Aspirations, expectations, and persistence

Kearney and Donaghy (2012) writing about Pasifika students and their experiences of HE in Australia, agreed that self-persistence had helped them to endure their studies. This study reflected other recent literature on Pasifika, including literature by Tongans, that students attributed their success to parents’ aspirations and self-persistence

(Kalœvite, 2010; Vaioleti, 2012; ’Otunuku, 2011). Dizzio (2006, p. 2) suggested that Pasifika students’ early success in university studies included resourcefulness and high self-expectations, attributes that he describes as “proactively managing the challenges of the university experience”. This type of self-regulatory behavior has been identified as a strong predictor of early success at university (Krause, 2005). In addition, Kearney and Donaghy (2012) suggest that unless Pasifika students perceive that teachers hold high expectations for them, many are unlikely to develop aspirations for higher education. The study also suggests that limited aspirations on the part of students, even by their parents and peers, and a lack of high expectations on the part of teachers resulting from limited intercultural understanding on the part of both students and teachers, could also undermine Pasifika learners at higher education.

Cultural distance and gaps between students and their teachers influence the type of school climate, pedagogies, and retention of at risk Pasifika students. Therefore, ways to enhance intercultural understanding within school settings provide a worthwhile focus for future research. It is also important for universities to look beyond generic strategies that support students’ first year experience at university to identify specific strategies that bridge successful transition and completion (Madjar et al ., 2010b)

Tinto (1987, 2005, 2006, 2012a, 2012b), one of the most vocal scholars in the field of persistence at HE, argued that institutions must play an unequivocal role in initiating ways to help students succeed and explains that, for decades, the issue of student

individual attributes of motivation, skills, and self -esteem. Students who failed were regarded to be less able, less motivated, and less willing to persevere. The general idea at the time was that students failed, not institutions. However, Tinto’s (1987) thought- provoking article and later his book, “Leaving College”, provided one of the earliest models explaining the interplay of the environment and the social systems in affecting students. Tinto (2005) further articulated that under-privileged students who remained connected to their communities, church, and family demonstrated strength to persist through higher education. Though understanding of student retention has gone through major transitions, it is clear that one model has limitations. However, Tinto’s scholarly contributions have given firm conviction that communal engagement of institutions through educational innovations influences student retention and success. Madjar et al., (2010a) conducted a study on persistence of first year students at university in A/NZ and provided a platform for immediate deliberations and actions. The project asked what has helped students’ to persevere and sustained them through good and bad times at university. The study stressed that students who failed to internalise their family aspirations find transition to university quite challenging. Similarly expectations of family obligation and communal activities also created problems for students. Even so, a number of students identified their families’ hopes and aspirations as the stronger motivator, particularly during difficult times. Left to themselves they would have given up, but knowing how much hope and pride their parents and families had invested in their success, they persisted. The study reported

that students from low decile schools in New Zealand, who are predominantly Pasifika, believed that aspirations of their parents had helped them to stay focused and complete their programmes. This is in line with many Tongan scholars such as Thaman, Taufe’ulungaki, Vaioleti, and Kalœvite, who have argued that Tongan learners who have synthesized and internalised Tongan values have the ability to persevere and endure their higher education journey.

Chu et al., (2013) introduced “appreciative pedagogy; such as family commitment, individual aspirations, and learning village”, and argued that understanding and embracing it will provide a holistic understanding to address the growing Pasifika problems in HE. The argument builds on the notion that Pasifika are communalistic and view the educational journey as a communal task, which cannot be isolated. The study (Chu et al., 2013) demonstrates that family and personal aspirations and the determination for better life are also pushing Pasifika learners the extra mile to succeed:

“ Coming from a broken home, seeing that this is not what we want to be, taking the initiative, getting support from our cousins who had come through university to be like them, and doing something for our parents. We do not want to be cleaners; we don’t want to be working odd jobs. These are the drivers for me. It is clear to me that education is a key – for me and my family. Education will provide me a good life and better wages.

I don't want to be on any benefit or welfare system. The news tells people that we Pacific people are on the benefit. But that's not true. Not all of us alike that and I am not going to be like that”.

The students would also like to use tertiary education as an enabling tool to break down stereotypes about Pacific learners being underachievers:

“The white people will get high education and will have more money, while the brown people will work in low-income jobs and [live in] low-cost housing. I am so over it! I am over the negative images and stories of Pasifika people in the media. That is so not us! We are more than that. Look at me, I am doing very well “(p.6).