years. As is shown in Table 30, the mean age was 33.67 years. Males were older 107 [\m MP mmnb mmmm mm .mm .MH o¢ om .mw .MH o\°l H ooo.omm - ooo.mHm H ooo.mHm - ooo.mHm m.mm m e-m cmsoHQEm m ooo.mHm - ooo.mm m.mH m e-m cmsoHQEm m ooo.mm Gaza mmmH m.mm m pm>oHQEmns wUGHsHMMIAmmmmfl m wH Umunommhc: b.m H mmhmmp .mOHm H mm» on mumgpmum mmmHHoo «mo cH qHum HoHuHmm ca 6 mmmHHoo meow mmwmmmwmmmmq m.mm m mumsomum .m.m IMdImmmmmmIJMmmflw wdwamwMMMfl . Ammmwmmmmmw MH pmuhomwhc: m mm> b.m m pmoHo>Hp Hussoo m>Humz :H b.m H pmuMHmmmm mmHmmmHmmmmq m.mm m vauums Imdlmmmdmml4mmmHu s.mm a mHmch g m on m mm» m.mm m mHmEmm mMMHMGIMdMImmeMdMM s.m¢ s mHms Duo 5m HmHonmch M m Mwmmwm mH Qstmmm cho .0: mm.HH w mHmsmm m mm» mm.m s mHms ansm m meHmmm mm.0H bw.mm mH :oHumHsmom m mmmmmmmmmlmmed mm a a wmd mHQEmm 3mH>umusH Hmsomhmm pmpst mo moHumHHmuomHmnu anmmumOEmo om mHQMB 108 b.m om m.mm mom—1 [\(D Q mumm> m smnu whoa mummh m on H Hmm> H smnu mmmH dmb CH UGH>HH mEHB mummHoHuumm uo: 0p mummHOHuHmm op om ow ow om o¢ o\°l m \om mummHUHuHmm no: 6H6 mummHoHuumm 6H0 mmwmmmwlwfiwmmm CH soHum HUHuHmm nonsnu ucmEuHMQM\mEon G30 GH mpcmHHu\>HHEmm suHB Nmmmfiou m>Humz sH mddflfifiNdNMMfl 9:34 Illummm ucmEuHQO\mEO£ ESQ SH mcamHHM\>HHsmm squ mmmwawmmmMMQ 3% AUmSGHuGOUV om mHQMB 109 with a mean age of 35.86 years and females were younger with a mean age of 31.75 years. Marital status. As is shown in Table 30, four of the subjects indicated they were single, eight indicated they were married, one was reported as separated, while two reported being divorced. Educational attainment. As is shown in Table 30, five subjects reported having a high school education while six reported having attended college but not having graduated. Four subjects indicated having graduated from college while one reported having earned a professional degree. Employment status. As is shown in Table 30, five of the subjects indicated they were unemployed at the time of the interview, two indicated being employed part—time, while eight subjects reported they were working full-time. Annual earnings. As is shown in Table 30, eight subjects reported earning less than $8,000 per year. Five subjects reported earning between $8,000 - $12,000 annually, while one reported earning between $12,000 - $16,000 per year. One subject reported earning between $16,000 — $20,000 per year. WW As is shown in Table 30, nine subjects indicated they did provide financial support for someone else. Six reported they did not provide financial support for anyone else. Other languages spoken besides Spanish. As is shown in 110 Table 30, 13 subjects reported they only spoke Spanish while two reported they spoke another language beside Spanish. Current living arrangements. As is shown in Table 30, six subjects reported they were living with a relative or friend since coming to the United States. Nine subjects reported they were living in their own homes or apartments. Living arrangements in native country. As is shown in Table 30, six subjects reported they were living with relatives or friends in their native country prior to coming to the United States. Nine subjects reported living in their own home or apartment prior to coming to the United States. Church participation in native country. As is shown in Table 30, nine subjects indicated they did not participate in church activities in their native country. Six subjects indicated they did participate in church activities in their native country. Church participation in the United States. As is shown in Table 30, eight subjects indicated that they have not participated in church activities since arriving in the United States. Seven subjects indicated they do participate in church activities in the United States. Maw—WWW in native country. As is shown in Table 30, only two subjects reported their participation in clubs, groups or community organizations while still in their native country. Thirteen subjects did not respond to this question. lll Clubs. groups or community organizations participation in the United States. As is shown in Table 30, only one subject reported participating in clubs, groups or community organizations since coming to the United States. Fourteen subjects did not respond to this question. Interview Summaries During the interview process, all subjects willingly talked about their reasons or motivations for applying for admission. It was as if they felt a need to share feelings about the want and need to succeed. And although they often repeated points, it was felt that they did this to emphasize a positive image of themselves to the researcher who was a representative of the school. At times it seemed as though they wanted to give the "right" answer even though they were told there were no "right" answers. The positive body language was effective and the gestures of understanding and encouragement were, perhaps, being interpreted as approval. When the focus of the interview shifted to the reasons why they did not attend, some uneasiness was noted on the part of several males. Perhaps there was some thought that by not attending this was somehow being construed as undesirable or unacceptable. Efforts to restore these subjects to earlier comfort levels may have been only partially successful. The data obtained through audio tape recordings were analyzed by noting comments made by the subjects during the 112 interview and grouping these comments into one of the 11 determinant categories. Although the two focuses were considered separately during the interview, the subjects frequently went back and forth between the motivational forces and the deterrent forces. This was where the audio recording was extremely helpful because it allowed for the replay of the interview as often as necessary in order to obtain a clearer picture. The data collection through note taking during the interview was done by having a note pad divided into two sections: motivational reasons and deterrent reasons. As the interview proceeded the decision where to place the comments was made instantly and an abbreviated notation was made in the appropriate area. Although much more cumbersome, it was felt that accurate notes were taken which was confirmed by the subjects in the review conducted at the end of each focus portion. It was important to transcribe the notes immediately to assure that the full meaning was maintained. The actual note taking during the interview became more time consuming because of the time needed to transcribe the notes right then and there. The responses were separated and categorized into the appropriate determinant categories. The following is a summary of the information obtained from the 15 subjects during the Guided Personal Interviews. The names of the subjects have been changed to assure 113 confidentiality. An expanded summary of these interviews can be found in Appendices G through U. Alberto Alberto is a 37 year old married male who has lived in the United States for less than one year. He is a college graduate, speaks only Spanish, and is employed full-time earning less than $12,000, but more than $8,000 annually. He does not provide financial support for anyone else and is living with relatives, as he did in Cuba. Alberto did not and does not participate in church activities. The motivational forces which influenced Alberto to apply for admission were: to learn English, to certify previous education, to keep informed about world events, and to keep up with changes in our society. These responses fall into the cognitive interest and professional advancement motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited Alberto’s participation were the cost of the program and his lacking proof of high school graduation as well as his college transcripts from Cuba. These responses fall into the cost and institutional/program constraints deterrent categories. Alberto appears to be both life-space and life-chance motivated with life-space receiving a greater emphasis. External factors appear to be the deterrent forces which prohibited his participation. 114 Berta Berta is a 55 year old, separated female with two children. She has lived in the United States for more than five years and graduated from high school in Cuba. She speaks English fluently and is employed full-time earning approximately $20,000 per year. She is buying her own home in the United States but previously lived with relatives in Cuba. Berta attended church activities while living in Cuba and continues to do so in the United States. The motivational forces influencing Berta to apply for admission were: to get a better job, because her children wanted her to study, and to learn how to use computers. These responses fall into the professional advancement, external expectations and cognitive interest motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited her participation were: the classes were filled, the classes were offered at inconvenient times, and concerns about her memory skills. These responses fall into the institutional/program constraints, time constraints, and lack of confidence deterrent categories. Berta appears to be both life—chance and life-space motivated with life-chance receiving a greater emphasis. The deterrent forces fall into both the externally and internally deterred categories with externally deterred receiving a greater emphasis. 115 Cristina Cristina is a 25 year old, Spanish speaking, single female who graduated from high school in Cuba. She has lived in the United States for 14 months, has her own apartment, and pays her own expenses. She also indicated that she helps provide financial support for someone else, has a full-time job, and earns approximately $12,000 per year. While in Cuba, she lived with her family and participated in church activities. She continues to participate in church activities since coming to the United States. The motivational forces which influenced Cristina to apply for admission were: to learn English, to pursue a career in medicine, to help other people, especially the sick, and because her aunt and boyfriend wanted her to attend. Her responses fall into the cognitive interests, professional advancement, social welfare, and external expectations motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited her participation were the cost of the program and the lack of proof of high school graduation from Cuba. These responses fall into the cost and institutional/program constraints deterrent categories. Cristina appears to be both life-space and life—chance motivated. External deterrent forces are the primary reasons for her non-participation. Daniel 116 Daniel is a 47 year old married, college graduate who has lived in the United States for less than two years. He speaks only Spanish, is presently unemployed and is living in his own apartment. He reported his annual earnings to be less than $8,000 and contributes to the support of his family. In Cuba, Daniel had his own apartment. He did not participate in church activities while in Cuba and he has not participated in church activities since arriving in the United States. The motivational forces which influenced Daniel to apply for admission were to learn English and to certify or validate his previous education. These responses fall into the cognitive interest and professional advancement motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited his participation were the cost of the program and the lack of proof of high school and college completion from Cuba. These responses fall into the cost and the institutional/program constraints deterrent categories. Daniel appears to be both life-space and life—chance motivated. External deterrent forces are the primary reason for his non-participation. Eya Eva is a 32 year old, married female who speaks only Spanish and has lived in the United States for less than two years. While in Cuba, she completed high school and had 117 enrolled for classes at the university. However, she did not graduate. She lives in her own apartment, as she did in Cuba, and is presently unemployed. Her reported earnings for the past year were less than $8,000 and she indicated that she does provide financial support for someone else. Eva was not active in church activities while in Cuba nor has she become active since arriving in the United States. The motivational forces which influenced Eva to apply for admission were: to learn English, to learn new things, to make a contribution to the community, to become a teacher, and because her husband wanted her to. These responses fall into the cognitive interest, social welfare, professional advancement, and external expectation motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited her participation were: the cost of the program, not having proof of high school graduation from Cuba, classes being offered at inconvenient times, friends discouraging her from participating, and uncertainty about her ability to concentrate on her studies. These responses fall into the cost, institutional/program constraints, time constraints, and lack of confidence deterrent categories. Eva appears to be both life-space and life—chance motivated with a greater emphasis in the life—chance type orientation. Both external and internal deterrent forces contributed to her non-participation. 118 Felicia Felicia is a 21 year old, single female who has lived in the United States for less than one year. She speaks only Spanish and lives with her parents. While in Cuba, Felicia lived with relatives. Felicia is a high school graduate and is presently unemployed. She does not provide financial support for anyone else and she reported earnings of less than $8,000 during the past year. While in Cuba, Felicia reported that she did participate in church activities but has not done so since coming to the United States. The motivational forces which influenced Felicia to apply for admission were: to learn English, to learn new things, to earn a degree, and because her mother wanted her to. These responses fall into the cognitive interest, professional advancement, and external expectations motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited her participation were: the cost of the program, the lack of proof of high school graduation from Cuba, and not having proper immigration status. These responses fall into the cost, institutional/program constraints and personal problems deterrent categories. Felicia appears to be motivated by both life-space and life-chance orientations with a greater emphasis on the life- chance orientations. External deterrent factors are the primary reasons for her non-participation. 119 Geraldo Geraldo is a 30 year old, divorced male who has lived in the United States for less than one year. He speaks only Spanish and lives with his parents, contributing financially toward the household expenses. Geraldo is employed part-time and reported earnings of less than $8,000 during the past year. He is a high school graduate from Cuba and attended college but did not graduate. While in Cuba, Geraldo lived in his own apartment but did not participate in church activities. Since arriving in the United States he has not participated in church activities either. The motivational forces which influenced Geraldo to apply for admission were: to learn English, to obtain a career and because his mother wanted him to. These responses fall into the cognitive interest, professional advancement and external expectations motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited his participation were: the cost of the program, the lack of proof of high school graduation from Cuba, the loss of his documents in the ocean, and helping his mother with his disabled father. These responses fall into the cost, institutional/program constraints and personal problems deterrent categories. Geraldo appears to be both life-space and life-chance motivated with a greater emphasis on the life-chance. Both external and internal deterrent forces contributed to his non-participation. 