Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...
(USC Thesis Other)
Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
DECONSTRUCTING PERSISTENCE IN ACADEMIC LANGUAGE AMONG
SECOND-GENERATION LATINOS:
HOW DO SECOND-GENERATION LATINO LANGUAGE MINORITY
COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS ALTER THEIR ACADEMIC
TRAJECTORIES?
by
Silvia De La Riva
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2012
Copyright 2012 Silvia De La Riva
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Jose and Genoveva De La Riva, who
instilled in me a love for learning and a desire to serve others. By example, they have
taught me the value of hard work and sacrifice. Their wisdom gives me strength, and
their love has inspired me to grow. To my husband and partner in life, Don Zengierski,
who has been with me every step of the way. Together we have embraced life‘s greatest
adventures. I am most grateful for his unrelenting support and countless hours of editing.
Through his eyes, I found humor in fatigue, intrigue in uncertainty, and joy in the
exploring life‘s big questions. To the kids in my life: You inspire and motivate me to
seek answers. My work is undoubtedly for you. And, lastly, to my dissertation chair, Dr.
Rey Baca, who has transformed my thinking. I will forever remember our conversations
and the care with which he shared his knowledge and cultivated my own.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my appreciation to family members, friends, community
college staff, student participants, colleagues, and professors who made this
accomplishment possible. I am indebted to my dissertation chair, Dr. Rey Baca, for his
expertise in the study of diversity and for his unparalleled commitment to expanding
knowledge in this area, and to my dissertation committee: Drs. Alan Green, Linda
Fischer, and Eugenia Mora-Flores, for their support and guidance. I am grateful to
Crystal Lo Vetere for her encouragement and friendship throughout this process. Her
generosity led me to a network of wonderful people. In this difficult time in education, I
am thankful to everyone at the community college who volunteered their time and
welcomed this project on their campus. I am most grateful to the English Department
chair for facilitating the study, to the English professors for administering the preliminary
survey, and to the office of Academic Affairs and the Science and Math Division for
helping with the logistics of having a guest on their campus. I thank the students who
participated in the study for volunteering their time and sharing their experiences with
me. Finally, I am grateful to my family and friends, who shared the daily challenges and
victories of this process. Their patience, understanding, and support helped me through
my most difficult days.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgments iii
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 2
Statement of the Problem 6
Rationale for the Study 9
Research Questions 10
Significance of the Study 11
Definition of Terms 12
Organization of Study 15
Chapter Two: Literature Review 16
The Politics of Language 17
From Ideologies to Policy 18
Educational Reform 21
Language Development 23
Second Language Acquisition 25
Language and Literacy 28
Conclusion to Language Development 31
Cultural-Ecological Theory 33
Minority Typology 35
Social Forces and Educational Attitudes 37
Cultural Forces and Learning 38
Cultural Identity and School Performance 40
Differing Forms of Minority Adaptations 42
Conclusion to Cultural-Ecological Theory 44
Social Capital 46
Origins and History of Social Capital 46
Perspectives on Social Capital and Educational Inequality 48
Institutional Agents and Networks of Support 51
Empowerment Agents 53
Conclusion to Social Capital 56
Summary of the Literature 56
v
Chapter Three: Methodology 62
Introduction to Methodology 62
Purpose of the Study 63
Sample Population 65
Instrumentation 68
Data Collection 72
Data Analysis 74
Limitations 76
Delimitations 76
Chapter Four: Key Findings 78
Introduction to Key Findings 78
Biographical Sketches and Student Characteristics 79
Table 1: Summary of Student Characteristics 87
Learning English: Ideology and Theory 89
Results Research Question 1 89
Discussion of Research Question 1 110
Cultural-Ecological Theory 112
Results Research Question 2 112
Discussion of Research Question 2 125
Social Capital Theory 126
Results Research Question 3 126
Discussion of Research Question 3 150
Summary of Key Findings 152
Chapter Five: Conclusions 153
Background and Purpose 153
Research Questions 155
Language Theory and Politics 155
Cultural-Ecological Theory 157
Social Capital Theory 159
Summary of Findings 161
Finding 1 161
Finding 2 162
Finding 3 162
Finding 4 163
Limitations 165
Implications for Practice 165
Implications for Research 167
Conclusion to Study 168
vi
References 171
Appendices
Appendix A: Preliminary Survey 177
Appendix B: Student Interview Protocol 179
Appendix C: Interview Protocol Correlation Grid 182
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to examine persistence toward transfer among
second-generation Latino language minority community college students. Using
qualitative methodology, I explored the academic trajectories of students who began their
education in quick exit or English immersion programs in the k–12 setting and placed
into precollegiate English coursework at the community college. Language theory,
Ogbu‘s (1987) cultural-ecological framework and social capital theory were used to
examine individual, group, and institutional factors that shape academic language
development.
This study targeted second-generation Latinos, an understudied and unique
minority subgroup, who represent a growing population in our nation‘s schools. A
preliminary survey was used to identify students who met the study‘s criteria and a
two- part semistructured interview was used to generate data. The students who
participated in the study were currently enrolled or had completed English 100 and had
indicated a desire to transfer to a four-year university. All participants were second-
generation Latinos, raised in Spanish-speaking homes, and instructed predominantly in
English in the k–12 setting.
The four overlapping findings that emerged from the data support the work of
educational scholars cited in this study. The first finding suggested that the participants
embraced a strong sense of individualism. Individual effort was associated with all
aspects of persistence and success. Second, stability, rather than change, was evident in
viii
the participants‘ educational trajectories; persistence emerged from a strong learner
identity cultivated at an early age. Third, individual academic attainment obscured the
participants‘ ability to discriminate between English fluency and academic achievement.
The last finding indicated that participants‘ academic success was supported by a
sociocultural context that enabled them to cross cultural and linguistic boundaries.
Implications for practice evince the value of institutional support and the impact
of real-life experiences on a student‘s academic orientations. Educators are reminded to
consider the ideological barriers that interfere with help-seeking behavior. Staff involved
with educational programming is asked to consider the benefits of programs that tie
educational experiences to employment. Recommendations for future research involve
looking beyond group homogeneity, developing a uniform definition of academic
language, and further examining the critical transition between secondary and
postsecondary education.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Questions of diversity have challenged great philosophers (Garcia, 2002) and
remain problematic among culturally and socially heterogeneous societies facing the
paradox of equity and class stratification (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The formal study of
diversity has given birth to the principles of cultural pluralism, a framework that
embraces equity, social justice, and an individual‘s right to retain his or her language and
culture (Bennet, 2001). In the United States, where diversity and democracy coexist, the
promise of educational equity continues to illude language minority students, who must
negotiate inequitable learning conditions that deter their social mobility. When compared
to their White, middle-class peers, Latino language minority students are more likely to
attend segregated schools with poor facilities, inadequate materials, and fewer trained
teachers (Gandara & Rumberger, 2004, as cited in Gandara & Rumberger, 2009). They
are compelled to learn English and content simultaneously, are assessed with measures
that distort their ability, and are tracked into basic and/or remedial courses (Gandara &
Rumberger, 2004, as cited in Gandara & Rumberger, 2009; Louie, 2009). Poverty, low
levels of parental education, and limited community resources intersect with personal
characteristics and make learning problematic. Embedded in an ecological system that
constricts language minorities‘ academic potential, individual, group, and institutional
factors compromise their academic success and alter their ability to improve their quality
of life. This study delves into the journey of second-generation Latino language minority
2
students educated in the California k–12 public school system who enter community
colleges lacking the academic literacy skills that promote their retention and success in
higher education. By drawing on the perspectives of second-generation community
college students, I will tell the stories of students who have surpassed linguistic barriers
and are working their way toward transfer to four-year universities.
Background of the Problem
According to a 2009 report by the Institute for Language and Educational Policy,
two-thirds of the nation‘s English Language Lerner‘s (ELLs) in grades k–12 were
second-generation immigrants, and 75% of them came from Spanish-speaking homes.
