Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 1

Chapter 1
Problem and its Scope

Introduction

Over the years, our present educational system have done enough efforts for higher

education to be accessible to all (Berger, Motte, & Parkin, 2007; Bragg & Durham, 2012;

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 2004). In the Philippines, the

initiative of the Department of Education (DepEd) and Commission on Higher Education

(CHEd) in creating globally competitive Filipino students is obvious in its K-12

implementation and wider course options. Because of these efforts, students getting into

senior high school and college were increasing (Symonds, Schwartz, & Ferguson, 2011).

Whether students are the first in their family to attend senior high or college or they

come from a family of college graduates, all students planning to enrol in senior high school

or college undergo the choice process. Prior to the conclusion of secondary education,

students may determine what will be the next phase in their life. For some students, the next

step in their lives is entering the workforce or the military. For many students, the next step

toward their future is attending post-secondary education. Approximately 68% of junior high

school students immediately enrol in senior high school, as senior high school to college

upon high school graduation (Bryant& Nicholas, 2011). Once a student decides that enrolling

in senior high school or college will be the next phase of life, the student makes the decision

about which school to attend, commonly referred to as their school choice process. The

process can be lengthy and includes the time when the student is preparing for, applying to,
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 2

and enrolling in higher education (Chapman, 1981; Hossler, Braxton, & Coopersmith, 1989;

Hossler & Gallagher, 1987; Litten, 1982). Also, they’ll plan on what to take in senior high

school- ABM, HUMSS, STEM, GAS and TVL, or college.

This paper aimed at identifying the factors that affects the strands or courses

preference of senior high school students enrolled in Liceo de Cagayan University and to

further investigate its’ relationship with the students’ success which is closely visible in their

term grade or academic performance.

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

The theory to be used in this study is the Jackson Combined Model of College

Choice, which was developed by Gregory Jackson in 1982. This theory states that there are

three stages an individual experiences when choosing to go to higher education or not

(Demetris et al., 2007). These three stages include preference, exclusion and evaluation.

The theory presents the concept of preference, resulting from academic achievement,

as having the highest level of influence on a secondary student’s decision on whether or not

to move to the post-secondary level (Demetris et al., 2007). Exclusions occur when resources

are either made readily available or extended due to application and admissions procedures.

This process causes the potential student to eliminate the colleges not making the resources

available in the most timely and efficient manner (Demetris et al., 2007). Evaluation is the

stage in which the potential student produces the rating scheme to determine the potential
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 3

colleges that have the best fit overall, due to price, academic program ranking and/or

extracurricular offerings (Jackson, 1986). As applied in this study, this theory holds that the

independent variables (county unemployment rates, median household income, and

percentages of people below the poverty level) are expected to influence the dependent

variable, enrolment, because studies have proven that certain economic factors affect

enrolment positively in correlation to one another (Pennington et al., 2002).

Figure 1. The schematic diagram

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Gender Course
Age Strand/Track
Socioeconomic Status

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the factors affecting the course preference of senior

high school students in Liceo de Cagayan University.

Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents/students in terms of:

Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 4

1.1 Gender

1.2 Age

1.3 Socioeconomic Status

2. What factors affect the courses preference of senior high school students?

3. Is there a significant difference in terms of the factors affecting course preferences and the

senior high school students’ gender, age and socioeconomic status?

Scope and Delimitations of the Study

This study was only limited to surveying or interviewing the selected senior high

school students enrolled in Liceo de Cagayan University for the school year 2018-2019. For

Grade 11 students, they will be asked on the factors that affect their strand preferences while

Grade 12 students will be asked on the factors that affect their course preferences. Moreover,

the students were selected based on a calculated proportional number per grade level per

strand. Also, this study only showed the factors that affect the students’ strand and courses

preference and described how these factors relate with the students’ academic performance.