120 Hector Hector is a 36 year old, married male who has lived in the United States for less than one year. He is a college graduate, speaks only Spanish, is employed full-time and earns less than $12,000 per year. He is living in his own apartment and does provide financially for someone else. While in Cuba, he reported that he lived with his family but did not participate in church activities. Since arriving in the United States Hector has not participated in church activities either. The motivational forces which influenced Hector to apply for admission were: to learn English, to validate his previous college education, and to make a contribution to the community. These responses fall into the cognitive interest, professional advancement and social welfare motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited his participation were the cost of the program and his ineligibility for any type of financial assistance. These responses fall into the cost and the institutional/program constraints deterrent categories. Hector appears to be both life—space and life-chance motivated with a greater emphasis on the life-space orientation. External deterrent forces are the primary reasons for his non-participation. Ignacio 121 Ignacio is a 22 year old, single male who has lived in the United States for less than two years. He speaks only Spanish and lives with his mother. Ignacio graduated from high school in Cuba and is currently unemployed. He reported his earnings to be less than $8,000 during the past year and does not contribute toward the support of anyone else. Ignacio reported that while living in Cuba he lived in his own apartment. He did not participate in church activities while in Cuba and since coming to the United States he has not participated in any church activities. The motivational forces which influenced Ignacio to apply for admission were: to learn English, to prepare for a career, because his mother wanted him to, and because he was bored. These responses fall into the cognitive interest, professional advancement, external expectations, and escape/stimulation motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited his participation were: the cost of the program, the lack of proof of high school graduation from Cuba, ineligibility for any type of financial assistance, and not being very important anymore. These responses fall into the cost, institutional/program constraints, and low personal priority categories. Ignacio appears to be both life-chance and life—space motivated with a greater emphasis on the life-chance orientation. Both external and internal deterrent forces contributed to his non—attendance. 122 Juanita Juanita is a 43 year old divorced female who supports her son and her elderly mother. She speaks only Spanish and is a college graduate. She has lived in the United States for less than one year and reported earning less than $8,000 during the past year. She lives in her own apartment in the United States, whereas she lived with family while in Cuba. Juanita reported that she did participate in church activities while in Cuba but has not done so since coming to the United States. The motivational forces which influenced Juanita to apply for admission were: to learn English, to learn to use computers, to be able to write, and to be with other people. These responses fall into the cognitive interest and the escape/stimulation motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited her participation were: the cost of the program, ineligibility for any type of financial assistance, and health problems. These responses fall into the cost, institutional/program constraints, and personal problems deterrent categories. Juanita appears to be both life—chance and life-space motivated with a greater emphasis on the life-chance orientation. Both external and internal deterrent forces contributed to her non-participation. Kigpe Kique is a 40 year old married male who attended college 123 in Cuba but did not graduate. He is employed full-time and lives in his own home providing support for his family as well as his mother-in-law. Kique speaks only Spanish and reported annual earnings of approximately $15,000 last year. While living in Cuba, Kique reported living in his own home and participating in church activities. Since coming to the United States he has not participated in church activities. Kique has been in the United State for the past two years. The motivational forces influencing Kique to apply for admission were: to learn English, to finish his career, and to serve as a positive role model for children. These responses fall into the cognitive interest, professional advancement, and social welfare motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited his participation were: the cost of the program and the inability to make monthly payments to the school towards his classes. These responses fall into the cost and institutional/program constraints deterrent categories. Kique appears to be both life-space and life-chance oriented with a greater emphasis on the life-space orientation. The forces which prohibited his participation were primarily external forces. Leonardo Leonardo is a 49 year old, married male with two children. He has lived in the United States for 14 months and is employed part-time earning less than $8,000 per year. 124 Leonardo speaks only Spanish and has a professional degree from Cuba. He is currently living with family members although he had his own home in Cuba. Leonardo reported that he participated in church activities in Cuba and continues to do so in the United States. The motivating forces which influenced Leonardo to apply for admission were: to learn English and to learn how to validate his professional education from Cuba. These responses fall into the cognitive interest, and professional advancement motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited Leonardo’s participation were because something else came up which had a greater priority and because the classes were offered at an inconvenient time. These responses fall into the low personal priority and time constraints deterrent categories. Leonardo appears to be both life-space and life-chance oriented. Both external and internal deterrent forces prohibited his participation. M_al_2i_§. Maria is a 26 year old married female who has lived in the United States for less than two years. She is a high school graduate, speaks only Spanish and is employed full— time. Maria lives in her own apartment and contributes financially toward the support of others. She reported her earnings to be less than $12,000 per year. While in Cuba, Maria lived with relatives but did not attend church 125 activities. Since coming to the United States, Maria reported that she does participate in church activities. The motivational forces influencing Maria's decision to apply for admission were: to learn English, to learn a career, and to be with other people. These responses fall into the cognitive interest, professional advancement, and escape/stimulation motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited her non— participation were: the cost of the program, ineligibility for any type of financial assistance and the support of her husband’s education which had a higher priority. These responses fall into the cost, institutional/program constraints and low personal priority deterrent categories. Maria appears to be both life-chance and life-space oriented with a greater emphasis on the life-chance orientation. Both external and internal deterrent forces prohibited her participation. HQEEE Norma is a 24 year old single female who has lived in the United States for two years. She speaks only Spanish, graduated from high school in Cuba and attended college for one year but did not graduate. Norma is currently employed full-time and earns less than $12,000 per year. She lives in her own apartment and does not support anyone else financially. While in Cuba, Norma lived with family members but did not participate in church activities. Since coming 126 to the United States she has not participated in church activities. The motivational forces which influenced Norma to apply for admission were: to learn English, to prepare for a better career, to meet new people (perhaps someone special), and to Inelp other people especially children. These responses fall :hnto the cognitive interest, professional advancement, escape/stimulation, and social welfare motivational categories. The deterrent forces which contributed to her non- participation were: the cost of the program, the lack of proof of high school graduation from Cuba, and having other priorities at this time. These responses fall into the cognitive interest, institutional/program constraints, and low personal priority deterrent categories. Norma appears to be both life-chance and life-space Inotivated with a greater emphasis on life-chance orientation. IBoth external and internal deterrent forces contributed to her'non-participation. Ofelia Ofelia is a 28 year old married female who has lived in tkue‘United States for 14 months. After graduating from high SCkmmfl.in.Cuba, Ofelia entered the university but did not Erraduate. She is currently employed part-time earning less tfllan $8,000 per year. She provides financial support for CNZhers and lives in her own apartment. Ofelia speaks only 127 Spanish and prior to coming to the United States she lived in her own home in Cuba. She reported that she participated in church activities in Cuba and continues to do so in the United States. The motivational forces which influenced Ofelia to apply for admission were: to learn English, to get a better job, to earn a degree, and because her parents wanted her to attend. These responses fall into the cognitive interests, professional advancement, and external expectations motivational categories. The deterrent forces which prohibited her participation were: the cost of the program, the lack of proof of high school graduation from Cuba, needing to spend more time with her children, and because her husband did not want her to study. These responses fall into the cost, institutional/program constraints, low personal priority, and personal problems deterrent categories. Ofelia appears to be both life-chance and life—space motivated with a greater emphasis on the life-chance orientation. Both external and internal deterrent forces contributed to her non-participation. Guided Personal Interview Results Table 31 lists the motivational categories into which the responses made by the subjects were grouped as motivational forces which influenced their decision to apply for admission. Table 31 128 Motivational Forces which Influenced Decision to Apply for Admission N = l 5 Life Chance Life Space Professional External Escape Cognitive Social Name Advancement Expectation Stimulation Interest Welfare Alberto X X Berta X X X Cristina X X X X Daniel X X Eva X X X X Felicia X X X Geraldo X X X Hector X X X Ignacio X X X X Juanita X X Kique X X X Leonardo X X Maria X X Norma X X X Ofelia X X X Totals 14 7 4 1 5 5 129 As is shown in Table 31, Cognitive Interest reasons or forces influenced all 15 of the subjects to apply for admission. Fourteen subjects were influenced for Professional Advancement reasons while seven were influenced because of External Expectation. Five subjects were influenced for Social Welfare reasons while only four reported being influenced because of Escape/Stimulation reasons. In considering whether the subjects’ responses are more life-chance oriented or life-space oriented as defined by Boshier (1977) Table 31 indicates 25 responses to be life-chance while 20 are life-space. Life—chance motivations suggest that the reasons people participate in adult education programs are to remove a deficiency in order to meet a personal need. Although Cognitive Interest was reported by every subject as a motivational force, which according to Boshier, is a Life-space orientation. A greater number of responses occurred in the life-chance group (25) than in life-space group(20). Boshier also suggests that it is possible for an individual to be both life-chance and life-space oriented. That appears to be true with this population Table 32 represents the deterrent categories into which the subject responses were grouped as to why they did not register for classes. 130 Table 32 Deterrent Forces Which Prohibited Participation N= 1 5 External Deterrents Internal Deterrents Instit'l Name Program Time Lack of Low Per’l Perso'l Constr’t Constr’t Cost Conf'nc Priority Problem Alberto X X Berta X X X Cristina X X Daniel X X Eva X X X X Felicia X X Geraldo X X X Hector X X Ignacio X X X Juanita X X X Kique X X Leonardo X X Maria X X Norma X X X Ofelia X X Totals 1 4 3 1 3 2 5 As is shown in Table 32, Institutional/Program constraints was indicated as being a deterrent force which prohibited their participation by 14 subjects. Cost was indicated by 13 subjects as being a deterrent force which prohibited their participation. Low Personal Priority was indicated by five, Personal Problems by four and Time Constraints by three. One deterrent which was raised by nine of the 15 131 subjects during the interview was their not having proper documentation to be admissible. Required was proof of high school graduation from an accredited high school or the GED. Cuban refugees were not able to produce these documents, which served as a deterrent to their further participation. Because this requirement was imposed by the institution and the state these responses were included in the Institutional/Program Constraint category. Darkenwald and Valentine (1990) suggest that potential learners could be identified as externally or internally deterred. Those who were externally deterred experienced external forces which worked against their participation. Internally deterred individuals experienced forces from within themselves which worked against their participation The subjects in this study were overwhelmingly externally deterred. Thirty responses can be grouped as externally deterred while only 11 can be grouped as internally deterred. The data suggest this population was deterred from participation in organized adult education programs because of external forces. Comparing Mailed Questionnaire Data With Guided Personal Interview Data The results obtained in the Mailed Questionnaire identified three of the five motivational categories as being important in influencing the subjects decision to apply for admission. The three categories closely paralleled Houle’s research as to reasons people 132 participate. Professional Advancement, Social Welfare and Cognitive Interest received derived scores of 4.00 or greater and by the criteria defined for this study, were found to be important. The results of the Guided Personal Interviews show that the tabulated responses for each of the five motivational categories also indicated Cognitive Interest and Professional Advancement as two major influences in the subjects’ decision to apply for admission. In the guided personal interview, Social Welfare did not receive a high tabulated response. External Expectation and Escape/Stimulation also received low numbers in the tabulated result. The results of the guided personal interview appear to confirm the results obtained in the mailed questionnaire which also confirmed the earlier findings of Houle (1961). Cognitive Interest and Professional Advancement were indicated as the motivating forces in the subject’ decision to apply for admission. In the mailed questionnaire, only cost was suggested as a possible deterrent to participation by this study. This also supported the findings of Darkenwald and Valentine (1985) and partially supported the findings of Cross (1981). The other factors were not indicated as forces which prohibited the individuals’ participation. The data from the guided personal interviews also supported the findings 133 that cost was a deterrent. Thirteen of the 15 subjects indicated cost as one of the major reasons for their non- participation. A second force indicated in the guided personal interview as a deterrent to participation was Institutional/Program Constraints. This did not rate as a strong influence on the mailed questionnaire because no questions asked specifically about admissions policies and required documentation. CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION Directors of adult education programs have long been concerned about the determinants of participation in adult education programs. Numerous studies have been conducted in an effort to identify factors which motivate as well as deter participation. The two foci have, for the most part, been studied independently identifying either motivational factors or deterrent factors. Several researchers (Ordos, 1980; Henry & Basile, 1994), have suggested that in order to gain a better understanding of the determinants, both factors must be considered. A review of the literature revealed five different motivational categories into which potential learners could be grouped. Deterrent factors, those that inhibit participation, allowed for adults to be grouped in six different categories. However, there was little or no evidence on how these determinants influence or deter minorities, and in particular Hispanic immigrants, in adult education programs. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of this research was to examine the 134 135 determinants of participation of Hispanic adult immigrants in organized programs in adult education. The population studied were Hispanic immigrants living in Dade County, Florida, who had applied for admission to Miami-Dade Community College during the 1994-95 academic year and failed to register for any classes at any time during the academic year. In addition to identifying the determinants of participation by Hispanic immigrants, this research also analyzed the relationship between previous findings to non- Hispanic populations and the present study. Differences and similarities were identified and noted. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The data were collected using two different survey procedures: the mailed questionnaire, and the guided personal interview. The mailed questionnaire was developed using selected questions from the Education Participation Scale (EPS) and the Deterrents to Participation Scale- Generic (DPS-G) with several questions developed specifically for this research. The instrument was translated into Spanish for this study. The guided personal interview was developed for this study and followed the same general focus as the mailed questionnaire. Fifteen subjects were interviewed for the study. The interviews were conducted in Spanish. 136 Both motivational forces and deterrent forces were analyzed in order to identify the determinants to participation for a Hispanic adult population. Mailed Questionnaire The data collected from the mailed questionnaires were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program. Frequency distributions, mean scores, t-tests and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) were conducted. The frequency distribution identified the number of responses given to each item or question and the mean scores identified the importance of those responses. T-tests and the ANOVA were used to determine whether there were significant differences between the groups for each of the demographic variables. The data were further analyzed with findings of previous research to identify any similarities or difference. Guided Personal Interview The guided personal interview was developed for this study following the same focus as the mailed questionnaire, but in an open—ended question and answer format. Subjects were asked to respond, in general, to those factors which influenced their decision to apply for admission and those which inhibited or prevented their participation. The interviews were recorded on an audio tape recorder where permitted, and pencil notes were taken when the recording was not authorized. Data were analyzed using the frequency 137 distribution program on SPSS and categorizing the responses made by the subjects into one of the determinant categories. The responses were tabulated to identify the number of responses in each category. The data were further matched to the demographic data of the interview population to obtain information regarding the different demographic groups and their relationship to the determinant categories. Similarities and differences were noted. Review of the Results The findings of the study were presented in Chapter four. This section reviews the results that emerged from the analysis of the motivational and deterrent forces used in this study. Mailed gpestionnaire - motivational forces. Data analysis from the mailed questionnaires suggests that Hispanics in this study are motivated or more influenced to apply for admission to organized adult education programs for reasons of Professional Advancement, Social Welfare, and Cognitive Interest. These closely parallel the three categories identified by Houle (1961). Professional Advancement is related to Houle’s category of goal- orientation, Social Welfare is related to his category of activity-orientation and Cognitive Interest is related to his category of learning-orientation. The categories of Escape/Stimulation and External Expectation were not indicated by the Hispanics in this 138 study as an influence in their decision to apply. Within the category of Professional Advancement, all items were indicated as being important. In the Social Welfare category and the Cognitive Interest category, three of the items were indicated as being important in influencing their decision to apply. Males appeared to be more motivated than females. Ages were studied at the two extremes of the age range and the data indicated that older adults were more motivated to apply for admission than younger adults. Those who participated in church activities in both their native countries and since coming to the United States were more influenced to apply for admission for Cognitive Interest and Social Welfare reasons. The other demographic variables showed some trends but responses were not statistically significant. Mailed gpestionnaire - deterrent forces. Data analysis from the mailed questionnaires suggests that none of the deterrent categories have a significant impact upon the decision not to register for classes. The cost factor was the only category which did not appear in the disagree category but was still below the established importance score. Younger adults appeared to encounter fewer barriers to participation than older adults as did those who did not participate in church activities, both while still in their 139 native countries and since coming to the United States. The other demographic variables were viewed as not being deterrents for this Hispanic population for registering for classes. These results support the findings of Darkenwald and Valentine (1985). Guided personal interviews - motivational forces. Analysis of the motivational forces in the guided personal interviews suggests this Hispanic population was more influenced to apply for admission because of Cognitive Interest and Professional Advancement reasons. This is consistent with the findings of two of the categories in the mailed questionnaire survey. The categories of Social Welfare, Escape/Simulation and External Expectation were indicated as a motivator by fewer than 50% of the sample population. Guided personal interviews - deterrent forces. Analysis of the deterrent forces in the guided personal interviews suggests this Hispanic population was deterred from registering for classes for reasons of Institutional/Program Constraints and Cost. The cost factor is also suggested in the mailed questionnaire which would support this category as being a deterrent to participation. Institutional/Program Constraints was indicated by the subjects as being a barrier, in large part, because of the institutional and statutory requirement of the need to present proof of high school graduation in order to be 140 admitted. Institutional barriers were indicated by Cross (1981) as one of three deterrents which inhibit participation. This study confirms that portion of her findings. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY This study took place during the summer of 1995, using data from the two previous semesters. The sample population was drawn from only the Wolfson Campus and the InterAmerican Center of Miami-Dade Community College and not the college at large. Because of the time lapse between August, 1994 and January, 1995 to July, 1995, many of the non-enrollees had time to move and left no forwarding addresses. As a result, a 40% response rate was achieved. It is difficult to know if those who did not return the mailed questionnaire as well as those who never received them and were returned as unknown, would have altered any of the findings. In addition, the guided personal interview sample population were all of Cuban origin. Cubans do represent the majority of the Hispanics in Miami, however, the mailed questionnaire did reflect responses from a number of different Latin American nations. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY The motivational forces which influenced this Hispanic adult population to apply for admission to an organized 141 adult education program support much of the previous research. This Hispanic population was motivated to seek out programs in adult education for many of the same reasons non-hispanics groups have indicated in past research. It is important to note, however, that some differences are apparent when comparing the socio-demographics in previous research and this study. It has generally been reported that those who participate in adult education programs are usually those from the higher socio-economic class (Boshier, 1977). In this study of Hispanic adults, 65% of the subjects who returned the mailed questionnaires reported having annual earnings of less than $12,000. Fifty-seven percent reported having a high school diploma or less. This indicates that this Hispanic population was of the lower socio-economic class and were a majority of those who applied for admission. This, therefore, suggests that if there is a need for the program, even those from the lower socio-economic class will and do seek out programs in adult education. A needs assessment of the population to be served is an obvious consideration. The socio-demographic variables concerning church participation was answered by 92% of the mailed questionnaire subjects. Past research has all but ignored the church’s influence on participation. Only Burgess (1971) included a religious reference in his research. 142 Others have chosen to ignore its influence as a determining factor. Differences in the data were also found in the two survey approaches used. The mailed questionnaire, using questions from previously established instruments, produced somewhat similar results as has been found in past research. The guided personal interview supported some of the same results but a new item surfaced lending support to the position that more qualitative research is necessary in order to more fully understand the complete picture of the determinants to participation in adult education programs by all people. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study has demonstrated the need for further research into both the motivational and deterrent factors to explain the participation of Hispanic adults in adult education programs. It was not intended to confirm or reject previous research, rather to explore those factors which most influenced this minority population to apply for admission to an organized program in adult education as well as those factors which prevented their participation. None-the-less some of the results did substantiate the findings of other researchers’ profiles of the "typical" participant in organized adult education programs. Professional Advancement, Cognitive Interest, and Social 143 Welfare factors confirm what Houle, Burgess, Morstain and Smart, and Boshier have generally reported. However, the decision to participate in organized adult education programs is not made solely on the basis of motivation. There appears to be clear evidence that those factors which deter participation also play an important role. An individual may be highly motivated but due to some external factors may not be able to participate. This study indicates Hispanic adults to be highly motivated to participate. As new immigrants begin to establish themselves in a new culture and a new country, these individuals turned to established educational institutions to seek out learning opportunities. The need to learn English, to certify or re-validate credentials, or to pursue career paths unattainable in their native countries were apparent in both survey procedures. It was also apparent that these new residents had a strong desire to become involved and be contributing, caring members of the community and society. They all had a dream, no different than the dream of anyone born in the United States, of being able to freely pursue a career and make a better life for themselves, their family, and their community. This theme was reiterated over and over again during the guided personal interviews. "I want to learn English", "I want to be a teacher or some other profession", "I want to make a contribution to this 144 community", "I want to help others especially those who are ill or less fortunate", were some of the more common phrases heard. And while these comments reflected their drive and desire for both personal growth and the concern for their fellow man, they were not able to enroll. Deterrent forces, and in particular external deterrent forces, prohibited them from participating. One might surmise that Cost would be a deterrent. This would be especially true considering that the institution studied depends, in part, upon student fees for operating revenues. It is also true that because of the short period of time this population has lived in the United States they may not be able to afford the cost of having to pay for the classes. Both survey procedures confirmed this point in varying degrees. However, the external deterrent of Institutional and Program Constraints was also a significant barrier. It appeared to be an even stronger deterrent than Cost in the guided personal interviews because it was an issue raised by the subjects themselves. The pre—admission requirement of proof of high school graduation or the GED as well as college transcripts from any university they may have attended in their native countries effectively closed the door to those seeking continued learning opportunities. Most of those who had applied were unable to bring these 145 documents with them and efforts to get them after their arrival in the United States had not met with any degree of success. Implications for Hispanic Immigrants Dade County, Florida is one of the most heavily populated Hispanic communities in the United States (Boswell, 1994). Immigration to the United States from many of the Central and South America countries as well as the Caribbean Islands come to Dade County. Although efforts to relocate many of the new arrivals, particularly those from Cuba, to other cities throughout the United States are attempted, many have family living in the Dade County, Florida area who claim them and help them establish residency within the community. Many communities with a high concentration of Hispanics have been established throughout the county and some even carry names relating back to their native countries as with "Little Havana" located close to downtown Miami. Institutional Responses New Hispanic immigrants must not only be informed of the educational opportunities available to them but also of any pre-admission requirements. It is certainly attractive to place advertisements in the newspapers and promote intensive recruitment campaigns in an effort to attract these new arrivals to apply for admission. However, more can and should be done. Information on admission 146 requirements should, at a minimum, be included in any and all advertisements and publicity prepared by the institutions. Ideally, orientation sessions could be conducted throughout the year which would provide prospective learners with relevant information regarding the admission requirements and procedures as well as information regarding cost and financial aid opportunities. This should be a responsibility of the institution or program offering the classes and one which should be included as part of all planning efforts. By making potential learners aware of specific admissions requirements, those seeking opportunities to -further their learning will be able to make the necessary arrangements in advance in order to facilitate their participation. The issue of matriculation also needs further study. Is matriculating for classes more a function of the learner and his/her characteristics? Or, is it a function of the institution and its requirements? The institution has a responsibility to offer learning opportunities which meet or fulfill the needs of the people they intend to serve. Characteristics of the learners are an important part of the planning by the institution to meet the needs of the population. Requirements for participation must be established by the institution which would permit anyone desiring to participate to do so. Pre-admission 147 requirements can and do become deterrents to participation. This raises additional questions about other institutional barriers. Can research that questions learners derive understandings about institutional barriers or must the institution be the focus of the examination? If the institution is unaware of or insensitive to certain limitations of the population to be served chances are the programs will not succeed. Research can use information reported by potential learners which identifies their needs. However, that potential learners would understand the educational administration policies of an institution is highly unlikely. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the institution to keep the needs of the learners as the primary goal in planning and creating a "fit" for these programs within the policies of the institution. Both reported deterrents by learners or potential learners and perceived deterrents by the institution are worthy of additional research and must be studied further in an effort to identify correctable deterrents which would maximize participation. Language as a Barrier This study also focused on a population whose native language was Spanish. Attempts were made to reduce language as a barrier by providing all correspondence and written instruments in both Spanish and English. With the largest portion of the population having limited English speaking, 148 reading and writing abilities, it was felt that the bilingual instruments would be more acceptable to the subjects and increase participation in the survey. Because the question of language as a barrier was not asked nor did it surface during the interviews, the issue was not considered. Can research, conducted in English, which focuses on responses given in a language other than English, establish or eliminate language as a barrier? Just because the research was conducted in the native language of the subjects does not mean that language is not an issue within the program itself. More research with non-English speaking populations is necessary to determine whether or not language serves as a deterrent to participation. Determinants of Drop-outs Determinants to participation in adult education programs have been researched in many different settings. This research focused upon Hispanic adults who had applied for admission but never attended. There is also a large population of Hispanics who drop out of classes after they have matriculated which would also be worthy of future research. Information about Hispanic adults who drop out and those who apply but never matriculate could possibly identify other deterrents which inhibit their participation. Do Hispanic adult learners who matriculate for classes and then drop out do so because of external factors such as institutional barriers or is it because internal factors 149 such as lack of confidence or low personal priority? Is there a relationship between the Hispanic adults who apply for admission and never matriculate and those who matriculate and drop out? These are but a few important areas for future research. Motivational and Deterrent Forces Both motivational and deterrent forces determine one’s ability to participate in adult eduCation programs. Previous research on motivation has produced varying results but is generally placed within Houle’s typology. Deterrents are less well defined and have a larger degree of differences. Although it appears that more research should be conducted analyzing and assessing deterrents to participation, both forces must continue to be studied to obtain a more complete picture. Research analyzing both forces concurrently would allow planners to focus on important issues for both the learner and the institution. Research Involving Hispanic Minorities The contributions made to our society by Hispanic minorities has had a significant impact upon the way in which we live. Cultural differences have enhanced and enriched our lives through the arts and sciences as well as medicine, leadership and governance. Yet little if any research is available which focuses specifically on Hispanics. More research using minorities, and in particular, Hispanic minorities, is needed if planners of 150 adult education are going to effectively serve this population. Hispanics are very proud people and carry their traditions and values with them wherever they go. They are willing to work with other groups or forge forward on their own to establish themselves. In order to capture a more complete picture of what the learning needs of Hispanics may be and how to incorporate these needs into meaningful learning experiences, future research should consider an ethnographic or qualitative approach. It would be difficult to establish a construct or a written instrument which would adequately address or uncover all the determinants without first establishing what some of the more prominent concerns may be. The Role of the Church Throughout history the church has played a significant role in the education process. A significant number of church affiliated or parochial schools are still in existence today. Throughout the Spanish speaking nations of Central and South America, church affiliated secondary schools are greater in number than the state-supported or public schools. Hispanic adults in Dade County, Florida who have immigrated to the United States from these countries most likely received their primary and secondary education in a parochial school. One would conclude that the church’s influence on participation may be significant and should be considered in future research. Burgess (1971) identified a 151 religious factor which was later dismissed by others. Boshier (1977) suggested that it was not a factor relating the reference to the religious factor in Burgess’ findings to questions on the instrument. Considering the background of the Hispanic population, their culture and their values, the churches’ influence has had a significant impact in shaping the lives of this population. A legitimate question may relate to whether or not research can adequately evaluate the role of the church when it has been reported that records of participation are incomplete or non— existent? Certainly the role of the church should be considered and ways to identify its influence explored in future research. REFLECTIONS OF THE RESEARCHER Learning opportunities for anyone who desires or wants to learn should be a right that no one should be denied. Yet many of the learning opportunities offered to our people are poorly conceived and limited in scope. It has often been said that we, as human beings, use only 10% of our intellectual potential and that if man could learn how to tap into the 90% of our unused potential their would be no problem we could not solve. I am not suggesting that we launch a campaign into how to tap into the 90% of unused potential. What I am suggesting is that as educators and planners of learning opportunities for adults more attention 152 must be given to allowing anyone who desires to learn to reach their maximum potential. The driving force behind any adult education program is participation. Learners are our most important ingredient. Without learners to participate in the programs there would be no need for the programs, no need for the planners and no need for the directors. And yet, many learning opportunities are planned without considering the needs of the learners, what may motivate them to want to participate and what exists which might deter their participation. All to often, planners and directors are content with classes of 15 to 20 learners when there are perhaps hundreds who are not participating because it did not meet their needs, they were not aware of it, or because some external barrier prevented their participation. Sadly many directors of adult education programs have become content with mediocrity and believe that those who are enrolled were the only ones motivated to learn. If the field of adult education is going to survive into the let century as a legitimate field to enrich the lives of all people, much more attention will have to be given to the determinants of participation. I would like to close my reflections with a short story about a young man and his ambitions to obtain an education. Marcel left his native country at the age of 23 to come to the United States where he had heard that many 153 opportunities existed to obtain an education and make a better life for himself. He bid his mother and brothers goodby and told them he would be in touch and share with them his good fortunes. Marcel arrived in Miami and after passing through the immigration process, located a place to live and found a part-time job. After all, he did need to eat and pay the rent. ,He did not come to the United States because he wanted a free ride. He knew that he would have to work for a living and provide for himself. All he wanted was the opportunity to be able to study and learn a career which would provide a better life for himself and hopefully a family some time in the future. After establishing himself, Marcel made inquiries as to a good school he could attend where he could begin his career preparations. He soon found his way to the local community college which embraced him with all sorts of good news about possible careers. He also learned about financial aid opportunities which would help him pay for his classes. This was important to him because he certainly could not afford the cost of going to school. In his country it did not cost to go to school but not everyone had the chance to attend. Marcel was very happy. His next step was to apply for admission. He was eager to do this because he could not wait to get started. Upon completing the application for admission he soon learned 154 that in order for him to attend, a high school diploma or its equivalent was going to be required. Marcel had graduated from high school in his native country but little did he know that he was going to have to present this document in order to study in the United States. He was not sure he would be able to get this document because communication with his family was difficult and he did not know if they would be able to get it from the school. He did not have sufficient money to go back and get the document himself and even if he did, the question remained if he would be permitted to return. Marcel’s next step was to visit the financial aid office where he had heard that he could obtain funds to help pay for his education. After completing the application for funds, Marcel soon learned that his ability to receive funds was contingent upon having his high school diploma or equivalent, on file. Without these documents, Marcel was not eligible for any type of aid. Disheartened and disillusioned, Marcel felt that maybe he could attend part-time in vocational classes and that he could cover the cost of the fees from the small salary he earned from his part-time job. His career choices became very limited but none-the-less, he was determined to begin. After exploring some of the available classes, two caught Marcel’s eye and he completed the registration forms for the two classes. When he received his schedule he soon 155 learned that the classes cost much more than he had anticipated. Marcel did not have enough money to cover the cost of these classes and inquired as to why they cost so much and if there was any other way he could pay for them. Marcel soon learned that because he had not lived in Florida for one year, he was being charged an out—of—state fee which is approximately three times that of the in-state- fees. When he asked about payment options he was met with a "that is not possible" answer. Marcel dropped his two classes and left the institution dismayed, sad and wondering what had happened to his dream of a better life. Marcel is a fictional character but the scenario is repeated many times. It is sad that someone who is highly motivated and wants to participate in learning opportunities has to encounter such external barriers to participation. Certainly the administrators, directors and planners of programs for persons like Marcel must evaluate policies and look for ways that persons like Marcel, male or female, are not denied their right to an education. APPENDICES 156 Appendix A The purpose of this survey is to look at two important issue relating to participation in organized adult education programs. Part I deals with why you applied for admission to Miami-Dade Community College; and Part II examines the reasons why you did not attend classes. Survey - Part I Please read each statement carefully and circle one of the numbers (5=strongly agree (SA), 4=agree (A), 3=undecided (U), 2=disagree (D), 1=strongly disagree (SD)). Here are two examples. Why did your apply for admission to Miami-Dade Community College? A. To improve my reading ability. 5 4 3 2 1 B. Because I wanted to keep busy. 5 4 3 2 1 If you strongly agree with statement A you will circle number 5. If you disagree with statement B you will circle number 2. Thinking back to when you applied for admission to Miami— Dade Community College this past year, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Please be honest in your responses. There are no right or wrong answers. Please remember to always check the categories across the top of the answer column. Why did you apply for admission to Miami-Dade Community College? flAQQQ 1. Because I like to learn new things. 5 4 3 2 1 2. Because my boss required it of me. 5 4 3 2 1 3. To become a better citizen. 5 4 3 2 1 4. To be able to adjust to a new culture and environment. 5 4 3 2 1 5. To get relief from boredom. 5 4 3 2 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 157 To make new friends. To help me become certified in my career or field. To help me learn English. To be with other people. To do something different away from home and work. To keep up with modern technology. To earn a degree or certificate. Because the program had a good reputation. To clarify what I want to be five years from now. To improve my ability to communicate with others. To improve my ability to serve mankind. To challenge my way of thinking. To get away from the frustration of everyday responsibilities. Because learning new things is important to me. Because it was expected of me. To be able to help my children with their school homework. Because my family wanted me to. Because my friends wanted me to. To be able to get a better job. 158 Survey-Part II Part II centers on the reason or reasons which prevented you from attending. Again, please indicate the extent to which each of the following reasons listed below prohibited or prevented you from taking classes at Miami-Dade Community College. Please read each statement carefully and circle one of the numbers (5=Strongly Agree (SA), 4=Agree (A), 3=Undecided (U), 2=Disagree (D), 1=Strongly Disagree (SD). Again, please be honest in your responses. There are no right or wrong answers. Please remember to always check the categories over the answer column. Why did you not register for classes at Miami-Dade Community College this past year? 318328—13 1. I could not afford the books, supplies and travel expenses. 5 4 3 2 1 2. I moved to another part of town and travel would have been too great. 5 4 3 2 1 3. I had problems with my health. 5 4 3 2 1 4. I did not want to have to answer questions in class. 5 4 3 2 1 5. I did not have enough time to attend the course. 5 4 3 2 1 6. It was more important for me to get a job than to attend course. 5 4 3 2 1 7. The course I wanted was already filled. 5 4 3 2 1 8. I did not think I could learn. 5 4 3 2 1 9. The course was offered at an inconvenient time. 5 4 3 2 1 10. I did not know anyone taking courses at that location. 5 4 3 2 1 11. I believe I am too old to learn. 5 4 3 2 1 12. I had family problems. 5 4 3 2 1 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 159 I did not have transportation to get to the classes. There was too much homework in the course. It would take me too long to complete the program. It was not important at this time. I had heard bad things about the program. My friends and co-workers did not want me to attend. I felt I could not compete with younger students. I had heard complaints about the quality of the instruction. I did not want to attend the course alone. I thought the course was free. The course was offered in an unsafe neighborhood. I heard that the instructors were not very friendly. I did not qualify for any type of financial aid. I did not think the course would help me progress. I did not like the other students in the program. I could not afford the cost. 160 Part III Part III deals with information about yourself. Please remember that this is an survey. It is not necessary to put your name on it. Please check or provide the correct response to each question. 1. Please indicate your sex. (Check one) __Male __ Female 2. What was your age on your last birthday? 3. Please check your marital status. (Check only one) __ Single __ Married __ Separated __ Divorced __ Widowed 4. What is your native country? 