Latinos represent more than 71% of the k–12 student population in Los Angeles
(Hagedorn & Cepeda, 2004), and they are the fastest growing ethnic group in California
(Gandara & Contreras, 2009). With their growing presence, their opportunities for
mobility reflect our democratic values (Hagedorn & Cepeda, 2004), and their prosperity
is essential to our country‘s economic advancement. Contrary to other immigrant groups
who have enjoyed the bounty of a job market that rewarded manual labor and a high
school diploma, our current economic structure has become more competitive and less
open to a blue-collar skill set. A high school diploma no longer guarantees a job or
working class status, and medical insurance, homeownership, and job security are
luxuries of the past. Thus, Latinos at risk for school failure have become increasingly
vulnerable to lifelong outcomes that extend beyond the educational realm. Susceptible to
a fate of social stagnation, social factors shape Latinos‘ early educational experiences,
and trigger a chain of events that have lasting individual and generational effects. The
3
following section traces the path of Latino language minority students who enter our
public schools as non-native English speakers.
The standard experience for Latino language minority students entering the k–12
school system begins with a home language survey and language proficiency testing in
English and Spanish. Upon enrollment schools categorize them, as English Language
Learners (ELLs) and often place them in English-Only Programs, currently in favor with
the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (Gandara & Rumberger, 2009). State law requires
that school districts administer the California English Language Development Test
(CELDT) every year to all students whose primary language is not English until the
student is reclassified as Fluent English Proficient (FEP). The CELDT measures a
student‘s listening, speaking, reading, and writing ability and renders a descriptive
category. Although one among several measures of academic competence, California
public schools use the CELDT as the primary criterion for their reclassification process.
The reclassification label weighs heavily on students‘ educational trajectories, and
they do not easily acquire it. Parrish and others (2006) found that the average English
Language Learner had a 40% chance of reclassifying as fluent in English after 10 years in
California schools (as cited in Gandara & Rumberger, 2009). Similarly, Callahan (2005)
has noted that California policies have made it difficult for students to shed the ELL
label. Although students who reclassify in elementary school may have fewer hurdles to
overcome, those who transition to secondary education as ELLs suffer serious
programmatic consequences. Tracked into less academically rigorous instruction, they
are locked out of mainstream content, enrichment, and college preparatory courses.
4
Students who escape these ―ESL ghettos‖ (Valdes, 2001, p.145) remain vulnerable to
instructional practices and settings that fail to prepare them adequately for postsecondary
education. Segregated learning environments, grade inflation, and watered down
instruction prove costly to students whose goals exceed meeting an A-G requirement.
Within this context, being a non-native English speaker becomes a liability, bound to an
ambiguous line between language and academic proficiency. Overlapping issues related
to instruction and linguistic diversity make Latino students unlikely candidates for higher
education and render them underprepared to succeed.
The transition from high school to a community college is a critical period for
Latino language minority students, especially those who aspire to transfer to a four-year
university and who have not yet mastered standard academic English (Bunch, 2008).
Thus, the degree of academic language proficiency students have acquired in the k–12
school system becomes a form of capital that can either facilitate or deter their academic
success. Upon enrollment at a community college, students must take an English
placement exam. This exam determines their academic proficiency level in English and
establishes the sequence of the coursework they will follow. Ambiguous and imperfect,
this placement process carries high-stakes consequences for Latino language minority
students‘ instruction, development, and mobility (Bunch, 2008). Gray, Rolph, and
Melamid (1996) found that English literacy represents the most significant obstacle for
the retention and success of immigrant students in community colleges and four-year
universities (as cited in Bunch, 2008). Similarly, Suarez (2003) has confirmed that Latino
students attending community colleges perceived the lack of English language
5
proficiency to be a ―major barrier‖ for transfer (p. 102). Thus, institutional practices in
the k-12 and the community college systems that strive to remediate linguistic differences
often marginalize Latino language minority students and create lost opportunities for
learning and social mobility (Callahan, 2005; Gandara & Rumberger, 2009; Valdes,
1999).
Latinos as a group remain associated with disadvantage, locked in a cycle of
poverty and low educational attainment. At the onset of their educational careers, issues
related to linguistic diversity, poverty, residential segregation, and low levels of parental
education predispose them to school failure. Latinos enter the k–12 system with varying
levels of literacy exposure, English language proficiency, and preschool preparation
(Hagedorn & Lester, 2006). Nationally, Latino kindergarten students are at a higher risk
for school failure compared to their White and Asian peers. It is no surprise that, in
elementary school, less than 20% of Latinos score proficient on national measures of
reading and math (Gandara & Contreras, 2009). Tracking further complicates matters at
the secondary level. Sorted into classes based on their language proficiency, many
students are systematically excluded from mainstream curriculum (Callahan, 2005).
Thus, at these early junctures, sociocultural factors shape Latino language minority
students‘ academic experiences and dictate their opportunities and access to higher
education. Compared to their middle-class American peers, Latinos are less likely to
enroll in college preparatory coursework, complete CSU and UC high school course
requirements, and earn a high school diploma (Gandara & Contreras, 2009; Hagedorn &
Cepeda, 2004). Gandara and Cepeda (2004) found that Latino students enrolled in the
6
nine campuses of the Los Angeles Community College District had ―lower high school
grades, and were less likely to have taken college algebra, trigonometry, pre-calculus,
calculus, chemistry or physics in high school or college‖(p. 203). Underprepared and
over-represented in basic skills and ESL precollegiate courses, Latinos are unlikely
candidates for college retention, and their odds of transferring to a four-year university
are lower than those of other students with similar course-taking patterns (Sengupta &
Jensen, 2006). With limited academic literacy presenting a major obstacle for these
students, community colleges play a critical role in their academic preparation and
success in postsecondary education (Bunch, 2008; Hagedorn, Maxwell, Chen, Sypers, &
Moon, 2002).
Statement of the Problem
Valdes (1999) has asserted that language development is a lifelong endeavor
developed through education and life experiences. Similarly, Krashen (1995) and
Cummins (2006) have affirmed that time and meaning are essential to second language
acquisition. Conversational language emerges first and, with appropriate supports and
instruction, content-specific language follows (Cummins, 2006). Although the simplicity
of this perspective may appear obvious—and its application benign—current educational
policies continue to favor short-sighted outcomes that reproduce the existing class
structure. Instructional practices that focus on expediting the process of acquiring English
prove costly to Latinos‘ ability to master content-specific language. Thus, Latinos
continue to fall short in measures of academic language and literacy despite years of
being ―immersed‖ in English instruction (Gandara & Rumberger, 2009). Standardized
7
assessments that confound English language proficiency with academic ability render
them ―non-proficient‖ in their command of oral and written language. As a result, Latino
language minorities become subject to remedial, test prep, and basic skills coursework
that is counterproductive to developing cognitively and linguistically complex language
(Cummins, 2000) or higher-order thinking skills necessary for their advancement in
postsecondary education. Faced with the dual task of learning academic content and
language, they often excel at neither and their ―imperfect‖ or non-native like English
skills places them on an educational trajectory that undermines their success.
Community colleges have historically embodied our country‘s democratic values
by welcoming diverse student populations through their open admission practices and
low tuition rates (Dowd, 2003; Rhoads & Valadez, 1996). Thus, they are often the
institution of choice for language minority students who leave the k–12 setting with
varying levels of language proficiency and academic preparation seeking a second chance
at educational attainment. In California, 75% of Latino first-time college students enroll
at a community college (Bunch, 2008). Latinos are the largest ethnic group in the Los
Angeles Community College District (LACCD) (Hagedorn et al., 2002) and their
enrollment continues to grow (Hagedorn & Lester, 2006). Despite their appeal,
community colleges remain part of an imperfect educational system, whose democratic
luster is dulled by statistics of disenfranchised minority students with high attrition and
low transfer rates (Dowd, 2003). Community college Latinos are less likely than students
who begin their postsecondary education at a four-year university to earn a bachelor‘s
degree (Dowd, 2003; Gandara & Contreras, 2009; Ornelas & Solorzano, 2004). Nearly
8
one-third of Latinos begin their California postsecondary education in a community
college, yet only 3.4% transfer to four-year public universities (Ornelas & Solorzano,
2004). They are overrepresented in basic skills coursework (Sengupta & Jensen, 2006),
and the number of Latinos who earn a college degree has remained stagnant for the past
two decades (Gandara & Contreras, 2009). Although some scholars argue that
community colleges open doors and offer pathways, others contend that those doors lead
to working-class jobs and not to four-year universities (Dowd, 2003; Rhodes & Valadez,
1996). How community colleges address the needs of Latinos who begin their
postsecondary education on their campuses and place into precollegiate English
coursework is yet to be resolved. Nevertheless, their ability to do so carries significant
implications for this group‘s social mobility and success in higher education.