Significance of the Study

This survey was conducted to all senior high school students of Liceo de Cagayan

University. The result of this study is hoped to benefit the following:

Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 5

Students: The students can benefit from this study since they will be able to know the

possible factors that affect them and their co-students in choosing a course. Aside

from knowing the possible factors, they will also have a deeper understanding on the

various things to weigh-in in finalizing their course.

Parents: The parents will be able to know the profile of their children, and be aware of their

academic performance. The result of this study will also give them knowledge on the

factors that their children needs to consider in choosing a course and to further give

them the needed support upon knowing.

Teachers: The teachers can also benefit since they will be able to assess the students’ profile

and academic performance. They could also address the things that is related to the

factors that affects their courses preference to better give the assistance that the

students need.

Future Researcher: The future researchers can benefit from this study, since they will be

able to give a baseline data to the studies related to this one.

Definition of Terms

Academic Performance: Is the extent which a student, teacher or institution has achieved

their short or long term education and is measured by the final grade earned in the

course.
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 6

College: An educational institution or establishment in particular one providing higher

education or specialized professional or vocational.

Course: A set of classes or plan of study on a particular subject, usually leading to an exam

or qualification.

Preference: Something that is like or wanted more that another thing: something that is

preferred, or a power or opportunity of choosing.

Students: The one who studies; especially: one who attends a school.
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 7

Chapter 2

Review of Related Literature

Senior high school and college accessibility is a common topic among students of

today. This chapter will discuss the related literature regarding gender, age and

socioeconomic status which influences the decision-making of the students on what strand or

course to take.

Theories on Strand College Preferences

Much of the work on student college enrollment and retention outcomes utilize a

variety of theoretical frameworks that are embedded in a particular disciplinary perspective

(Perna and Thomas 2006). The most common of these include economic, psychological,

sociological, cultural, and organizational theoretical perspectives.

Economic Theoretical Perspectives

Through an economic theoretical lens student college enrollment and retention

outcomes are viewed as the results of a rational process, whereby an individual estimates the

economic and social benefits of attending and/or staying in college and compares them to

those of competing alternatives, such as working full-time (Manski and Wise 1983).
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 8

Attendance and retention in college are more likely if an individual perceives that the

benefits of doing so exceed the costs. The benefits of enrolling and staying in college may

include things such as the potential for higher future earnings, obtaining additional

knowledge and skills, and being able to enjoy a higher overall quality of life in the long run.

Meanwhile the costs of enrolling and remaining in college may include tuition and fees, as

well as the loss of immediate income (Goldin et al.2006). Although not all of the benefits and

costs that an individual takes into consideration when deciding whether to enroll and/or

persist in college are economic, Becker (1964) argues that a critical component in these cost-

benefit analyses is a student‘s perception of their ability (or inability) to pay for college.

One of the most commonly applied economic approaches in the college outcome

literature is human capital theory. This theoretical approach frames the decisions of whether

to enroll and persist in college as being personal investments in the acquisition of human

capital that can bring returns on an individual‘s investment of time, energy and money

(Becker 1975; Schultz 1963).Individuals and society are assumed to base their investment

decisions on an economic calculus that compares the percent discounted value of benefits

with the percent discounted value of costs associated with expenditures on college education

(Thurow 1970). Another frequently used economic approach is revealed preference-utility

theory, which assumes that when students decide to enroll and/or persist in college they

believe that the utility or net benefit from this option must be greater than the utility from the

alternative (not enrolling/not persisting) (Manskie and Wise 1983). In addition, consumer

theory is often used by economic theorists who seek to explain student college enrollment
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 9

and persistence outcomes by dealing with the way that students (who are viewed as economic

agents) prioritize, and ultimately chose between, real or imagined alternatives (Perna and

Thomas 2006). These choices involve economic concepts of indifference curves and budget

constraint, income, and availability of substitutes.