5. Please check your highest level of education attainment. (Check only one) __ less than high school __ high school graduate/equivalent __ some college or professional training __ college graduate/equivalent __ professional/graduate degree, i.e. doctor, lawyer. 6. Please check your current employment status in the United States? __ unemployed __ employed part-time (less than 35 hours per week) __ employed full-time (35 hours or more) __ employed at more than one job. 7. Do you speak another language besides your native Spanish? Yes No If yes, what language(s)? 8. Beside yourself, do you provide financial support for other people? Yes No 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 161 What year did you arrive in the United States? Please indicate your current annual wages. (Check only one) less than $8,000 per year between $8,000 and $12,000 per year between $12,000 and $16,000 per year between $16,000 and $20,000 per year more than $20,000 per year. What kind of living situation do you currently have? (Check one) living with a friend or relative in their home. living in my own home or apartment. Prior to coming to the United States, what kind of living situation did you have in your native country? (Check one) lived with a friend or relative in their home. lived in my own home or apartment. Did you participate in a church in your native country? Yes No In what other clubs, groups, or community organizations did your participate in your native country? Do you now participate in the church in the United States? Yes No In what other clubs, groups, community organizations do you now participate in the United States? 162 Appendix B El proposito de esta encuesta es analizar dos asuntos importantes relacionadas con la participacion de los estudiantes con los programas de educacion para adultos. La primera parte se trata de por qué solicito su admisién en Miami-Dade; y la segunda parte, examinar las razones por las cuales Usted no asistio. Parts I Lea con cuidado cada declaracién y circule una de las respuestas presentadas. Por favor lea estos dos ejemplos. "gPor qué aplico para la matricula de Miami—Dade Community College?" Para mejorar mis habilidades de lectura. 5 4 3 2 l B. Porque yo queria mantenerme ocupada/o. 5 4 3 2 1 Si Usted esta muy de acuerdo con la declaracion A, circularé e1 nfimero 5. Si Usted esta en desacuerdo con la declaracién B, circulara e1 nfimero 2. Recordandose de cuando Usted aplico por primera vez a Miami— IDade Community College, por favor indique hasta d6nde esta 'USted de acuerdo 0 en desacuerdo con las siguientes razones ‘y'cuanto esto influencio en su decision para aplicar a la tnatricula. Por favor sea sincero en sus respuesta. No hay respuestas correctas o incorrectas. Recuerde de utilizar siempre las categorias que se encuentran en la parte superior de la pagina. 5=Muy de Acuerdo (MA), 4=De Acuerdo (A), 3=Indeciso (I), 2=En Desacuerdo (D), 1=Muy en Desacuerdo (MD). "aPor qué aplico para la matricula de Miami-Dade Community College?" MA A l 2 M2 1. porque me gusta aprender cosas nuevas 5 4 3 2 1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 163 porque mi jefe me lo demanda para ser un mejor ciudadano para poder adaptarme a una nueva cultura y a un nuevo medio ambiente para no estar aburrido para conocer nuevos amigos para poder obtener una certificacién o licencia en mi profesion para ayudarme a aprender Inglés para compartir con otras personas para hacer algo diferente fuera de la casa y de mi trabajo para poder mantenerme al tanto de la tecnologia moderna para obterner un titulo o certificado porque el programa tiene muy buena reputacion para definir dénde estaré en cinco afios para mejorar mi habilidad de comunicarme con otros para mejorar mi habilidad de servir a la humanidad para retar mi manera de pensar poder huir de las frustaciones y responsabilidades diarias porque aprender nuevas cosas es importante para mi porque se esperaba de mi 21. 22. 23. 24. 164 ser capaz de ayudar a mis hijos con sus tareas escolares porque mi familia asi lo quiere porque mis amigos asi lo quieren para obtener un trabajo mejor 165 Parts II La segunda parte se trata de las razones por las cuales Usted no pudo a asistir a Miami-Dade Community College. De nuevo, por favor indique la razon o la causa que le prohibio 0 le previno tomar clases en Miami—Dade Community College. Lea cuidadosamente las preguntas y circule uno de los nfimeros 5=Muy de Acuerdo (MA), 4=De Acuerdo (A), 3=Indeciso (I), 2=Desacuerdo (D), 1=Muy en Desacuerdo (MD). Le rogamos que sea sincero en sus respuestas. No hay respuesta correcta o incorrecta. Recuerde de utilizar siempre las diferentes categorias que se encuentran en la parte superior del cuestionario. "aPor qué no se matriculé para las clases del Miami- Dade Community College el afio pasado?" MA A I 2 H2 1. no pude pagar los libros, materiales de clase y los gastos de transporte 5 4 3 2 1 2. me mudé de domicilio y el transporte no era facil 5 4 3 2 1 3. tuve problemas de salud 5 4 3 2 l 4. no queria contestar preguntas en la clase 5 4 3 2 1 5. no tenia tiempo para asistir a 5 4 3 2 1 clases 6. fué mas importante obtener un 5 4 3 2 1 trabajo que asistir a clases 7. todas las clases que yo queria ya estaban llenas 5 4 3 2 1 8. no pensaba que yo podia aprender 5 4 3 2 1 9. las clases se ofrecian a horas que no me convenian 5 4 3 2 1 10. no conocia a nadie que asistiera a clases en ese local 5 4 3 2 1 11. creo que soy muy mayor para poder aprender 5 4 3 2 l 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 166 tuve problemas de familia no tenia medios de transporte para ir a clases habia mucha tarea en cada clase para hacer en la casa me llevaba mucho tiempo completar el programa no era importante para mi en este momento he escuchado comentarios negativos acerca del programa mis amigos y compafieros de trabajo no han querido que yo asista he escuchado quejas acerca de la calidad de ensefianza senti que no estaba suficientemente preparado para tomar las clases no queria asistir solo a las clases pensé que las clases eran gratis las clases fueron ofrecidas en un vecindario que no era seguro he oido que los profesores no eran amistosos no califiqué para ninguna ayuda financiera no pensé que las clases me ayudarian a progresar no me gustaban los otros estudiantes que estaban en el programa no podia costear el gasto 167 Parte III La parte III solicita cierta informacién acerca de Usted. Recuerde que esto es un estudio y anonimo por lo tanto, Usted no tiene que escribir su nombre. Por favor indique la respuesta apropiada para cada pregunta. 1. Por favor indique su sexo. (Marque una) Masculino Femenino 2. aCual fué su edad en su ultimo cumpleafios? 3. Por favor indique su estado civil. (Marque una) Soltero/a Casado/a Separado/a Divorciado/a Viudo/a 4. gCual es su pais de origen? 5. Por favor indique su nivel académico mas alto. (Marque una) asisti pero no me gradué de la Escuela Secundaria o Bachillerato graduado de la escuela Secundaria, Bachillerato o su equivalente posee algfin entrenamiento profesional o académico graduado de la Universidad o su equivalente ha terminado sus estudios universitarios graduados por ejemplo, Doctor en Medicina, Abogados, etc en su pais 6. gCual es su situacion de empleo? (Marque una) desempleado empleado a medio tiempo (menos de 35 horas semanales) empleado a tiempo completo (mas de 35 horas semanales) empleado en mas de un trabajo 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 168 aHabla Usted otro idioma aparte de su idioma nativo, el Espafiol? Si No Si su respuesta es "Si", acual(es) idioma(s)? Sin contarse Usted, aprovee apoyo economico a otras personas? Si No gEn qué afio llegé Usted a los Estados Unidos? Como categoriza su entrada anual. (Marque una) menos de $8,000 por afio entre $8,000 y $12,000 por afio entre $12,000 y $16,000 por afio entre $16,000 y $20,000 por afio mas de $20,000 por afio Como describe su domicilio. vivo con un amigo o pariente en su casa vivo en mi propia casa o apartamento Antes de venir a los Estados Unidos cémo describiria su situacién doméstica. (Marque una) vivia con un amigo o pariente en su casa vivia en mi propia casa o apartamento aAsistia Usted a alguna iglesia en su pais? Si No aA cuales clubes, grupos, u organizaciones comunitarias Usted pertenecia en su pais? (Si hay alguno mencionelo). aAsiste Usted a alguna iglesia en los Estados Unidos? Si No 16. 169 éA cuales clubes, grupos u organizaciones comunitarias Usted pertenece en los Estados Unidos? (Si hay alguno mencionelo). 170 Appendix C 0177a of the Associate Dean for Administrative and Student Services 627 S. W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33135-2966 (305) 237-3841 FAX: (305) 237-3895 flAUERANHHUCMAICEWUER July 11, 1995 Dear Sir/Madam: My name is John Kemppainen and I am an Associate Dean at the InterAmerican Center of Miami-Dade Community College/Wolfson Campus. I am also completing a graduate degree at Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan and as part of that degree I am conducting a survey of hispanic surnamed individuals who had applied for admission to either the Wolfson Campus or the InterAmerican Center of Miami-Dade Community College during the 1994-95 academic year and then never registered for any classes. My interest is to learn what motivated these people to apply for admission and then not attend? Your name has been randomly selected to participate in this survey. I would like to advise you that your answers to these questions will remain strictly confidential and no attempt will be made to identify specific respondents to this questionnaire. Each survey is coded to allow for follow-up. However, no attempt will be made to match specific responses with specific people. Please read the instructions carefully. You will note that there are three parts to the survey. Part I asks you to focus on the reasons that motivated you to apply for admission. Part II asks you to focus on the reasons you did not attend any classes. Part III asks some basic questions about yourself. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. However, your co-operation would be greatly appreciated. It should take you no more than fifteen to twenty minutes to complete the survey questionnaire. You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this questionnaire. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Your immediate attention would be greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding any portion of this study or if you would like additional information, you may contact me by calling 237-3841. In the event that I am not at my phone when you call, you may leave your name and telephone number and I’ll be sure to get back to you. I would like to thank you in advance for your voluntary participation and co-operation in this important study. Sincerely, John P. Kemppainen mp Enclosures 171 Appendix D Ofl'ice of the Associate Dean for Administrative and Student Services 627 S. W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33135-2966 (305) 237-3841 FAX: (305) 237—3895 /IN7ERAMERI CAN CENTER July 11, 1995 Estimada Mi nombre es John Kemppainen, Decano Asociado del Centro InterAmericano de Miami-Dade Community College, recinto Wolfson, y al mismo tiempo soy estudiante del programa del doctorado en el area de Educacién Continuada para Adultos en la Universidad Estatal de Michigan, East Lansing, Michigan. Como tépico de mi investigacion y para cumplir con uno de mis requisitos del grado de doctorado, yo estoy llevando a cabo un estudio con individuos hispanos que hayan aplicado para la matricula, ya sea en el recinto Wolfson 0 en el Centro InterAmericano del Miami-Dade Community College durante e1 afio académico 1994-9S, y nunca se matricularon para ninguna clase. Mi interés es aprender que fué lo que a Usted 1e motivé a matricularse y por qué Usted nunca asistio. Su nombre ha sido seleccionado al azar para participar en este estudio. Me gustaria expresarle que sus respuestas a estas preguntas seran confidenciales y le aseguro que se mantendran anénimas. Nosotros no haremos ningt’m esfuerzo para identificar su nombre. Por favor lea las instruciones cuidadosamente y Usted notara que este estudio consta de tres partes. La parte I 1e pide que enfoque las razones que lo motivaron a aplicar para su matricula. La parte II 1e pide que se enfoque en las razones por las cuales no se matriculé para asistir a clases y la parte III se enfoca en su informacion personal. Su participacion en este estudio es voluntaria; por lo tanto, su cooperacién en la misma sera muy apreciada. No le tomara mas que 15 6 20 minutos poder completarla y a su vez contestar este cuestionario. El completarlo y devolverlo nos indica que Usted ha estado de acuerdo en participar voluntariamente en este estudio. Para su propia conveniencia, adjunto encontrara un sobre con su sello y la direccién donde debe remitirlo. De nuevo deseo expresarle mi agradecimiento por su pronta atencién. Si Usted tuviera alguna pregunta a1 respecto o quisiera afiadir alguna informacion adicional, podra ponerse en contacto conmigo llamando a] teléfono 237-3841. En caso que no le conteste en el memento, por favor deje su mensaje incluyendo su numero de teléfono en la maquina electrénica y le prometo contestarle a la mayor brevedad posible. Me gustaria agradecerle de antemano su participacion voluntaria y también su cooperacion a este estudio tan importante. Atentamente, John P. Kemppainen 172 Appendix E Ofiice of the Associate Dean for Administrative and Student Services 627 S. W. 27th Avenue Miami, Florida 33135-2966 (305) 237-3841 FAX: (305) 237-3895 /INYERAMERI CAN CENTER July 25, 1995 Dear Sir/Madam: Approximately one week ago you received a letter from me which included a questionnaire concerning the reasons you applied for admission to the Wolfson Campus or the InterAmerican Center of Miami-Dade Community College. The second part of the survey asked questions as to why you did not attend. Although many individuals have already returned their questionnaires, I have not yet received yours. I did explain that participation in this study is voluntary however your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. May I encourage you to please take a moment to complete the questionnaire answering all parts. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. The self addressed stamped envelope which was included should make it easy to return. If you did not receive the questionnaire, please contact me at 237- 3841 and I will see to it that one is mailed to you immediately. Again, I would like to thank you for your cooperation in this most important study. Sincerely John P. Kemppainen ‘ mp 173 Appendix F Oflice of the Associate Dean for Administrative and Student Services 627 S. W. 2 7th Avenue Miami, Florida 33135-2966 (305) 237-3841 FAX: (305) 237-3895 / INTERAMERI CAN CENTER Julio 25, 1995 Estimado Hace aproximadamente una semana que Usted debe de haber recibido una carta enviada por mi, la cual incluia un cuestionario concerniente a las razones por las cuales Usted aplico a la matricula para asistir a clases en el Recinto Wolfson 0 en el Centro InterAmericano del M-DCC. La segunda parte de este estudio enviada, preguntaba el "por qué Usted no matriculo en el memento que lleno su planilla". He recibido muchos de los cuestionarios enviados, pero aun no he recibido el suyo. En mi carta explicaba que la participacion al mismo era de caracter voluntario, y que su respuesta seria muy apreciada. Yo Ie agradecerle, si Usted pudiera tomar un momenta de su tiempo y contestar completamente el cuestionario, recordando que no existe lo correcto o lo incorrecto. El sobre enviado con sello a vuelta de correo le facilitara la devolucion del mismo. Si Usted no he recibido el cuestionario por favor pongase en contacto conmigo a este numero de teléfono 237-3841 y el mismo sera enviado de inmediato. De nuevo, deseo darle las gracias por su cooperacion en este estudio de tanta importancia. Sinceramente John P. Kemppainen 174 Appendix G INTERVIEW SUMMARIES The following is a summary of the highlights of each interview. Names have been changed to assure confidentiality of each subject. ALBERTO Alberto is a 37 year old male who has lived in the United States for less than one year. His first 45 days were spent in Krome, an immigration detention facility in Miami. Alberto discovered the InterAmerican Center on his first visit to the immigration and social security offices located in the same neighborhood. Being a professional in Cuba, Alberto was interested in exploring ways to re-certify his credentials from Cuba. His visit to the Center was to obtain more information about Miami-Dade Community College and how he might be able to continue his studies in the United States. "Education has always been important to me" was one of his first responses, "People who are not educated are left behind." The topic of education was discussed for a moment and Alberto’s own definition of education was, "keeping informed about worldly events." "Changes keep happening and if we are expected to keep up with these changes, we have to continue our studies." Alberto was goal oriented. He knew what was needed for him to succeed, which also appeared to be the driving force behind his desire to go back to school. 