It is unlikely that changes in postsecondary education alone can rescue the
country‘s Latino population from a fate of social stagnation. Nevertheless, much remains
to be explored to fully understand what helps second-generation Latino community
colleges students overcome linguistic barriers and achieve educational equity. Clearly,
literacy skills are related to resilience; thus, understanding how language and literacy
develop from a k–16 perspective is essential. This dissertation traces the path of academic
language proficiency through the k–12 and community college settings. As such, I
examine what is known about our country‘s disjointed educational system and draw
attention to the systemic practices undermining the social mobility of the nation‘s largest
growing minority population (Gandara & Contreras, 2009). If education is to perform its
equalizing effect, our country‘s educational system will need to discern the meaning of
9
equal access and outcomes for all of its groups (Dowd, 2003) and explore what factors
create resilience among a minority group so often associated with failure. Mapping an
alternative route for these students is essential to achieving academic parity for this
underserved population. Their triumph over language is the subject of my dissertation.
Rationale for the Study
Latinos are expected to embrace the American ethos of hard work and trust in a
meritocracy that delivers rewards justly; yet, they remain one of the country‘s least
educated groups (Hagedorn & Lester, 2006) and seem destined to low levels of school
performance at the outset of their schooling (Gandara & Contreras, 2009; Gandara &
Rumberger, 2009; Hagedorn & Lester, 2006). If our society is committed to the
principles of democracy, it must challenge the flawed sense of equality in our educational
system. Language minority students must demonstrate academic language proficiency in
English equal to their same-aged monolingual English peers in order to succeed in
mainstream education (Valdes, 2004). Their success and mobility hinges on their ability
to adapt to the linguistic, academic, and cultural demands of our American public schools
and relies on several factors aligning in their favor. This study seeks to understand the
success of second-generation Latino language minority students who believe in the
American dream and are able to transcend linguistic barriers to access higher education.
It examines the social realm of language by exploring cultural and institutional factors
that create a context for learning and influence resilience. Whereas many studies focus on
literacy development from a k–12 or a postsecondary perspective, this study offers a
unified view of the lifelong endeavor of language development and its impact on school
10
attainment across educational settings. By examining students‘ educational histories and
their transition from high school to the community college, I hope to draw attention to the
process of becoming transfer ready rather than reporting measures of static outcomes that
obscure the dynamic process of learning.
Research Questions
Research has amply confirmed that Latinos enter postsecondary education lacking
college-level literacy skills and that they suffer from low community college–to-four-year
college transfer rates (Gandara & Rumberger, 2009; Hagedorn & Lester, 2006; Suarez,
2003). Because academic language proficiency is essential to their success, it is important
to understand how Latinos who place into precollegiate English coursework alter their
academic trajectories and become transfer ready. Using qualitative methodology, this
study examines Latino language minorities‘ persistence in developing academic language
at the community-college level. With educational policy as a backdrop, three bodies of
literature shape the direction of this study: language theory, Ogbu‘s cultural-ecological
theory, and social capital theory. The following questions explore individual, group, and
institutional dynamics that shape the experiences of Latino language minority students
who place below college-level English and persist through remedial coursework to meet
transfer criteria. This study asks:
1. How do second-generation Latino language minority students describe the
process and context of learning English, and what bearing does this have on
their academic advancement?
11
2. How does being a non-native English speaker shape the identity of second-
generation Latino language minority community college students? How do
these students conform to Ogbu‘s typology?
3. What social networks support second-generation Latino language minority
community college students‘ progress towards transfer? How are relationships
forged, and who are the agents involved?
Significance of the Study
In the current economy, the financial incentives to attend a community college
have grown as other options for higher education have narrowed. Yet, educational
institutions at every level continue to counter a comorbid budget cut crisis that demands
that schools do more with less. With decreasing resources and ever-increasing needs,
schools face the monumental task of preparing a diverse student population for a tenuous
labor market. Whereas educational institutions have historically incorporated minority
groups into the social and economic fabric of society (Gandara & Rumberger, 2009),
their ability to do so in an equitable manner is now more critical than ever. Community
colleges are a vital point of entry into higher education for Latinos, yet their transfer rates
remain abominably low (Ornelas & Solorzano, 2004). Without change to the current
system, our higher education institutions will continue to funnel Latinos out of a
postsecondary education and lock them into cycle of social stagnation. Thus, how we
conceptualize and address Latino underachievement is an ethical and institutional
dilemma that cannot be ignored. It is critical that educational leaders and researchers add
a new understanding of this phenomenon to the existing body of literature examining
12
Latino community college students‘ persistence toward transfer. By acknowledging the
diversity of this group and tapping into student perspectives to tell their stories,
researchers may glean new information.
This study looks to examine second-generation Latinos, an understudied and
unique minority subgroup that accounts for a large percentage of the school-aged
population. Although research is most familiar with quantitative measures of Latino
school failure, my focus is process and success oriented. By drawing on resilient
students‘ perspectives, I hope to bring optimism to a body of literature in dire of need of
an alternative to failure. My hope is that this study will contribute to a unified discussion
of language and literacy that bridges student experiences in the k–12 and community
college settings. By using a tiered theoretical approach, this study offers a
multidimensional perspective of student success and educational attainment, and paints a
comprehensive picture of factors that affect persistence. Most importantly, I strive to
draw attention to the unique educational experiences of second-generation Latinos who
find themselves wedged between cultures. In doing so, this study counters existing
ideologies that foster the belief that a factory approach to learning, which offers
fragmented, one-dimensional or band-aid interventions, will produce equitable
educational outcomes for these students.
Definition of Terms
Academic language proficiency as defined by Cummins (2006) refers to the ―degree of
expertise or an ability to use and understand classroom specific language required for
academic tasks‖ (p. 66). In contrast to conversational language skills used in informal
13
settings, academic language proficiency is content specific and is essential to academic
attainment (Valdes, 2004).
Basic skills coursework refers to precollegiate-level courses designed to prepare students
for ―degree or certificate applicable college level classes‖ (Anonymous College Catalog,
2009–10, p. 28).
College literacy refers to reading and writing skills essential to learning course concepts
at the postsecondary level (Roberge, 2009).
Developmental English/communication coursework refers to remedial reading or writing
courses designed for native English speakers.
English 52 is the Brooke Community College introduction to college composition course.
This course is nontransfer bearing and is designed to ―develop the student‘s ability to
write clearly, effectively, and correctly by guiding students through the writing process‖
(Anonymous College Catalog, 2009–10, p. 288). It is a prerequisite course for English
100.
English 100 is the freshman composition course at Brooke Community College. . It
satisfies transfer requirements at CSU and UC institutions and is designed to ―guide the
student through the writing process to develop expository prose with an emphasis on
effective organization and correctness‖ (Anonymous College Catalog, p. 289).
English Language Learner is a language category for students in the k–12 school system
identified as having limited English proficiency.
14
Fluent English proficient is a language category used in the k–12 school system for
students previously classified as ELLs, who have met the district criteria for
redesignation and display sufficient fluency to access mainstream academic content.
Fossilization refers to the retention of learner-like characteristics that become
incorporated into an individual‘s second language production and relate to exposure to
contact varieties of English (Valdes, 1999).
Functional bilinguals as defined by Valdes (1999) are individuals who have achieved
English fluency and are well versed in the dominant culture, but retain non-native-like
linguistic or learner-like features in their second language production.
Incipient bilinguals are individuals in the initial stages of learning a second language and
culture (Valdes, 1999).
Native-like fluency ―is a native speaker‘s ability to produce fluent stretches of
spontaneous connected discourse‖ (Yorio, 1989, p. 66, as cited in Valdes, 1999).
Non-native English speakers are individuals whose primary language is not English.
Nonphonological accent refers to features that linger in an individual‘s second language
production that are understood in communication, but are distinct from conventional or
native English norms (Valdes, 1999).
Reclassification is a process used in the k–12 system for students initially identified as
English Language Learners. Reclassification is achieved when a student is redesignated
as fluent in English and is able to perform academic tasks commensurate with her/his
English-speaking peers.
15
Second-Generation Latino Language Minority refers to individuals born in this country
whose parents are of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and South or Central American
origin. As described by Bunch (2008), language minorities are individuals who ―speak
another language other than English and have been identified as requiring English
language development support during their schooling‖ (p. 1). Spanish was the primary
language of all the participants in this study.