Psychological Theoretical Perspectives

Psychological theoretical approaches to student post-secondary outcomes meanwhile

focus on determining the personal psychological characteristics and processes that

distinguish students who enroll and/or persist in college from those who do not (Braxton and

Hirschy 2005). These personal characteristics and processes are thought to affect the way that

individuals behave and include an individual‘s attitudes, motivational states, personality traits

and goal setting abilities(Perna and Thomas 2006). For example, it has been argued that a

student‘s motivation can manifest itself in significant ways, such as influencing their purpose

for attending college, their beliefs about their future efficacy as a college student, as well as

the importance to themselves of persisting in college and achieving a degree (Hagedorn et al.

2001-2002; Stage and Hossler2000; Voorhees 1987).

Stage and Hossler (2000) have argued that these personal psychological

characteristics are developed over an extended period of time during an individual‘s journey

along the educational pipeline. Stage and Hossler (2000) argue that school experiences from

both middle school and high school – such as encouragement (or lack thereof) from teachers,
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 10

peers and counselors, parental support, and interactions with family background – influence

student behaviors (for example, whether they enroll in college preparation courses and

conduct college searches) and subsequently may or may not create the beginnings of

predispositions or intentions for post-secondary education. In addition, Stage and Hossler

(2000) also argue that an individual ‘psychological characteristics can have multiple and far

reaching implications for their post-secondary outcomes. Psychological characteristics and

processes that produce student behaviors that result in positive academic and social outcomes

can lead to further positive

Whilst psychological theoretical approaches are taken across the post-secondary

outcome research literature, they are particularly dominant in the college retention domain.

For example, Bean and Eaton (2000) use attitude-behavior theory to emphasize the

importance of personal student characteristics to post-secondary success. They propose that

students enter college with a complex array of personal characteristics - such as past

attitudes, behaviors and beliefs developed during high school and before – which shape how

they perceive, and interact with, their college environment. They argue that these interactions

with the institutional environment then result in further psychological processes – such as the

degree of positive efficacy, stress and internal control that a student experiences – which in

turn affects their academic and social integration, their institutional fit and loyalty, and -

ultimately - their intention and decision to persist in college.

Sociological and Cultural Theoretical Perspectives

Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 11

Meanwhile, sociological and cultural theoretical approaches to college enrollment

and retention outcomes are closely related. These two approaches examine the extent to

which a student‘s background characteristics – namely their social and cultural traits –

predispose and enable them to aspire to a particular level of post-secondary educational

attainment, including the decisions to continue their education to the post-secondary level

and to remain there once enrolled(Alexander and Eckland 1975; Kuh and Love 2000; Perna

and Thomas 2006; Sewell and Hauser1976).The social and cultural characteristics of an

individual include: their social class; their parent‘s education; their informal interpersonal

skills, habits and manners; their linguistics; and their lifestyle preferences. Social and cultural

theoretical approaches view society as being structured by differences in these social and

cultural characteristics, or - what is commonly referred to in the literature as -differences in

social and cultural capital (Berger 2000). In addition, they see differences in student college

enrollment and retention outcomes as being rooted in these inequalities in social cultural

capital. For example, social and cultural reproduction theories focus on the ways in which

family and class advantages are transferred from generation to generation, as are the

advanced (post-secondary) educational opportunities that are more likely to be achieved by

individuals who enjoy these social and cultural advantages (Perna and Thomas 2006). Thus,

whilst decisions to voluntarily enroll and persist in college are made by individuals,

sociological and cultural theories pose that such decisions are largely shaped by overarching

social and cultural forces (Kuh and Love, 2000).

Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 12

Organizational Theoretical Perspectives

Lastly, organizational theoretical perspectives towards post-secondary outcome

research focus on the influence that organizational structure and organizational behavior has

on student college enrollment and retention decisions (Braxton et al. 2004). Since individuals

spend a considerable proportion of their childhood and adolescence being educated within

schools, it has been suggested that the organizational activities and culture of a school

exercise a considerable influence on the educational attainment of individuals, including their

post-secondary outcomes.