175 "Education is a life-long process," was one of the final statements he made. When he was asked to rank in importance the reasons he applied for admission to Miami—Dade Community College, he stated, "first to learn English and then to find a way to re-certify my previous education." The second part of the interview concentrated on the reasons "why" he did not attend. Alberto appeared to be less comfortable. It seemed to be an issue which he did not wish to discuss. He explained that the major reasons he did not register for any classes was because when he left Cuba he was not able to take any of his papers with him. His proof of his high school graduation, his college degree and transcripts were all in Cuba. He felt hopeless in being able to get them at any time in the future. "Maybe," he said, " if Castro falls, I will be able to go back and get my documents." He said he still had family in Cuba but they would not be able to help. It would cost a lot of money to pay the government to release the documents. His family in Cuba is in such dire economic need that even if he were to send them money to try and get the documents, it would be immoral. His question was, "How can I ask for them to pay thousands of dollars to get me a few sheets of paper when they don’t even money to buy food and decent clothes?" It was obvious this was a sensitive issue for Alberto. At one point his eyes watered as if he were to cry. We paused for a moment and when he felt ready to proceed we continued. " 176 What other factors were there, if any, which contributed to your not registering for any classes at Miami-Dade," I asked? "The cost," he replied, "I just could not afford the cost." Because Alberto had resided in Florida for less than one year he was not eligible for in-state fees. The cost for Alberto would have been approximately $1,800 per semester not including books and supplies. He understood that because he had a college degree he would not be eligible for any type of federal financial aid. "I will have to pay for everything myself and at this moment I just can’t afford it," was his one of his final statements. Alberto did have a full-time job at a local distribution warehouse, doing data entry. "It’s not much," he said, "but it pays the rent and buys my food." "I do not want welfare, ’just the opportunity to work, study and make a better life for myself and my family." Alberto is married with no children. 1 7 7 Appendix H BERTA The second interview also took place in the conference room at the InterAmerican Center. Berta is a female, 55 years of age, separated with two adult children and has resided in the United States for more than five years. She spoke English as well as Spanish and the interview was conducted using both languages. Berta was interested in improving her skills in order to obtain a higher paying job. She currently works as a clerk in a government office building but feels she is not going anywhere. "I see all these job notices on the job board but I’m not qualified for any of them." "They all require computer skills, something I don’t have, and I feel I must do something with my life." Berta attended the interview with her son, not an uncommon practice within the culture, and perhaps felt more secure by his presence. "My son and daughter both want me to study," was one of her next comments. "Both have graduated from Miami-Dade Community College and I believe it is a very good school." She indicated a strong interest in learning new things "but" as she stated, "things I find interesting". She felt it was important to keep up with modern technology particularly in her case where she worked as a clerk in an office setting and where she was able to get a first hand view of the changes taking place in computer technology alone. She felt 178 that gaining more knowledge was important and that earning a degree or certificate was secondary. "We are evaluated by what we know and what we can do and not by a certificate or degree which really doesn’t prove anything anyway," were her final comments. She ranked the desire to get ahead by learning new technology as the most important reason and the encouragement of her children as the second. During the second part of the interview, Berta seemed perfectly relaxed. "When I came to register, the classes I wanted to take they were in conflict with my work hours," she said. "The evening classes were full and the only ones remaining were the morning ones." "I cannot take the time off from my job." "I need to work," were some of her more salient responses. Berta had some specific classes in mind but was not able to register for them because of the time constraints. Cost was not an issue. "I have a full—time job, the salary is not bad and beside, I get partial reimbursement from my employer for any approved classes I take," were some additional comments. Berta did, however, express some doubt in being able to learn. "I just don’t know if I can remember," was one of her comments. "I have what they call selective memory, that is, I only remember what I want to remember." 179 She stated the most important deterrents for not attending were the conflict in time with her work hours and doubt whether or not she would be able to remember. 180 Appendix I CRISTINA Cristina is a 25 year old, single female who has lived in the United States for 14 months. She was a high school graduate in Cuba, spoke only Spanish, and was currently employed on a full—time basis. Although she had lived with family and relatives in Cuba, Cristina had been able to locate her own apartment in Miami and lived alone. "The most important reason I applied to Miami—Dade Community College was to learn English". was her first comment. "The school has a very good reputation and my aunt encouraged me to apply;" "I need to learn English quickly because I want to continue pursuing my career;" "In my family there are many doctors and medical personnel and that is the area I want to study;" "It is important to study to be able to serve mankind;" and "I've always been interested in helping other people, especially those who are sick," were some of the statement she made which stood out. She also mentioned the desire to meet new people which she attributed to helping her adjust to the new culture and new environment. "Friends you make in school are friend for life," was another interesting comment she made. Earning her degree was very important to her because it helps to establish credibility. She found the Center to be close to her apartment and the evening classes were very convenient for her because she worked during the day. When asked if there 181 was anything else she said, "my boyfriend goes to school here and he wants me to attend." She ranked the need to learn English and the need to continue her career in medicine as the two most important reasons for her applying for admission to Miami-Dade Community College. Cristina listed cost as the major reason she could not attend. "I could not afford the tuition and I was not eligible for any type of financial aid," were her responses. "I cannot prove I graduated from high school because all my papers are left in Cuba," was another comment. She acknowledged that she is probably going to have to get a GED in order to meet this requirement but she also needs to learn English in order to take the GED exam, a dilemma she is presently encountering. Cristina is employed as a checkout cashier in a local supermarket and indicated that her employer is not supportive of her going to school. When she had spoken to him regarding the possibility of changing her work schedule which would allow her to take some English classes at a nearby high school, he had told her no. His final words were if she could not work the hours he wanted her to work, he would find someone else for the job. Cristina also stated that she has a problem with immigration. Cristina did not come to the United States directly from Cuba. She first went to the Venezuela where she lived for a little more than a year. She came to the 182 United States from the Venezuela which does not make her eligible for the refugee status like those coming directly from Cuba. Cristina seemed very optimistic during the interview. The reasons she stated for not being able to attend were: not having the proper immigration documents, not having her high school diploma with her and the cost of going to school. 183 Appendix J DANIEL Daniel is a 47 year old, married college graduate who is currently unemployed. Daniel’s career in is the arts particularly in the area of set and scenery design. Daniel was motivated to apply to Miami—Dade Community College to learn English. "Without English I am not able to do anything in my field," was one of his first comments. "I'm without work right now because I cannot speak the language." "It’s frustrating because I’ve always worked and I’m a hard worker. Now my not being able to work seems to not make sense." "I know I need to go back to school to learn English, but I'm 47 years and my learning years are over." "I really don’t want to have to learn anymore." "I'm an artist and I create." "I create for others to enjoy and I don't have to learn new things." He stated that his only reason for apply to Miami-Dade Community College was to take classes to learn English. When advised that there might be other programs available in the community he stated they were not classes at the college level and he would only take classes that were worth taking. Learning English and re- certifying his college education were the two major reasons Daniel gave for applying for admission to Miami-Dade Community College. Daniel did not register for any classes because he could not afford the cost. He stated the cost of almost 184 $2,000 per semester was far beyond what he could afford. Because he was a college graduate, he did not qualify for any type of financial aid. He was not able to bring proof of his educational attainment from Cuba and he has no interest in taking the GED exam to be able to be admitted to the regular program. "I do not understand some of the regulations you have in this country." "There should be some way I can validate my credentials without having to repeat everything all over again." "I’m not a young man anymore and if I have to start all over again I think I will just give up." "English is important and I’m willing to study and learn it, but why do I have to go through all the steps of going to school again as if I were starting all over?" "I’m not asking for any kind of handout." "I believe in working." "I just want to have the chance to be able to work in my field." "Once I learn English I’ll be able to work with or without my credentials from Cuba." "In my field the degree or diploma is not that important." "Knowledge is important and I have that knowledge." The high cost of the program and the program constraints were the two major reasons Daniel did not register for any classes at Miami-Dade Community College. 185 Appendix K EVA Eva is a 32 year old female, married who has lived in the United States for two years. While in Cuba she had taken some university classes but did not complete her degree. She is currently unemployed and lives with her husband in their own apartment. Eva’s main motivation in applying for admission to Miami-Dade Community College was to learn English and later complete the career she began in Cuba. Eva taught classes in interior design while in Cuba and has an interest in continuing the same career in the United States. "I believe in education," she said. " I’m a teacher and I want to continue teaching." "I believe in helping others and I want to be able to make a contribution to society." "I believe that through my teaching I will be able to do that." "This country offers many opportunities for its’ people and I’d like to do what I can to contribute." "Miami-Dade Community College is close to my apartment so it is easy for me to get to class." "Learning new things is important because if you give up and decide not to learn anymore, you get sick." "I don’t want to get sick." "I’m too young and I want to be able to do something before I get old." "When you get old people don't respect your opinions." "They think you are old- fashioned." "The degree is very important in this country because it proves to others you are qualified." "That is why I want to 186 continue studying after I have learned English." "I will also prove to myself that I can do it." Eva stated that the two reasons she felt most influenced her in applying for admission were to learn English and to further her own career. Eva did not register for classes at Miami-Dade Community College because she didn’t have the money. "I did not have my papers from Cuba and I could not prove that I had graduated from high school." "I also need to continue to look for work." "My husband is not working and I need to find work to help out with the household expenses." "I also feel that the classes are schedule at a bad time." "It would be nice if you could have classes on Saturdays because that is one day I could dedicate to going to school without having to worry about whether or not a job opportunity came along." "Another thought is to have shorter classes." "That is to have classes that meet everyday in the mornings only for three for four weeks." "My friends don’t want me to study." "They tell me just to stay at home and have children." "I don’t want to have children until I can support them properly." "I love children and I want them to have the best." "Right now I can’t do that." "But I’m also getting older and it’s not good to have children when you get older." "The risk of having children with birth defects is greater when you are older." "I’m also afraid to begin studying." "My situation is so unstable right now." "If I 187 start studying and then I’m not able to finish because of a job or something, it would make me feel very bad." "I need to be sure when I start that I am able to finish." The two main reasons Eva gave as not being able to attend at this time were: the cost of going to school and not being established yet so she could concentrate on her studying. 188 Appendix L FELICIA Felicia is a 21 year old, single female. She has lived in the United States for less than one year and lives with her parents. She is a high school graduate and is currently unemployed. Felicia stated that she came to the InterAmerican Center to apply for admission six days after arriving in the United States. She stated that her mother told her there was a college just three blocks from their home and to get on her bicycle to go and apply for admission. "I’m young," she said, "and I don’t have to work because I live with my parents." The need to learn English was the main reason Felicia came to the InterAmerican Center but her long range plans are to continue with school and pursue a degree in business administration. "I’m a very curious person," she said, " I like to see what everything is and why it is." "When I see a packet of papers like that (pointing to a packet on a nearby cabinet) I am curious and I want to see what is in it." "I've always been interested in new things and want to learn everything I can." "The more one learns the better they are." "I’ve always wanted to study at a university." "In Cuba one could go to the university but their choices were limited." "In the United States there are so many choices." "I also like studying with people from different parts of the world." "That is jpossible here because you have so many students who come to raw. Ann-2. fit“ a 189 smxbrfrom different countries." " I like learning about other people and how they think." "I’m interested in how youtflunk." "I also realize that I have three things against me which I must overcome: 1) I’m a woman, 2) I am latin and 3) I am an immigrant." "If I study and become an educated person and I am able to accomplish good things then this country will not be sorry they let me come here." " It will be nice to get my degree because neither my father nor my mother graduated from college." "I believe they are both very intelligent, they just did not have the opportunity." "Even though, we are an education oriented family." "Even my brother, who is one year older than me, is going to study." The factors which most influenced Felicia to apply for admission were, to learn English and to be in the education environment. "Just being in school and learning new things is very stimulating." "I will be a perpetual student because I just love to learn." Felicia did not register for any classes at Miami—Dade Conmuniity College because of the high cost and because she did not qualify for any type of financial aid. "My immigration status is still pending until I have status, I cariruat even apply for aid". "My brother and I did not come directly from Cuba." "We first went to the Dominican Republic where we stayed with relatives for a few months." "My parents were already here and trying to get us visas to — 190 he afle to come to this country." "When I arrived I was giwala certain type of visa which did not allow me to recehmzany type of financial aid." "A lawyer has been working with my and my papers have been filed so I can beams a resident." "Once I’m a resident and I’ve completed rmtcme year in Florida, I’ll be back." "I am not giving up hope." "You’ll see me again." Further attempts to probe any other barriers or deterrents were unsuccessful. Felicia insisted that she would be returning. When asked to list the major reasons for not registering for any classes, she repeated: cost and her current immigration status. 