Organization of Study
The first chapter introduces the reader to the broad issues of diversity and equity
that surround language and learning for Latino language minority students in our
American public schools. This chapter draws a connection between academic language
and educational advancement, and describes the institutional barriers that deter Latinos
educational attainment. By examining this group‘s growing presence at community
colleges and their low transfer rates, I argue that it is critical that we understand what
factors contribute to their persistence and resilience. Chapter Two outlines the
frameworks that shaped the direction of the study and informed the study‘s
conceptualization of language and learning. Language theory, cultural-ecological theory,
and social capital theory are used as a lens to explore Latino educational attainment.
Chapter Three outlines the process of carrying out the study and describes its rationale,
sampling procedures, instrumentation, and the methodology used for data collection and
analysis. Biographical sketches for each of the participant and the study‘s findings are
presented in Chapter Four. Chapter Five concludes the study with an analysis of my
findings and implications for practice and research.
16
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The Latino achievement gap is a familiar topic of conversation often centered
around issues of school reform and accountability (Gandara & Contreras, 2009).
Although failure is prominent in these discussions, dialogue is also often politically and
ideologically charged (Crawford, 2004; Goldenberg, 2010) and fragmented among
professional communities (Valdez, 2004). Gandara and Contreras (2009) have described
the ―Latino education crisis‖ as urgent, pervasive, and requiring resources beyond the
educational realm to solve (p. 5). Despite divided perspectives and concomitant
circumstances of poverty, segregation, and limited community resources, scholars and
practitioners generally agree that Latinos must acquire academic English to succeed in
education (Bunch, 2008; Crawford, 2004; Cummins, 2006; Valdez, 2004). This study
examines academic English and the persistence and success of second-generation Latino
language minority community college students. The premise that multiple factors shape
language and learning and that internal and external circumstances summon change
guides my literature review.
This chapter explores three theoretical constructs that explain individual, group,
and institutional factors related to language. It begins by describing the sociopolitical
context of learning English in our American schools and examining policy issues that
affect instruction. Linguistic ideologies are introduced as a way of exploring the
progression of ideas and beliefs that shape students‘ opportunities to learn. To draw
17
attention to the subtleties of language (Goldberg, 2010; Valdez, 2004), I use the work of
Cummins (1986), Krashen (1995), and Crawford (2004) to explain the process of
learning English and to draw connections among language development, second language
acquisition, and literacy. Moving from individual to group factors, I use Ogbu‘s cultural-
ecological theory as a platform to explore the social realm of language and its role in
identity development and academic variability. I conclude this chapter with a review of
social capital theory. Following the work of Stanton-Salazar (1997), I explore the role of
institutional support and its impact on educational outcomes.
The Politics of Language
Language encompasses thought, meaning, and communication. It is inherently
social and reciprocal in nature and is subject to normative expectations (Collins, 1988;
Lerner, 2000; Wiley & Lukes, 1996). Structurally, researchers study language as a rule-
governed and self-contained homogeneous system. Examined as a social construct,
language is heterogeneous and diverse. It is defined by the purpose, attitude, and
motivations of a speech community (Collins, 1988). Whereas linguists support the
equality of all languages (Wiley & Lukes, 1996), Noam Chomsky has asserted that
―questions of language are basically questions of power‖ (as cited in Crawford, 2004, p.
65). Language ideologies, policies, and practices mirror the sociopolitical climate and
power structure in which they exist (Wiley & Lukes, 1996). The following section will
explore how power and politics permeate language policy and shape the educational
opportunities of language minority students. It explains the progression from ideology to
policy and educational reform.
18
Linguistic and ethnic diversity is a global reality that challenges teaching and
learning. Although cultural variations abound, research asserts a universal truth that
students who do not speak the ―school‘s language‖ experience educational challenges
(Valdes, 1998). Linguistic diversity raises complex questions about how schools should
teach language minority students, what level of support they require, and how our
institutions should incorporate them into the fabric of society (Gandara & Rumberger,
2009; Valdes, 1998). Ethnolinguistic diversity has led the United States government to
question its role and responsibility in educating and assimilating immigrants (Valdes,
1998). The exponential growth of language minority students has resulted in reactive
measures that subject students to a world of categories that delineate difference,
challenge identity, and reproduce group membership. Media-driven and ill-informed
assumptions produce linguistic folk theory, or commonly held beliefs about language,
that—in turn—shape policy and practice (Crawford, 2004). This understanding of
diversity—and a desire to maintain the status quo—inevitably alters the instructional
access and educational life chances of language minority students.
From Ideologies to Policy
The notion of power relations related to bilingualism is largely associated with a
dominant ideology that views language minorities as deficient in language skills rather
than linguistically advantaged by their diversity (Crawford, 2004). Ruiz‘s (1984)
orientation in language planning framework explains this phenomenon by describing
language diversity as a social problem or burden to solve (as cited in Gandara &
Rumberger, 2009). Within the language-as-a-problem orientation, limited English
19
proficiency becomes associated with disadvantage, remediation, compensation, and
cultural deprivation (Crawford, 2004). This perspective ultimately results in subtractive
bilingualism, or policies that stress linguistic assimilation and ethnocentric values (as
cited in Crawford, 2004). Orientations and assumptions lead to language hierarchies that
mediate power. The dominant class establishes norms and assigns privilege and status to
its own language variety or communication style; thus, language becomes a form of
social capital that pays off in educational, institutional, and economic gains (McDonough
& Nuñez, 2007; Wiley & Lukes, 1996). Embedded within a wide social structure,
linguistic discontinuities between a minority community and an educational setting create
disadvantage (Collins, 1988) and impact students‘ educational life chances. Cultural and
linguistic diversity overlap with factors associated with class status and further
complicates issues of access and equity.
Whereas public opinion in the United States has swayed educational policy in
favor of English-Only and Standard English ideologies, questions about the educational
variability of language minority students remain unanswered—and nested in politics
(Wiley & Lukes, 1996). During the past two decades, language policy debates in the
United States have centered on issues related to bilingualism (Wiley & Lukes, 1996) and
immigration (Gandara & Rumberger, 2009). Within this context, linguistic diversity
becomes a threat to national unity, an ―import‖ (Wiley & Lukes, 1996, p. 519), and an
unwelcome result of immigration (Crawford, 2004; Gandara & Rumberger, 2009;
Valdes, 1998). Contributing to the language-as-a-problem perspective, and an anti-
immigrant sentiment, the nation‘s most recent wave of educational reform has associated
20
language diversity with poor academic performance (Crawford, 2006). Standardized
assessment measures result in low Academic Performance Index (API) rankings for
schools, which can lead to a school‘s restructuring. As such, schools serving large
numbers of language minorities often face punitive consequences for their students‘
underachievement.
Wiley and Lukes (1996) have asserted that English-Only and Standard English
ideologies in the United States result in contradictions in public opinion of what it means
to be bilingual. They draw attention to how language ideology becomes an instrument of
social stratification that benefits one part of the population and discriminates against
another (Wiley & Lukes, 1996). Ideologies influence policies that shape instruction and
opportunities for learning (Gandara & Rumberger, 2009). By examining educational
policy targeted at different student populations, Wiley and Lukes (1996) offered an
example of how these ideologies unfold. Language minority students must negotiate
submersion, immersion, or quick exit programs that stress learning English, and reject
their own culture and native language. In contrast, foreign language programs designed
for English monolingual college-bound students offer the benefit of resources and time,
and stress the value of bilingualism and language development (Wiley & Lukes, 1996).
Inherent in this contradiction are class implications that extend beyond the educational
setting (Wiley & Lukes, 1996). Similarly, Crawford (2006) surmises that ―group
bilingualism has come to be associated with low status, nonwhite, impoverished
minorities, while individual bilingualism [has been associated] with affluence, privilege,
and dominant culture‖ (p. 65).