Within this particular organizational theoretical domain, there are two separate and

competing positions about which particular inter school organizational processes matters the

most for influencing a student‘s educational outcomes. The first of these theoretical

perspectives is the academic approach, which argues that high schools are the most effective,

and a student‘s academic (including their post-secondary)outcomes will be maximized, when

there is a serious organizational thrust towards a challenging academic environment (Lee and

Smith 1999; McDill et al. 1986). Although there is a lack of consensus regarding what this

exactly entails, commonly cited concepts and measurements include high expectations for

student achievement, clear achievement oriented goals and a demanding curriculum (Lee and

Smith 1999; Philips 1997; Schaps 2005). In addition, academic proponents advocate that a

student‘s educational attainment must be the overriding, if not the exclusive, organizational

concern of the school. To focus on other aspects of the organization -such as social efforts to
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 13

build supportive and cohesive communities - are viewed as distractions from the student‘s

academic performance, whatever the other benefits may be (Shouse 1996).

In contrast, the second organizational perspective is the communitarian approach.

This particular approach focuses on the social, rather than the academic, dimensions of a

school‘s organization and argues that schools will be the most effective and a student‘s

academic(including their post-secondary) outcomes will be maximized when students learn

in a safe, strong and supportive social environment (Lee and Smith 1999; Noddings 1996;

Philips 1997).Whilst communitarian organizational theorists differ in their precise definitions

of what a positive social school environment involves, popularly used concepts include

discipline and fairness, extra-curricular activities, teacher support, safety and feelings of

belonging and a liking for school (Libbey 2004). In addition, communitarian organizational

scholars have also voiced a concern that schools that simply focus on promoting a

challenging academic environment and organization could actually weaken a student‘s

educational outcomes - especially those of low achieving students - if academic expectations

and standards are raised beyond what the student scan reasonably attain (McDill et al. 1986).

On Parental Support

Cabrera and La Nasa (2000), Perna (2000), and Hossler et al. (1999) pointed out that

parental encouragement, involvement and support as class-based variables that strongly

predict a predisposition to attend senior high school and college. However, the definitions of
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 14

parental factors in these studies reflect parents’ educational and economic status and

knowledge about college. Moreover, these studies did not explore alternate measurements of

parental influence and their relationship to college enrolment.

The study conducted by Goldenberg, Gallimore, Reese and Garnier in 2001

distinguished between parental aspirations and expectation when examining its effect on their

children’s education. While aspirations may remain consistent, parents seem to adjust their

expectations for their children’s schooling to the family’s present academic and social

situation. Goldenberg et al. (2001) demonstrated, for example, that first-grade achievement

of children predicted their parents’ expectations at the end of elementary school, but parental

expectations at first grade did not predict later achievement. This finding contradicts the

hypothesis that parental expectations shapes academic performance equally for all students.

On Socioeconomic Status

Some students belong to “first generation” wherein neither of their parents attended

higher education. When parents have not attended college, their offspring are less likely to

attend as well (Chen, 2005; Hill & Jepsen, 2007; Tucker, 2010). Because they are the first in

the family to attend college, they often are less knowledgeable about college costs and

college admissions procedures (Pascarella et al., 2005).

Research shows that first generation students are more likely to come from a lower

socioeconomic status, be an ethnic minority and more likely to speak a language other than
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 15

their Mother Tongue at home. Additionally, first generation students tend to have lower

grade point averages and lower SAT scores (Cho et al., 2008). Overall, the subpopulation of

students seems to be at a disadvantage for college success as compared to continuing

generation students (Pascarella et al., 2005). However, according to Bryant and Nichols

(2011) first generation college students are less likely initially to consider college, but are

inclined consider enrolling in post-secondary education over time. They also tend to be older

in age and face both financial and familiar pressures that decrease their likelihood of

academic success in college (Rood, 2009).

According to Engle (2007), first generation students are likely to delay college entry,

need remedial coursework, and drop out of college. Approximately 25% of college students

drop out after their first semester and the attrition rate for first generation college students by

the end of their first year is almost 50% (Ishitani, 2005). An expanding number of colleges

and universities are increasing efforts to recruit, retain, and graduate students who are the

first in their families to attend college (Tucker, 2014). According to Rood (2009) much of the

research of first generation college students is quantitative in nature (e.g. Horn & Nunez,

2000; Chen & Carroll, 2005); however, there is some qualitative research that has been

conducted (Orbe, 2004).

Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 16

Chapter 3

Research Methodology

In the pursuit of finding out the factors that affects the senior high school students’

course preferences, the researchers utilized various research methodology. This chapter will

discuss the research setting, design, respondents, sampling, and instrument. Moreover, it will

also reveal the validity and reliability of the instrument the research protocol, the data

gathering procedure and the statistical technique used.

Research Setting

The entire research data gathering and procedures were done in the campus of Liceo

de Cagayan University which was founded by Mr and Mrs Rodolfo Pelaez. This is located at

RNP Boulevard Kauswagan in the City of Cagayan de Oro. The setting was chosen for it is

fit for the purpose of the study. The setting also provides adequate number of respondents

and the support needed to pursue the study.

Research Design

The researchers utilized the Descriptive Design. This design was used to obtain

information concerning the factors that affects the course preferences of the senior high

school students but does not answer the reason why. It is only limited with describing the
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 17

phenomena at hand and does not seek to find further causes or justification related to the

result.

Respondents and Sampling Procedure

The target respondents were both Grade 11 and Grade 12 senior high school

students. Sloven’s Formula was first used to get the sample size of n= 43 considering 5% of

the population before getting the proportionate number of respondents per grade level per

strand.

The following table shows the number of respondents per strand:

STRAND POPULATION SAMPLE

G11: 335 G11: 6

HUMSS
G12: 314 G12: 5

G11: 443 G11: 7

STEM
G12: 381 G12: 6

G11: 406 G11: 7

ABM
G12: 391 G12: 7

TVL G11: 137 G11: 2

Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 18

G12: 188 G12: 3

TOTAL 2, 595 43

Convenience Sampling Technique was then used to take the target respondents since

it provides ease in the part of the respondents.

Research Instruments

A survey questionnaire was adopted from various related studies. Moreover, to

contextualize the adopted questionnaire which was taken from foreign studies, the

researchers incorporated terminologies that are readily familiar with the Filipino senior high

school students like “post-secondary school” to “college” and so on.

Interview questions were also prepared to get deeper perspectives of the respondents

regarding the study at hand.

Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 19

Validity and Reliability of the Instruments

Validity. The questionnaire’s content will be contextualized in order to assure

familiarity which will make it more valid. Its face validity will also be checked by the

professors in the field.

Reliability. Since the questionnaire was used by various related studies to over

hundreds of respondents and pilot tests, its reliability was assured.

Research Protocol

To maintain the confidentiality of the respondents’ identity, the questionnaire won’t

be requiring the name and section. Also, the respondents was briefed that answering the

questionnaire will not give them any merits or incentives nor they will be charged for any

demerits.

Moreover, the purpose of the study was written in the consent and was verbally

explained to the respondents along with ethical considerations. The tool was administered for

about5 - 10 minutes.
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 20

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers used Non-probability Sampling Technique specifically the

Convenience Sampling Technique wherein the respondents will be chosen depending on the

researchers’ and respondents’ availability.

Statistical Technique

Face and construct validity was evaluated by asking a Research teacher and a

Personal Development teacher respectively who have an experience teaching senior high

school students to check and give comment or suggestion as regard to the construction of the

tool and its alignment to the factors that affects the participants’ course preference. On the

other hand, the results of the respondents’ self-reported answers were calculated and

analyzed using descriptive charts and tables.

Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 21

REFERENCES:

Alexander, Karl L., and Bruce K. Eckland. ―Basic Attainment Processes: A Replication and Extension‖.
Sociology of Education, 48 (1975): 457-495.

Bean, John P., and Shevawn B. Eaton. ―A Psychological Model of College Student Retention‖.In Reworking
the Student Departure Puzzle, edited by John M. Braxton, 48-61.Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University
Press, 2000.