191 Appendix M GERAIIK) Geraldo is a 30 year old, divorced male who has lived in'UMBUnited States for less than one year. He has a part- thmajob and assists his mother in caring for his father who suffered a stroke approximately one year ago. While in ' "—7" CMba, Geraldo studies briefly at a university but did not Upon his arrival in the United States, Geraldo I graduate. was detained at the Krome detention facility for 45 days. Geraldo described some of his experiences crossing the Florida straits in a homemade raft, (balsa) finally arriving When asked what just outside of Marathon, Florida. motivated him to apply for admission to Miami-Dade Community College, Geraldo said that it happened by accident. After being released from the Krome detention center Geraldo had an interview at the offices of the Church World Services, a ;private, religious agency in Miami dedicated to helping refugees establish themselves. Geraldo noticed the campus and stopped to While visiting the office of the agency, inquire. Before he knew it he had applied for admission to the school. "Going to school is very important for me," he jMany people in Miami have told me about Miami-Dade said, "They have all told me it is a very Community College. " good school and that you have an excellent English program ' here. " My long range goals are to become an engineer and "I know that hopefully work in the nuclear power industry." 192 amieflucation is very important especially in this country whenathere is so much competition." "Even though my mother depends on me to help her with my father, she encourages me togyato school." " My mother did not finish high school in CMba but she had a high regard for education." "There are two major reasons that I applied: 1) I need to learn English and you have an excellent reputation, and 2) I just live I can walk here and not have to worry down the street. about parking my car." Geraldo appeared a little more anxious or restless as we began the second part of the interview. He seemed ashamed to admit that the reason he could not attend was because he did not have the money. He focused on not having his necessary high school and college papers from Cuba and they were a deterrent to his ability to register for classes. He lost his papers in the ocean as he was rescued by'tflue Coast Guard from a raft that was about to capsize. "I’ll just have to wait," he said, " without those papers I’n13hast not able to go to school." "I am trying now to see if ai:friend can get copies for me so that I can present them and be able to begin next January." "The cost of the classes was definitely a barrier". "I cannot afford that much money and now when I’m helping my mother with my it’s impossible." "If I had a better job that paid father, more money it might help but good jobs are very hard to firnd." "Everybody wants you to work but they don’t even pay 193 enomflifor you to live." "I tell my mother that as soon as I cmnfind some decent work, I'll start school." "My mother reaLhtwants me to attend." "I believe that all the jobs lfluu:pay a decent wage are the same ones which require a cxfllege education." "So, I'm going to get that college education and make a better life for my mother, father and myself." The major reasons Geraldo did not attend were because of the cost and not having proper documentation from schools in Cuba. He also mentioned that family health problems were currently contributing to his decision not to attend, even though his mother tells him there is nothing more he can do. 194 Appendix N HECTOR Hector is married male, graduated from college and gave Ins age as " over 40" and has lived in the United States for less than one year.. Hector was a physical education teacher in Cuba and would like to continue teaching in the l United States. His reasons for applying for admission to Miami-Dade Community College were to learn English and find out how he could validate his college degree from Cuba. Hector was able to carry his documents with him as he left Cuba. The InterAmerican Center is close to Hector’s home and according to him friends have told him that the English program is very good. "I am anxious to get back to working in my field," he said, "working with people and helping them learn is very rewarding." "I especially enjoy working with disabled children." "I would like to focus my continued studies in the area of special education working with children who have physical disabilities." "I think that would be very rewarding" "As a teacher you must know how I feel atmmt education." "Teachers are the architects of synciety'for without them we would be nowhere." "I believe tfluat through Miami-Dade I will be able to establish myself in tflris community and make a contribution." "You have sonmnflning wonderful here called the special olympics." "I am ggoiru; to volunteer my services to work with these children." 'inerjr life is important and every life deserves attention." 195 Whrgoal is to make a contribution to this community." "So, thatis why I applied to Miami-Dade, to continue my education." When asked to state perhaps the two most important reasons for applying he responded by saying, "There are so many, more than two." "I guess I would have to say, to learn English and to validate my credentials." "After that everything else takes care of itself." The anxiety surfaced with Hector as we began to discuss the reasons he did not attend. "I’ve never asked for anything in my whole life," was the way he began the second part. "In reality, I'm the professional and I should be helping others." "But I can’t." "I do not have the money to be able to afford the tuition at this point." "I was told by one of the advisors that if I waited for one year the tuition would go down and that I would be able to afford "Because I have a college degree, I do not qualify for "I will earn my own money it." financial aid, nor do I want it." to pay'for my own classes." "I feel good about myself when I sun able to take care of my own things." "I feel better when I ann able to help someone else." "My current job does not pay very much but with my wife’s income combined with, mine we are able to get by.“ "Once I learn English I will be well cni nur‘way to becoming established and becoming part of this cxmnnunaity which has so graciously welcomed my family." 196 "There are no other reasons for my not registering for any classes." " The only issue was the cost." 197 Appendix O IGNACIO Ignacio is a 22 year old single male who has lived in thelkuted States for less than two years. He is currently inmmmloyed and lives with his mother in an apartment close tx>the college. Ignacio speaks only Spanish. The reason Ignacio applied for admission to Miami-Dade Community College was to learn English. " I need to learn English so that I can prepare myself for a career," was his opening statement. "I’m young and I have a lot of time to study." " I am pretty sure that what I want to do is work in business administration." "I would like to have my own business and work in the international markets." "If one is going to compete on the international scale one needs a good education." "The nice thing about being in business is that you are your own boss." "You can work as hard as you want and the more you work the more money you make." "Studying has always been emphasized in my family." "My mother wants me tx: study so that I can make a better life for myself." "liaalready took one course since I arrived in air cxnniitioning repair." "I now know how to fix air cxnuiitioners but I really want to learn something more "My idea is to earn my degree and then professional . " " I also like to establish my own import-export business." meet new people." "In school there are always new people so itz’s guessible to make new friends." "These friends can help 198 you later on in life." "When I stay at home I get bored." "The only thing to do is to watch television." "At first that was okay but now it’s very boring." "Going to school keeps you busy so you don’t get bored." "You also learn new things like computers as well as activities which will help you in life." "I guess the more you know the better you prepared you will be for the future". "I think that it is important for me to decide now what I am going to do in the "It takes future". "This just does not happen over night". planning". Ignacio did not attend because he did not have the money to attend and he did not qualify for financial aid. "I graduated from High School in Cuba but I was not able to bring my papers with me." "Without the high school diploma I do not qualify for any type of financial aid." " I’m am sort of stopped." "After getting all excited about coming to school and then finding out that I would not be able to come, I guess I lost interest." "It just does not seem so important anymore." "If I go to school, okay, if I don’t well that’s okay too." "I'll just have to find something else to do." "I know that eventually I’ll have to go to school because I’ll need to do that in order for me to get a good job." "But right now I’m studying at the High School to get my GED." "After I get the GED we’ll see what I’m going to do next." "I guess the two main reasons for my not 199 attending was because, I did not have the money and did I have proof of my high school graduation." 200 Appendix P JUANITA Juanita is a 43 year old divorced female who supports her son and lives with her mother. She is a college graduate from Cuba and was employed as a writer for a newspaper in Cuba. She has lived in the United States for less than one year and is currently receiving public assistance as well as additional support from a local foundation established to help Cuban refugees. Juanita is recovering from recent surgery. She speaks only Spanish. "I applied to Miami—Dade Community College because it is close to my home and I needed to learn English," was the first statement she made. "I don’t have transportation so it is important that I find a place close to my home to study." "I would have to walk about six blocks to go to school and I’m not able to do that now, not after my surgery." "But as soon as I get better I intend to come back to Miami-Dade to register for classes." "I need to learn English and then I would like to learn how to use computers." "Being a writer, I think the computer will be very helpful." "I would like to write again and I really don’t need a degree to do that." "I already have a degree from Cuba so I don’t need another." "But I do need to learn to speak, read and write in English." "I use to be an avid reader, but lately I just haven’t had the energy." "Maybe if I start studying again I would be able to enjoy reading." 201 "There would be others in school who would stimulate me to read and want to learn." "I really don’t feel that there was any other reasons for my applying other than, I want to learn English and I want to learn how to use computers so that I can write again. I guess that’s it." I did not attend because I could not afford the cost of the tuition and books. The books are almost as expensive as the classes. I know that I get to keep the books afterward but I’m not use to paying for my books to study. In Cuba we did not have to pay for our books. We didn’t have to pay for the university either but I understand that the system is different. I am also not able to attend now because I have been sick. I have been sick since I arrived and it wasn’t until now that I have been able to feel a little better. The surgery helped but the doctor has told me that I cannot do any walking for at least three months. That will be the end of November. If I can find some financial aid from somewhere, to go to school, I'd like to start next January. I don't have the money and I don’t qualify because I have a college degree. That’s what the counselor told me when I was there a few months ago. My financial situation has not improved and unless I get some help to go to school, I will not be able to do so. So I guess the two main reasons for not attending are the cost of the classes and my health. 202 Appendix Q KIQUE Kique is a 40 year old married male who had attended college in Cuba but did not graduate. Kique is employed full-time and lives in a rented house with his wife, daughter and mother-in-law. He has been in the United States for less than three years and speaks only Spanish. Kique applied to Miami-Dade Community College, first to learn English but secondly, to finish his career in education. "I was a teacher in Cuba and I enjoy teaching." I need to get back into to school and keep studying because that is what I enjoy doing. I have always been a good student and I want to have the opportunity to study to certify my teaching credentials. Plus there are so many other things to learn. I would like to learn about computers. It is very interesting to me how this has progressed. I believe that computers are going to be the way we conduct business for everything and those who don’t bother to learn about them are going to be left behind. I, for one, want to learn about computers. But first I must learn English. I feel that I have found a new home and a new community in which to live. I want to be part of this community and be able to help. I know that much is already done in Spanish but if I learn English I would be able to do so much more. Also, I want to be a teacher. In order for me to teach I am going to have to know English. If we don’t 203 keep up with technology we will be left behind. Also, a person with an education serves as a good role model for children. Children need good role models in today’s society. There is too much crime and the TV reports too much of it. Children begin to think that it’s okay to do these things that are not okay. I do want to earn the degree. That is very important. The degree is the proof that you have completed your education and that you are qualified to teach others. It is also something you can see and show to your children as something good. So I guess the two most important reasons I applied were to learn English and to complete my career in education. I did not attend because I could not afford the cost. I have a family to support and my wife already studies at Miami-Dade. I could not afford to pay for another person to study. I do not qualify for any type of financial aid so I must pay for everything myself. I wish that Miami—Dade had some type of a payment plan where I could make monthly payments. This is the country of credit and it seems strange that you don’t have that kind of arrangement. So I guess my interview is quite simple, right? I could not attend because I just cannot afford the cost because I am already paying for my wife. I did not qualify for any kind of financial aid which is related to cost. 2 0 4 Appendix R LEONARDO Leonardo is a 49 year old, married male with two children. He has lived in the United States for 14 months and is employed part—time at a convenience store. He speaks only Spanish and completed a professional degree in Cuba prior to coming to the United