21
Coexisting with this bilingual contradiction is a monolingual ideology linked to
feelings of patriotism and longing for a uniform American identity (Willey & Lukes,
1996). Over the past 10 years, language policy has rescinded support for linguistic
diversity by adopting legislation that embraces monolingual values. In 1998, Proposition
227 mandated sheltered English instruction and restricted native language support
(Crawford, 1994). In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act dropped the term bilingual
from its legislation and programs and adopted a new ethos focused on developing English
proficiency (Gandara & Rumberger, 2009). Our society perceives language minority
students as foreigners or guests who must surrender their native tongue to fully integrate
into American culture. Subject to misunderstood notions of diversity and anti-
immigrant/bilingual sentiment, they are blamed for their underachievement (Crawford,
1997). Under the guise of meritocracy, individualistic ideologies blur the lines of social
responsibility, communicative reciprocity, and linguistic equality (Willey & Lukes,
1996). Hence, limited English proficiency and poor academic achievement is viewed as
an individual—rather than a systemic—problem (Wiley & Lukes, 1996).
Educational Reform
Under the auspice of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), accountability measures
intended to improve student performance have created an educational environment that
confounds linguistic competency with academic proficiency and creates stratified
instructional programs. Facing punitive consequences, urban school districts with
language minority students have succumbed to a narrowed curriculum that de-emphasizes
critical literacy skills and have embraced standardized test scores as proxies for
22
achievement and ability (Rueda, 2005; Solórzano, 2008). Standardized assessments have
become ―de-facto language measures‖ for language minority students and perform a gate-
keeping role for opportunities and social mobility (Rueda, 2005, p. 195). ―Educational
equity is reduced to equalizing test scores,‖ and high stakes decisions for English
Language Learners, their teachers, and schools come to rely heavily on these
questionable measures (Crawford, 2006, p. 2; Solórzano, 2008). Impoverished through
substandard education, language minority students are subject to economic, social, and
institutional barriers that limit opportunities beyond the educational setting (Callahan,
2005).
In summary, monolingual and individualistic ideologies have gained favor among
the American public, resulting in institutional practices that affect teaching and learning
English in our schools (Wiley & Lukes, 1996). A longing for a homogenous national
identity, as well as educational reform measures, have narrowed curricula by confusing
English fluency with loyalty (Wiley & Lukes, 1996) and language proficiency with
academic achievement (Crawford, 2006; Solórzano, 2008). Crawford (2004) has asserted
that viewing language diversity as a problem reinforces a deficit ideology that focuses on
remediation and compensation, ethnocentric values, and subtractive bilingualism. When
manifested in the classroom setting, these ideologies communicate inadequacy, validate
stereotypes, reinforce power relations, and reproduce the existing social order (Cummins,
1986).
Latino language minorities who enter the school system with varying levels of
English language proficiency face linguistic barriers at the onset of their educational
23
carriers. To advance academically, they must learn language and content simultaneously
within a political and ideological context that views their native language and cultural
diversity as a deficit. Upon enrollment, Latino language minority students become
suspect for school failure. Confused as a monolithic group, schools misunderstand their
needs. Furthermore, policies mistakenly misrepresent them as temporary visitors in the
United States, and disenfranchise them from learning. An estimated 75% of language
minority students enrolled in k–12 schools are U.S. citizens (Gandara & Rumberger,
2009), yet the public‘s embrace of the foreigner stereotype results in instructional
practices that impact their ability to develop academic language and literacy (Cummins,
2006). The following section of this paper will review the theoretical constructs that
explain the relationship among language development, second language acquisition, and
literacy. It makes a distinction between language and learning, traces the path of
academic language proficiency from its inception, and draws attention to early
experiences that shape students‘ educational trajectories.
Language Development
Contemporary linguistic frameworks have evolved from a myriad of grammar-
translation, audiolingual, and behavioral approaches to its current form via Chomskyan
theory (Crawford, 2004). Chomsky‘s theory forms the foundation for understanding basic
principles in language development, asserting that humans have a biological language
faculty and, thus, are hardwired to acquire and process language. MacSwan and Rolstad
(2003) have further explained that ―all normal children achieve linguistically [and that]
most of the morphological and syntactical rules of language are mastered by the time a
24
child enters school‖ (p. 333). Relevant to linguistic diversity, Chomsky‘s theory
established language acquisition as an independent discipline separate from general
learning theory. His work gave birth to the concepts of universal grammar and natural
order in language acquisition and emphasized the difference between linguistic
competence and linguistic performance (Crawford, 2004). Chomsky‘s principle of
universal grammar proposes that all languages share a fundamental structure that allows
the mind to organize and understand language (Crawford, 2004). Environmental
stimuli—or an individual‘s social context—trigger the mind to form grammatical rules.
Chomsky explains that ―linguistic registers, or variations in communication styles,‖ exist
among social groups and situations and can become problematic when manifested in
incongruent language contexts (Crawford, 2004, p. 186). Thus, language minorities who
have developed linguistic registers that differ from that of the dominant culture must gain
access to academic registers to succeed in school (Cummins, 2006). Chomsky defined
linguistic competence as an underlying knowledge of language, and linguistic
performance as the application of language. In this distinction, linguistic competence
stems from the internal processes that facilitate language production, whereas linguistic
performance is more directly related to the social context in which a language is used
(Crawford, 2004). Irrespective of this distinction, contemporary research has asserted that
an individual‘s sociocultural context shapes both linguistic performance and competence
(Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). The following section provides a brief overview of Stephan
Krashen‘s framework on second language acquisition and adds depth to Chomsky‘s
distinction between language and learning.
25
Second Language Acquisition
Although empirical research has tested and confirmed many of Chomsky‘s
hypotheses, his theory left pedagogical questions unanswered. Educators questioned their
role in teaching language and wondered about the extent to which they could teach
language (Crawford, 2004). As different approaches to teaching language evolved from
Chomsky‘s emphasis on rule formation, researchers found that varying teaching practices
produced similar results. They also found that the rate of second language proficiency
remained unexplained by individual learning differences (Crawford, 2004). It became
clear that quality of instruction was an important factor related to second language
acquisition that warranted consideration (Crawford, 2004, p.188). Stephan Krashen‘s
(1995) theory of second language acquisition emerged from the need to align practice and
research with theory.
Building on Chomsky, Krashen (1995) formulated a theory based on five
hypotheses addressing questions of educational methodology. His first and most basic
principle asserts that language is acquired rather than learned (Krashen, 1995); hence,
second language acquisition is a subconscious process that emerges in a slow and subtle
manner—in contrast to learning that can be fast and obvious (Krashen, 1995). Crawford
(2004) has explained that just as infants do not require dictionaries to acquire language,
humans best acquire language by ―communicative practice in real situations‖ (p. 189).
Similar to Chomsky‘s work, Krashen‘s (1995) natural order hypothesis emphasizes the
predictable progression of grammatical structures in second language acquisition. It
stresses the value of quality instruction over amount of exposure (Krashen, 1995). The
26
monitor hypothesis revisits the acquisition-learning distinction and explains the role of
formal rules in language performance. Krashen (1995) has asserted that acquisition is
related to fluency and language production. In contrast, learning, or the conscious
processes of language, allows individuals to edit and modify the utterances they produce.
Although learned language rules are secondary to acquisition, optimal use of the monitor
augments language production.
Krashen‘s two remaining hypotheses focus specifically on the process of second
language acquisition. Building on Chomsky‘s theory of an innate language faculty,
Krashen‘s input hypothesis contends that humans are biologically predisposed to acquire
language through comprehensible input, or messages that are understood (Crawford,
2004, p. 189). Krashen‘s (1995) acquisition equation mirrors Vygotsky‘s zone of
proximal development (ZPD) (Santrock, 2009). A key principle in the social
constructivist approach, ZPD refers to an optimal stage in learning in which children are
able to perform a difficult task with the assistance of a more skilled adult or peer
(Santrock, 2009). Similarly, Krashen‘s input hypothesis suggests that language is
acquired ―when we understand messages that contain structures that are slightly beyond
our current level of competency‖ (Krashen, 1995, p. 21). Context, culture, and nonverbal
input further enhance comprehension and facilitate acquisition. In contrast to teaching
strategies that emphasize structure before meaning, the input hypothesis asserts that
acquisition is facilitated by meaning and that grammatical structures inevitably follow
(Krashen, 1995).
27
Lastly, Krashen (1995) described internal characteristics that influence an
individual‘s ability to process messages as part of the affective filter hypothesis. Factors
related to motivation, self-confidence, and anxiety can either facilitate or block input by
strengthening or weakening the filter. Deep language processing related to acquisition
occurs when access to comprehensible input is high and anxiety is low. In contrast,
fossilized or learner-like linguistic features remain when only surface comprehension is
achieved. As such, optimal instruction involves access to comprehensible input in an
environment that increases motivation and self-confidence and reduces anxiety
(Crawford, 2004).