Becker, Gary S. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education.
New York, NY: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1964.

Becker, Gary. S. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis with Special Reference to Education,
2nd Ed. New York, NY: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1975.

Berger, Joseph B. ―Optimizing Capital, Social Reproduction, and Undergraduate Persistence: A Sociological
Perspective‖. In Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle, edited by John M.Braxton, 95-124.
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000.

Berger, J., Motte, A., & Parkin, A. (2007). The price of knowledge: Access and student finance (3rd ed.).
Montreal, CA: Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

Bragg, D., & Durham, B. (2012). Perspectives on access and equity in the era of(community)college completion.
Community College Review 40(2), 106-125.doi: 10.1177/0091552112444724

Braxton, John M., and Amy S. Hirschy. ‗Theoretical Developments in the Study of College Student Departure‖.
In College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success, edited by Allen Seidman, 61-88.
Westport, CT: Praeger Press, 2005.

Bryant, J. K., & Nicolas, J. (2011). Supporting and preparing future first-generation college students in the high
school environment: Implications for school counselors. MichiganJournal of Counseling: Research,
Theory, and Practice, 38(2), 17-26.

Cabrera, A., & La Nasa, S. (2000). Understanding the college choice of disadvantaged students: New directions
for institutional research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 22

Chandra Muller, and Eric Schaps, 39-56. Sacramento, CA: The Safe and Healthy Kids Program Office
California Department of Education, 2005.

Chapman, D. (1981). A model of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education, 52, 5,490-505.

Chen, X., & Carroll, C. D. (2005). First-generation students in post-secondary education: A look at their college
transcripts. Post-secondary education analysis report. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/cricdocs2/content_storage_01/01/0000019b/80/29/da/bs.pd
f

Cho, S., Hudley, C., Lee, S., Barry, L., & Kelly, M. (2008). Roles of gender, race, and SES in the college choice
process among first-generation and non first-generation students.Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 1(2), 95-107. doi:10.1037/1938-8926.1.2.95

Demetris, V., Alkis, T., & Yioula, M. (2007, September). A contemporary highereducationstudent-choice
model for developed countries. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 979-989.

Engle, J. (2007). post-secondary access and success for first-generation college students.American Academic, 3,
25-44.

Goldenberg, C., Gallimore, R., Reese, L., & Garnier, H. (2001). Cause of effect? A longitudinal study of
immigrant Latino parents aspirations and expectations and their children school performance. American
Educational Research Journal, 38, 547-582.

Goldin, Claudia, Lawreence F. Katz, and Ilyana Kuziemko. ―The Homecoming of AmericanCollege Women:
The Reversal of the College Gender Gap‖. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4) (2006): 133-156.

Hagedorn, Linda S., William Maxwell, and Preston Hampton. ―Correlates of Retention for African American
Males in Community Colleges‖. Journal of College Student Retention,3 (2001-2002): 243-263.

Hill, L. E. & Jepsen, C. (2007). Positive outcomes from poor starts: Predictors of dropping back in. Economics
of Education Review, 26(5), 588-603.
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 23

Horn, L., & Nunez, A. M. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First-./0/123450 6378/0369 :23;track, planning
strategies, and context of support. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college choice: a three-phase model and the
implications for policymakers. College and University, 2(3), 207-221.

Hossler, D., Braxton, J., & Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding student college choice. In Higher education:
Handbook of theory and research (pp. 231-288). New York: AgathonPress.

Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social economic, and educational factors
influence the decisions students make. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ishitani, T. T. (2005). Studying educational attainment among first-generation students in the united states.
Association for Institutional Research (AIR) (45th, San Diego, CA, May29-Jun 1, 2005). Online
Submission.

Jackson, G. (1986). Workable, comprehensive models of college choice. Final and technical report.Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.

Kuh, George D., and Patrick G. Love. ―A Cultural Perspective on Student Departure‖. In Reworking the
Student Departure Puzzle, edited by John M. Braxton, 196-212. Nashville,TN: Vanderbilt University
Press, 2000.