States. Leonardo applied to Miami-Dade Community College to learn English. He felt that learning English would help him in re-establishing his career. His wife is also very interested in studying and he feels that the atmosphere in the home is very education oriented. Leonardo indicated that he first worked as a banker in Cuba and later as an attorney. He worked for the government before coming to the United States. My desire is to learn English so that I can begin to establish a better life for my family. "I know a little English now but not enough that I could study with it". "So I would like to become very proficient in English and then see what I can do with my law degree". "I know the systems of law are different and I have done some reading". "I see a lot more similarities than I do differences". "I would like to see if there is some type of exam I can take which would allow me to become a lawyer in the United States". "If not, I know that you have a para-legal program at this school and I’d like to take it". "That way I could get back into my field". "I really feel that it is 205 important for me to find a way to get back into school". "My mind needs to be stimulated". "As you know, attorneys are great readers". "We read a lot". "I can read a lot of things they have in Spanish but now I’m in American". "I want to read in English". "So I believe that the most important reason for my applying for admission to Miami-Dade was to learn English". "I would also like to learn about computers". "Everybody seems to have one and it seems very interesting to me". " On specific things like the computer, I am interested in learning what I can". "On other things, like gardening or landscaping, forget it". "I don’t want to learn anything about it". "I guess I do love to learn new things as long as they are interesting to me". "If it is something boring, and I don’t have to learn it, I won’t". "Another reason is that this school is close to my apartment". "I can even walk here at night to take classes". "So I guess what my long range goals are to learn English, find a way to certify my education from Cuba and make a decent life for my wife and family". "I did not attend because I could not do so right now". "I became involved in another project which has been taking up all of my time". "I would not have had the time to go to school and study". "It wasn’t as important to me at this moment as this project I am working on". "Hopefully this project will produce some good money and I’ll be able to get a home for my wife and family". "You see, working part-time 206 does not produce enough money". "So I need to earn more". "But right now, I may have found the solution". "At any rate, I had another priority which came up and that was more important that going to school at this moment". "I’ll probably go back to school some time in the future". "The two reasons I did not attend were because I did not have the time and it was not a priority for me at this time". 207 Appendix S MARIA Maria is a 26 year old, married female who has lived in the United States for less than two years. She is a high school graduate and speaks only Spanish. Maria is employed full-time and contributes toward the support of her family. The reasons Maria was influenced to apply for admission to Miami-Dade Community College were to learn English and to learn how to use computers. " I like to learn new things and that is why I’m interested computers," was one of her first comments. "Just being in school makes you feel good." "I also like to meet new people and make new friends and school is the best place for that." "I like challenging things, like trying how to figure something out". "I would also like to study psychology". "I guess I’d like to try and figure out why people do some of the crazy things they do." "My goals are actually to become a writer." "Writers seems to have good lives and that is what I’m looking for". "My husband also studies so it is important for me to be able to support him". Maria stated that the most important reasons for her apply for admission were to learn English, to learn computers and to prepare for a career. Maria did not attend because it was too expensive. With her husband already in school she said they could not afford tuition for another person. She stated that her 208 husband’s education was more important at this time and that she would have to wait until he finished before she could begin. She also stated that she was not eligible for any type of financial aid. She listed the most important reasons for not attending as being too high a cost and not being eligible for any type of financial aid. 209 Appendix T NORMA Norma is a 24 year old, single female who has lived in the United States for two years. She did attend college in Cuba but did not graduate. She is currently employed full- time and speaks only Spanish. Norma lives in her own apartment and does not provide financial support for anyone else. Norma was motivated to apply for admission because she wanted to learn English. She felt this was the first step she needed to take to begin to establish herself in a professional career. "I want to have a better job where I can earn more money", was one of her first statements. " But in order to have a career one needs to know English". "It’s been two years since I last studied and I really need to start again". " My mind feels like it is not being used". "Once I get established in my career, I would like to do something for this community". "I would like to help children, especially children who are sick". "If I could just do something that might make their lives a little more comfortable and happy I believe I would be making a contribution". "Also, if I get a career, I know my family would be proud". "That's important to me because we have all suffered so that if I can bring some happiness into their lives, it’ll make me feel good" The most important reasons Norma gave for applying for 210 admission were to learn English and to prepare for a career. Norma did not attend because she did not have proof of her high school graduation from Cuba nor did she have copies of her college transcripts. She was also deterred because of the cost. She send money to her parents to help them with their living expenses and because she did not qualify for any type of financial aid, she could not afford the tuition. "I need to see how I might be able to get my papers from Cuba so I can continue with school," was a concern she expressed. "Many people have told me that to get these documents from Cuba costs a lot of money." I just don’t have the money now. The most important reasons Norma listed for not attending were: not having proper documentation from Cuba and the cost factor as it related to having to send aid to her family. 2 11 Appendix U OFELIA Ofelia is a 28 year old, married female who had lived in the United States for one year. She attended college in Cuba but did not graduate. She is currently employed part- time and has two children. She and her family live in an apartment and she speaks only Spanish. Ofelia was motivated to apply for admission to Miami- dade Community College to learn English and to learn a career. "I have problems is my life right now and I need to further my education in order to resolve these problems," was one of Ofelia’s opening statements. "I did study in Cuba but I was not able to finish." "Now I want to go back and study because things are not okay at home and I need to make a new life for myself." "My parents are aware and they keep telling me to go back to school and make a new life for myself." "It’s not that easy, though, I have two children and I cannot just leave them." " My husband does not help at all." "He just wants to do his things and does not care about us at home" "Sometimes he doesn’t even come home." "I’m not sure what career I want to go into but I believe that once I get back into school I’ll be able to decide." "I know I want earn a degree and become a professional person, maybe a computer teacher because I like computers and I want to learn more about them". "I need to do this for my children and myself." 212 Ofelia did not attend because she did not have proof of her high school graduation nor her college transcripts from Cuba. She was not eligible for any type of financial aid and she could not afford the cost of the tuition. She also mentioned that with the children, she did not have much time and the her husband was not supportive of her going to school. Reasons which deterred Ofelia from attending were lack of proper documents from Cuba and the high cost of tuition. REFERENCES REFERENCES Ausubel, D.P. (1967) A Cognitive Structure Theory of School Learning. In L. Siegal. Instruction: Some Contemporary Viewpoints. San Francisco: Chandler. Bandura, A. (1976) Modeling Theory. In W. S. Sahakian. Learning: Systems, Models. and Theories. (2nd Ed.) Chicago: Rand McNally. Beatty, P.T. & Hayes, M.J. (1989) Religious Institutions. In: Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Boshier, R.W. (1971) Motivational orientations of adult education participants: a factor analytic exploration of Houle’s typology. Adult Education . V 21, N 3, p 3-26. Boshier, R.W. (1973) Educational participation and dropout: a theoretical model. Adult Education . V 23, p 255-282. Boshier, R.W. (1977) Motivational orientations revisited: life-space motives and the Education Participation Scale. Adult Education . V 27, N 2, p 89-115. Boshier, R.W. (1982) Education Participation Scale. Vancouver: Learningpress. Boshier, R.W. (1983) Education participation scale factor structure and socio-demographic correlates for 12,000 learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education. 213 214 v 2, N 2, p 163-177. Boshier,R. & Collins, J.B. (1985) The Houle typology after twenty-two years: A large scale empirical test. Adult Education Quarterly V 35, N 3, p 113-130. Boswell, T.D. et. al., (1994) A demographic profile of Cuban Americans. Miami: Cuban American National Council, Inc.. Cannon, W.B. (1932) The Wisdom of the Body. New York: Norton. Carp, A., Peterson, R., & Roelfs,P., (1984) Adult learning and experiences. In T. Wirsching and L. Stenberg (1992) Determinants of Idaho hispanic female participation in adult education programs. Journal of Vocational Education Research. V 17, N 3, p 35-61. Cooper, J.W. (1985) The moral basis of equal opportunity. Education Leadership. V 43, N 1, p 57-59. Cross, K.P. ((1981) Adults as learners. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cross, K.P. (1980) The renaissance in adult learning. Community Services CATALYST. V XXI, N 4, p 6-11. Darkenwald, G.G. & Merriam, S.B. (1982) Adult Education: Foundations of Practice. New York: Harper & Row. Darkenwald, G.G. & Valentine, T. (1985) Factor structure of deterrents to public participation in adult education. Adult Education Quarterly. V 39, N 4, p 177-193. Darkenwald, G.G. & Valentine, T. (1990) Deterrents to participation in adult education: profiles of potential 215 learners. Adult Education Quarterly. V 41, N 1, p 29- 42. Darling-Hammond, L. (1985) Equality and excellence: the educational status of black americans. New York: College Board Publications. Davis, J.A. (1971) Elementary Survey Analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Erikson, E.H. (1982) The Life Cycle Completed: A Review. New York: Norton Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Harper & Row. Gay, L.R. (1992) Educational Research. New York: Macmillan Havighurst, R.J. (1972) Developmental Tasks and Education. (3rd Ed.) New York: McKay. Henry, G.T. & Basile, K.C. (1994) Understanding the decision to participate in formal adult education. Adplp Education Quarterly. V 44, N 2, p 64-82. Hergenhahn, B.R. (1988) An Introduction to Theories of Learning. (3rd Ed.) Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) (1994) Siege—CW transfer research. Austin: HACU. Houle, C.O. (1988) The Inquiring Mind. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Houle, CO- (1992) W. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 216 Johnstone, J.W.C. & Rivera, R.J. (1965) Volunteers for Learning. Chicago: Aldine Press Company. Knowles, M.S., (1980) The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogv. (rev.ed) Chicago: Follett. Lefrancois, G.R. (1982) Psychological Theories and Human Learning. Monterey: Brooks & Cole. Lindeman, E.C. (1961) The Meaning of Adult Education. Norman: The University of Oklahoma Printing Services. Maslow, A.H. (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row. Mayo, P. (1993) When does it work? Freire’s pedagogy in context. Studies in Adult Education. V 25, N 1, p—11-27. Merriam, S.B., & Caffarella, R.S. (1991) Learning in Adulthood. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Merriam, S.B., & Cunningham, P.M. (1989) Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Merriam, B.B. & Simpson, E.L. (1989) A Guide to Research for Educators and Trainers of Adults. Malabar: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. Mezirow, D., Darkenwald, G.G., & Knox, A. (1975) Last Gamble on Education: Dypamics of Adult Basic Education. Washington,D.C.: Adult Education Association of the USA. Miller, H.L. (1967) Participation of Adults in Education: A Force-field Analysis. Chicago: Center for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults. 217 Morstain, B., & Smart, J.C. (1974) Reasons for participation in adult education courses: a multivariate analysis of group differences. Adult Education. V 24, N 2, p-83-98. Nault, W.H. (1972) The World Book Encyclopedia. (Vol — H. P-220). Chicago: Field Enterprises Educational Corporation. Ordos, P.G. (1980) Models of motivation for participation in adult education. In: Proceedings of the let century adult education conference. Vancouver, Canada. In:Scan1an, C. & Darkenwald, G.G. (1984) Identifying deterrents to participation in continuing education. Adult Education Quarterly. V 34, N 3, p-155-166. Patton, M. (1980) Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Phillips,D.C. & Soltis, J.F (1991) Perspectives on Learning. New York: Teachers College Press. Piaget, J. (1966) Psychology of Intelligence. Ottawa: Prentice-Hall. Rendon, L. (1992) From the barrio to the academy: revelations of a Mexican—American "scholarship girl". New Directions for Community Colleges. N 80, p 55-63. Rendon, L. & Nora, A. (1989) A synthesis and application of research on hispanic students in community colleges. Community College Review. V 17, N 1, p 17—24. Rendon, L. (1993) Students of color and bachelor’s degrees. Community College Review. V 21, N 2, p 3-13. 218 Rendon, L. & Valadez, J.R., (1993) Qualitative indicators of hispanic transfer students. Community College Review. v 20, N 4, p 27-37. Scanlan, C. & Darkenwald, G.G. (1984) Identifying deterrents to participation in continuing education. Adglp Education Quarterly. V 34, p 155-166. Sotomayor, M. (1988) Educational issues and hispanic populations in the U.S.A.. Journal of Vocational Special Ngggg. v 10, N 3, p 7-9. State of Florida (19--) Florida Statue 240.1201. In: Catalog 1994-95. Miami—Dade Community College, Vol - XXX (2nd printing). p - 13. Taylor, E.W. (1994) Intercultural competency: a transformative learning process. Adult Education Quarterly. V 44, N 3, p 154-174. Taylor,M.T. (1989-90) Hispanic students: action for aCtion. Community, Technical, and Junior College Journal. V 60, N 3, p 18-23. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993) Population projections of the United States, by age, sex, race, and hispanic origin. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. No. 1104, p-25. U.S. Department of Commerce (1994) Statistical Abstract of the United States 1994. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. No. 300. U.S. Department of Commerce (1994) Statistical Abstract of 219 the United States 1994. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. No. 739, p-480. Valdivieso, R. (1985) Hispanics and education data. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 272570. Vontress, C.E. (1969) Cultural barriers in the counseling relationship. Personnel and Guidance Journal. V 48, p 11-17. West, L. (1993) A view from the margins: Community colleges and access to higher education for adults in inner-city America. Studies in the Education of Adults. V 25, N 2, p 146-171. Wirsching, T. & Stenberg, L. (1992) Determinants of Idaho hispanic female participation in adult vocational education programs. Journal of Vocational Education Research. V 17, N 3, p 35-61. 111041an STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES illlliiiiiliiiiiilliiiiilililli”iiiIliiiiiliiliiiiiiil 31293014103182