In sum, Krashen‘s (1995) theory of second language acquisition offers important
insights into English language teaching and learning. Of utmost importance, Krashen
(1995) identified comprehensible input and the concept of an affective filter as the two
variables that best explain the acquisition of language. Following his perspective,
instruction is accessible to non-native speakers when comprehensible input is provided
within an educational context that values language and fosters positive attitudes toward
learning. Although Krashen‘s critics have argued that his views are simplistic and that
second language acquisition develops differently from an individual‘s native language,
Krashen‘s comprehensible input and affective filter principles have withstood even their
critiques (Crawford, 2004). The implications of Krashen‘s theory weigh heavily on issues
related to instructional methodology, assessment procedures, and skill-based curricula
widely embraced by k–12 school districts consumed by efforts to raise test scores
(Crawford, 2004). Relevant to students‘ long-term academic trajectories, it is easy to
28
understand why deep language processing at an early age is fundamental to helping
students develop academic language proficiency. Evidence of learner-like linguistic
features described by Krashen (1995) are widely apparent in the academic achievement
levels of Latino language minority community college students who have been immersed
in English instruction in the k–12 setting and are unable to place into college level
English. Although a single factor seldom causes low achievement levels, it is clear that
our nation‘s current focus on expediting the process of learning English has compromised
the academic advancement and quality of instruction for Latino language minority
students. Moving from language acquisition, the following section will explore the
relationship between language proficiency and academic achievement.
Language and Literacy
Cummins brought depth to the study of language acquisition by exploring the
relationship between an individual‘s first language (L1), second language acquisition
(L2), and academic achievement (Crawford, 2004, p. 192). His ―dual iceberg‖ metaphor
identifies a common underlying proficiency (CUP) among languages, characterized by
shared foundational skills with differing surface characteristics (Crawford, 2004;
Cummins, 1984). This common underlying proficiency bridges linguistic competency
with deeper conceptual understanding of academic skills and facilitates the transfer of
knowledge and literacy between languages (Cummins, 1984). Cummins‘s (1984)
interdependence hypothesis asserts that linguistic competence and cognitive/academic
skills inherent in a primary language are conduits to deeper conceptual and linguistic
competence in a second language. Therefore, Krashen‘s (1995) input hypothesis builds
29
on Cummins‘s (1984, 2006) premise of a central processing system or common
underlying proficiency nourished by language that is comprehensible and facilitates
transfer.
Cummins has described language development on a continuum, with basic
interpersonal communication skills (BICS) at one end and cognitive academic language
proficiency (CALP) at the other (Cummins, 1984, 2000). Although not dichotomous,
Cummins has emphasized that BICS and CALP, are conceptually distinct and develop at
different rates. He asserted that BICS facilitate conversational skills, usually evolve over
a two-year period, are supported by contextual cues, and depend on a limited range of
vocabulary and syntax (Crawford, 2004; Cummins, 2006). Corson‘s (1993, 1995, 1997)
lexical analysis has suggested that conversational language often consists of one- to two-
syllable words of Anglo-Saxon origin that cannot be deconstructed into meaningful parts
(as cited in Cummins, 2006). In contrast, CALP commensurate with grade-level norms
can be achieved over a five- to seven-year period (Cummins, 1984). Crawford (2004) has
described CALP as classroom English and literacy related. Whereas CALP is not literacy
specific, Crawford has acknowledged that it often develops ―through the written word‖
(p. 196). CALP includes abstract comprehension, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation
often within a decontextualized context (Crawford, 2004; Cummins, 1984, 2006).
Compared to conversational language, CALP relies heavily on Greco-Latin vocabulary,
which consists of three- to four-syllable, discipline-specific words less likely to be
encountered in conversation (Corson, 1993, 1995, 1997; as cited in Cummins, 2006).
30
Thus, developing academic language bears a strong relationship to literacy (Cummins,
2006).
Relevant to instruction, Cummins (1984) designed a conceptual matrix based on
his CALP and BICS distinction that matches cognitive demands to necessary contextual
supports that maximize linguistic, cognitive, and academic growth (Crawford, 2004). His
model consists of two intersecting axes that form four distinct quadrants. Each quadrant
characterizes a task according to its level of accessibility based on its cognitive demands
and contextual supports. Cummins (2006) proposed that his matrix be used to dissect and
organize instruction. Using this framework, Cummins (1984) described how language
proficiency and instruction intersect. He emphasized the value of understanding students‘
skill level, the context of learning, and the curricular content to maximize opportunities
for learning. Cummins‘s (1984) threshold hypothesis explains that a minimum threshold
level of proficiency, or CALP, is required for students to achieve academically in a
second language (Crawford, 2004). When CALP in a students‘ native language is
interrupted, language minorities face cognitive disadvantages (Corson, 2000; Crawford,
2004). With adequate conversational skills and less-developed cognitive academic
language skills in both languages, language minorities face the inevitable fate of partial
bilingualism and school underachievement (Crawford, 2004; Cummins, 1984).
In summary, Cummins asserted that BICS and CALP develop distinctly and
weigh differently on instruction. BICS serves an interpersonal function, evolves quickly,
and is dependent on context-embedded vocabulary; in contrast, CALP is essential to
developing higher-order thinking skills and typically develops over a five- to seven-year
31
period. BICS and CALP are both served by a common underlying proficiency that
bridges conceptual understanding between languages and facilitates transfer and learning.
Consequently, language minority students who fail to develop CALP are left with
superficial language skills that are detrimental to their academic advancement.
Conclusion to Language Development
Chomsky, Krashen, and Cummins‘s language theories have drawn attention to
key principles that underscore language development and impact second language
acquisition and literacy. Collectively, they have proposed a language framework that
offers compelling dialogic insights and forces us to re-examine the complexities of
language diversity and its implications for instruction. From Chomsky (Crawford, 2004)
comes the underlying principle that all humans are biologically predisposed to acquire
language through innate principles of ―Universal Grammar‖ (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2005,
p. 655). MacSwan and Rolstad (2005) have held that all humans, irrespective of cultural
differences, acquire language. They define language as ―a set of expressions generated by
grammar, which map sound to meaning,‖ and characterize language proficiency, as a
state of linguistic maturity (MacSwan & Rolstad, 2003, 2005 p. 656). Extending these
fundamental principles, Krashen (1995) concluded that language acquisition follows a
natural order through comprehensible input supported by positive affective factors.
Cummins (1984, 2006) offered the theory of common underlying proficiency, the
distinction between BICS and CALP, and—most importantly—the relationship between
language proficiency and academic achievement. In essence, all typical human beings are
not only biologically equipped to acquire a first language, but can also use this universal
32
knowledge to acquire a second language. Central to this reasoning is the tenet that all
languages are rich in meaning and of equal value. Therefore, when provided time and
meaning, language will follow.
By explaining the natural progression of language development and second
language acquisition, these theoretical principles offer a contrasting perspective to the
language policies and political ideologies that currently govern instruction. Proponents of
English-Only and Standard English ideologies argue that to succeed academically,
language minorities must be immersed in English instruction and become proficient in
English as quickly as possible. Native language is viewed as an obstacle to academic
progress and irrelevant to educational gain (Crawford, 2004). From this perspective,
Latino school failure is understood in terms of deficits and remediation, as opposed to a
matter of educational equity. Latino achievement levels give reason to question these
assumptions (Goldenberg, 2010) and to challenge educational policies that dismiss the
complexity of learning content and English simultaneously. The theoretical concepts
proposed by Chomsky (Crawford, 2004), Krashen (1995), and Cummins (1984, 2006) are
fundamental to understanding the relationship between early language development and
instruction and long-term educational attainment. Relevant to discussing persistence
among Latino language minority community college students, these frameworks make an
important distinction between conversational language and academic language
proficiency. Together, they offer a base from which to examine how language shapes
opportunity and sets forth educational trajectories. Educational equity for language
33
minority students will be achieved when theory and practice are aligned and used to
inform educational policy (Cummins, 2006).