Lee, Valerie E., and Julia B. Smith. ―Social Support and Achievement for Young Adolescents in Chicago: The
Role of School Academic Press‖. American Educational Research Journal,36(4) (1999): 907-945.

Libbey, Heather P. ―Measuring Student Relationships to School: Attachment, Bonding,Connectedness, and

Engagement‖. Journal of School Health, 74(7) (2004): 274 - 283.

Litten, L. (1982). Different strokes in the applicant pool: some refinements in the model of student college
choice. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 383-402.

Manski, Charles F., and David A. Wise. College Choice in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1983.
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 24

McDill, Edward L., Gary Natriello, and Aaron M. Pallas. ―A Population at Risk: Potential Consequences of
Tougher School Standards for Student Dropouts‖. American Journal of Education, 94 (1986): 135-
181.

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2004). Learningreconsidered: A campus-wide focus

on the college experience. Washington, DC: author.

Noddings, Nell. ―The Caring Professional‖. In Readings in Knowledge, Practice, Ethics and Politics, edited by
Gordon, Suzanne, Patricia Brenner, and Nel Noddings, 160-172.Philadelphia, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1996.

Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: An analysis of first generation
college students. Communication Education, 53 (2), 131-149.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research(2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Pennington, K., McGinty, D., & Williams, M. (2002) Community college enrollment as a function of economic
indicators. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(5), 431-437.

Perna, L. W. (2000). Differences in the decision to attend college among African Americans, Hispanics and
Whites. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 117-141.

Perna, Laura W., and Scott L. Thomas. A Framework for Reducing the College Success Gap and Promoting
Success for All. Commissioned Report for the National Symposium on post-secondary Student
Success: Spearheading a Dialog on Student Success. Washington,DC: National post-secondary
Education Cooperative, 2006.

Phillips, Meredith. ―What Makes Schools Effective? A Comparison of the Relationships of Communitarian
Climate and Academic Climate to Mathematics Achievement and Attendance During Middle School‖.
American Educational Research Journal, 34(4): 633-662.

Rood, R. E. (2009). Driven to achieve: First-generation students' narrated experience at a private christian
college. Christian Higher Education, 8(3), 225-254.
Liceo de Cagayan University Senior High School Department Page 25

Schaps, Eric. ―The Role of Supportive School Environments in Promoting Academic Success‖.In Getting
Results, Developing Safe and Healthy Kids Update 5: Student Health,Supportive Schools, and
Academic Success, edited by Thomas Hanson, Howard Knoff,

Schouse, Roger C. ―Academic Press and Sense of Community: Conflict, Congruence, and Implications for
Student Achievement‖. Social Psychology of Education, 1 (1996): 47-68.

Schultz, Theodore W. The Economic Value of Education. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1963.

Sewell, William H., and Robert M. Hauser. ―Causes and Consequences of Higher Education:Models of the
Status Attainment Process‖. In Schooling and Achievement in American Society, edited by William H.
Sewell, Robert M. Hauser, and David L. Featherman, 9-27.New York, NY: Academic Press, 1976.

Stage, Francis K., and Don Hossler. ―Where is the Student? Linking Student Behaviors, College Choice and
College Persistence‖. In Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle, edited by John M. Braxton, 170-
195. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000.

Symonds, W., Schwartz, R., & Ferguson, R. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the challenge of
preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Thurow, Lester C. Investment in Human Capital. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1970.

Tucker, S. A. (2010). Into another kind of country: The college matriculation of youth from rural areas.
Retrieved fromhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/77708/tuckers_1.pdf?se

quence=1

Tucker, G. C. (2014, March). First generation. The Chronicle of Higher Education | Diverse:Issues In Higher
Education, p. 24-28.

Voorhees, Richard A. ―Toward Building Models of Community College Persistence: A Logic Analysis‖.
Research in Higher Education, 26 (1987): 115-129.