Although the inherent value of understanding the relationship between language
development and instruction cannot be underestimated, from this perspective alone
educational variability is often misconstrued as an autonomous phenomenon solely
related to instruction and ability. Moving from language as an individual process that
exists within a political climate, the next section explores the relationship between
minority identity and school performance. Contrary to approaches that stress a group‘s
shared traits, Ogbu‘s (1987, 1998) cultural-ecological theory examines intragroup
differences and offers insight into the social aspects of language. Ogbu has asserted that
neither minority status nor individual factors alone can fully account for school
performance (Matute-Bianchi, 1986). Thus, the following section introduces Ogbu‘s
cultural-ecological theory (1987, 1998), explaining his perspective on identity, status, and
intergroup relations and their impact on minority school attainment.
Cultural-Ecological Theory
Using a cultural-ecological approach, Ogbu (1987) introduced a conceptual
framework that explains educational variability among minority students. Ogbu (1987)
delved into the layers of group status that shape a minority group‘s relationship with the
dominant culture and influences their ability to cross cultural, linguistic, and opportunity
boundaries. With an emphasis in power relationships, his model examines social
interactions among groups and their effects on academic and social adjustment. This next
section will summarize Ogbu‘s (1987) conceptual framework, including his minority
34
typology, the role of social and community forces in minority group adaptation, and
differing cultural models. Also in this review are two studies that examine the social
context of learning and test components of Ogbu‘s thesis of minority adaptation.
Although Ogbu‘s theory does not stem from a pedagogical perspective, his work gleans
insight on educational interventions for minority students. By calling attention to issues
associated with class, race, culture, and power, he offers an alternative explanation for the
academic underachievement of minority students.
Amid the different types of anthropological research that include both solution-
oriented and comparative approaches, Ogbu (1987) has defined his own work as the
latter. Seeking to understand the nature of educational variability among minority
students, Ogbu (1987) examined domestic and foreign studies that suggested uneven
academic performance among groups of minority students with shared characteristics. He
found prevailing explanations for minority school underperformance to be inadequate,
including cultural, linguistic, cognitive, and interactional differences. He began his own
search for a better explanation. Underscoring stylistic differences previously noted, Ogbu
(1987) designed a model for exploring educational variability resting on factors related to
a minority group‘s history, subordination, exploitation, and its response to its social
status. Citing intergroup and intragroup differences in school performance, Ogbu (1987)
set up the premise for his research.
Understanding why some minority students succeed in school and others fail
requires an examination of the social forces influencing learning (Ogbu 1987). Although
Ogbu (1987) asserted that minority groups play an active rather than passive role in their
35
educational trajectories, he posited the existence of a dynamic relationship among social,
school, and community forces and group behavior. Social forces that act as a purveyor of
access create a structure of inequality that diverts minority students‘ social mobility
through disparate educational and employment opportunities. Underprepared by inferior
schooling, minorities enter the job market less equipped to perform higher paying jobs.
Minorities who bypass this challenge must then negotiate a job ceiling that fails to offer
commensurate rewards. School and classroom forces compound these problems through
lowered expectations and deficit ideologies that foster stereotypes and segregation.
Differences in levels of achievement are pathologized into a collective identity that
perpetuates a cycle of failure. According to Ogbu (1987), internal forces originating from
within a community further demarcate variability in school performance and create a
platform for exploring different types of minority status. The following sections examine
Ogbu‘s minority typology and the sociocultural forces that shape educational attainment.
Matute-Bianchi‘s (1986) application of Ogbu‘s framework follows, with insight into
cultural identity and school performance. Lastly, we look at how Ogbu and Simmons
(1998) explained minority school performance based on differing forms of minority
adaptation.
Minority Typology
Ogbu (1987) proposed a minority classification system, describing groups based
on their mode of incorporation, distinctive features, folk theory of success (FTS), social
identity, and degree of trust in the dominant culture. Although autonomous groups such
as Jews and Mormons are part of his classification system, Ogbu (1987) recognized that
36
they do not typically experience low school performance and are therefore not discussed
further in his work. Of primary relevance to his conceptual framework are voluntary and
involuntary minorities who must negotiate societal, school, and community forces as they
establish a relationship to the dominant culture.
Immigrant or voluntary minorities are individuals who have left their country of
origin by choice in search of improved opportunities. Ogbu (1987) characterized them by
primary cultural differences, or differences in content that existed before they met the
dominant population. Their folk theory of success relies on the notion that a U.S.
education is an improvement over the resources in their country of origin and that they
have the option of returning to their homeland. Using a dual frame of reference that
compares their current circumstances to those of their country of origin allows them to
interpret cultural differences and challenges as temporary barriers. They perceive
learning as an additive process that does not challenge their identity, but rather augments
their skills and helps them attain their long-term goals (Ogbu, 1987).
Castelike or involuntary minorities include people who have entered the United
States originally against their own will through slavery, colonization, or conquest (Ogbu,
1987). Ogbu (1987) has distinguished them by secondary cultural differences, or
differences that result after a minority group has come into contact with the dominant
group over an extended period. Involuntary minorities experience cultural inversion, a
sorting of behaviors, symbols, and events based on its association with the dominant
culture. This cultural inversion results in two opposing frames of reference that guide
behavior and define the group‘s collective identity. Barriers to success are reminders of
37
permanent inequalities that limit the group‘s mobility. Dissuaded by education,
involuntary minorities develop alternate coping strategies to evade rather than overcome
their circumstances. They distrust public institutions such as schools. They see education
as a threat to their own cultural identity and as a means to maintain the status quo. As
such, involuntary minorities develop an oppositional identity that is counterproductive to
advancing their education.
In sum, Ogbu (1987) has developed a minority typology that explains educational
variability based on intragroup differences. He has asserted that voluntary and
involuntary minorities will develop perceptions, responses, and adaptations to the
dominant culture based on how society incorporates them. This mode of incorporation
will impact whether school problems become permanent barriers or hurdles to overcome.
He has suggested three important factors as critical determinants for minority students‘
success in school: (a) equal access to education and to the rewards it brings, (b) an
educational model that does not negate a minority group‘s cultural and social identity,
and (c) school practices that generate trust. The following section explains how
sociocultural forces impact the educational outcomes of minority students.
Social Forces and Educational Attitudes
Building on Ogbu‘s work on underachieving Black students, Mickelson (1990)
explored the attitude achievement paradox among this group. Her study explained the
ambiguous relationship between the positive educational attitudes Blacks report and their
persistent failure in school. Mickelson (1990) compared abstract attitudes, global beliefs
that conform to the dominant ideology, to concrete attitudes that stem from situation-
38
specific, reality-based experiences. Applying this two-dimensional conceptual
understanding, she studied the relationship between the job opportunity structure and the
educational outcomes of high school students. Similar to Ogbu‘s (1987) conclusions, her
findings suggested that social forces related to race and class create uneven job
opportunities that influence the value students place on education. Without concrete
examples, Black students failed to view education as a bridge to adult opportunities.
When examined this way, Mickelson (1990) revealed that Black students‘ concrete
attitudes do, in fact, mirror their school achievement. Both she and Ogbu (1992) argued
that without changes to the job opportunity structure, concrete attitudes will continue to
undermine educational reform efforts that attempt to address minority school
achievement.
Cultural Forces and Learning
Shifting his attention from societal and school forces, Ogbu (1992) turned his
focus to the internal cultural forces that shape learning. Within the context of school
reform, Ogbu (1992) used his minority typology to explain how cultural forces impact
minority school performance. Ogbu (1992) asserted that pluralistic and uniform
curriculum models represent two ends of an educational reform continuum that fall short
in differentiating minority student needs and promoting their success. While content-
based instruction ignores diversity and multicultural education embraces it, absent in both
models is an awareness of why minorities relate differently to the dominant culture and
how this relationship impacts their ability to cross cultural boundaries. Although he
acknowledged that social, economic, and historical factors influence learning, the center
39
of Ogbu‘s (1992) discussion rests on how cultural forces orient students toward academic
success or failure.
Undergirding a minority group‘s status are a group‘s distinctive features, which
form the basis of their social and cultural identities and shape their relationship with the
dominant culture. Ogbu (1992) dispelled the notion that minority school
underperformance can be explored as a common phenomenon without attention to these
distinctive features. Relevant to immigrant and caste-like minorities are primary or
secondary cultural differences that shape how each group crosses linguistic and cultural
boundaries. Ogbu‘s (1992) framework applied these differences to explain the
educational variability of minority students and to examine possible solutions for
ameliorating minorities‘ academic and social difficulties.
When and how differences between a minority and dominant group manifest is an
important distinction that affects a minority group‘s identity formation. Primary cultural
differences exist before two groups interact. More often associated with voluntary
minorities, these differences do not represent a threat to their identity, but rather are
viewed as temporary obstacles to overcome. As such, the group may adapt to mainstream
cultural demands without surrendering its identity or feeling forced into linear
assimilation. Voluntary minorities embrace education as a vehicle for prosperity, and
pressure its members to succeed. In contrast, secondary cultural differences arise after
two groups come into contact, and the dominant group subordinates them through
institutions it controls. Stylistic differences stemming from group efforts to cope with
oppressive circumstances distinguish involuntary minorities. To preserve a sense of
40
collective identity, involuntary minorities associate school success with ―acting White‖
and may develop an oppositional identity that is counterproductive to school success
(Ogbu, 1992).
Cultural Identity and School Performance
Seeking to identify educational patterns among students commonly grouped,
Matute-Bianchi (1986) applied Ogbu‘s cultural-ecological framework to explore
educational variability among Mexican American and Japanese American high school
students. Her study examined how ethnicity, minority status, and ethnic identity shaped
students‘ views of educational rewards and influenced their academic achievement.
Similar to Ogbu (1992) and Mickelson (1990), Matute-Bianchi (1986) emphasized the
relationship between a student‘s social context and the value he or she places on
education.
Whereas all of the Japanese Americans students in Matute-Bianchi‘s (1986) study
were successful, academic success varied among Mexican American students. Grouped
according to their mode of incorporation, she found that Mexican American students‘
ethnic identities played a decisive role in influencing their level of success in school.
When compared to their Japanese American counterparts, Mexican American students
were less likely to have access to the types of real-life experiences that contribute to
concrete educational attitudes of success, as described by Mickelson (1990). Access to
models, knowledge of academic curriculum and its relationship to job opportunities, and
a student identity aligned with the dominant culture were defining characteristics among
Japanese American students that contributed to their school success. In contrast, Mexican
41
American students negotiated their cultural discontinuities in different manners, which
led to varying levels of school success.
As explained by Matute-Bianchi (1986), students‘ view of education as a vehicle
of social mobility was dependent on what Ogbu (1987) has described as defining
features, or primary and secondary cultural differences. Mexican American students who
saw the school‘s culture as a threat to their identity were more likely to disengage from
instruction than those who believed cultural differences were hurdles to overcome. Thus,
students‘ self-perceptions shaped their identities and constrained their willingness to
cross cultural boundaries. Matute-Bianchi‘s (1986) profiles of Mexican American and
Japanese American students illustrated how Ogbu‘s (1983) minority typology can be
used to explain educational variability among minority students.
In sum, Ogbu (1992) advised schools and communities to be aware of the
sociocultural forces that shape minorities‘ social identity and influence their school
performance. Mickelson‘s (1990) study supported Ogbu‘s (1983) premise and confirmed
a relationship between the educational outcomes of Black students and the job
opportunity structure. Similarly, Matute-Bianchi (1986) found that primary and
secondary cultural differences accounted for variance in the educational outcomes of
Mexican American and Japanese American students. Both studies emphasized the
relationship between sociocultural forces and educational attainment, drawing attention to
how students perceive, adapt, and respond to cultural and linguistic discontinuities. Ogbu
(1992) suggested that crossing cultural and linguistic boundaries involves the ability to
maintain a dual frame of reference that is neutral rather than subtractive in nature; thus,
42
students must be able to view education as a process that involves alternating between
cultural and linguistic identities that are equal in value—as opposed to a subtractive
process that strips them of their culture, language, and identity. In sum, minorities must
learn to separate success in education without submitting to the dominant culture and
surrendering their own identity. The following section offers an overview of Ogbu‘s
framework.
Differing Forms of Minority Adaptations
Ogbu and Simmons (1998) provided a retrospective examination of Ogbu‘s
conceptual framework. Offering a comprehensive review of Ogbu‘s cultural-ecological
theory, they summarized how his research has explained minority school performance.
Key concepts are clarified and implications for education are drawn out.
Two periods of research define Ogbu‘s focus on societal and community forces
and their impact on minority school performance. By summarizing his efforts, Ogbu and
Simmons (1998) provided a nearly operational definition of Ogbu‘s theory. Ogbu‘s
overall findings asserted that genetic, linguistic, and/or cultural differences do not
predispose a minority group to success or failure. Critical to a group‘s academic success
and social adjustment is the group‘s history of incorporation and its response to that
history. Ogbu and Simmons (1998) asserted that cultural-ecological theory rests on a
dynamic relationship between systemic societal forces that act as structural barriers and
community forces that limit how minorities perceive and respond to their circumstances.
Building on this premise, Ogbu based his minority classification system on power
relationships that are fluid rather than dichotomous. Ogbu and Simmons (1998) explained
43
that minority status is not about a group‘s numerical or racial representation, but rather
about how a group‘s beliefs and behaviors influence its achievement.
Ogbu and Simmons (1998) described cultural models, or patterns of adaptations,
by reviewing familiar terms and clarifying how groups understand their world and behave
in it. They discussed variations among minorities‘ status frame of reference, folk theory
of success, symbolic response and collective identity, and trust in White institutions
within the context of sociocultural adaptation and the role it plays in school achievement.
Differences in how voluntary and involuntary minorities develop a cultural model of
adaptation characterize patterns of success and failure. A dual frame of reference, a folk
theory of success that incorporates education as a bridge to opportunities, ―pragmatic
trust,‖ and assimilation through accommodation all support voluntary minorities in their
pursuit of education (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998, p. 174). The pairing of community forces
that reflect positive attitudes and a commitment to school learning positions them to
overcome academic and social challenges. In contrast, Ogbu characterized involuntary
minorities by their negative frame of reference, a folk theory of success centered on
coping with or challenging discrimination, distrust of White institutions and an
oppositional collective identity that defines them by their differences. Community forces
foster ambivalent attitudes toward education and a protective stance in holding on to their
culture. As such, involuntary minorities face unique educational challenges not
experienced by others.
Although Ogbu and Simmons (1998) confirmed that Ogbu‘s cultural-ecological
theory does not address teaching strategies, they concluded their article by offering
44
pedagogical implications. They cautioned educators against setting up expectations for
learning based on group membership. They stressed building trust, utilizing culturally
responsive pedagogy, addressing students‘ oppositional identities, and developing
inclusive practices that form partnerships with parents and communities. Lastly, Ogbu
and Simmons (1998) questioned whether educational reform alone could adequately
address the needs of involuntary minority students.
Ogbu (1987, 1992, 1998) has proposed a framework that examines educational
variability among minority students. His model counters common explanations that focus
on minorities‘ stylistic differences and looks instead at group interactions based on power
relations formed by class, race, and cultural distinctions. Ogbu (1987, 1992, 1998)
emphasized the value of understanding a group‘s history and its relationship with the
dominant culture, challenging the reader to see beyond common homogeneous groupings.
Moreover, Ogbu compelled the reader to look deeper into the intricate differences among
groups and the social, school, and community forces shaping minority adaptation to
mainstream culture. Beyond exploring how these differences manifested, he explained
how these factors impacted minorities‘ ability to cross cultural, linguistic, and
opportunity boundaries that, in turn, influenced their academic success (Ogbu, 1987,
1992). Ogbu concluded by offering insight into the role of social change in promoting
educational reform.
Conclusion to Cultural-Ecological Theory
Ogbu‘s (1987, 1992, 1998) cultural-ecological theory raises pertinent issues
relevant to second-generation Latino language minority students. Wedged between
45
cultures, these students do not fit neatly into Ogbu‘s (1987) minority typology; they are
neither foreign born nor neophytes of American culture, yet their social and linguistic
features make them different from their monolingual native-born peers and their
immigrant parents. This group represents a hybrid culture with unique experiences and
perspectives. How they navigate these differences is relevant to their cultural identity and
their educational attainment. Just as Matute-Bianchi (1986) used Ogbu‘s framework to
explore the school performance of Mexican American students, further application of his
construct may increase our understanding of this growing subgroup of Latinos. My study
is a modest effort in this direction. Key elements identified by Ogbu (1987) related to a
minorities‘ mode of incorporation, folk theory of success, distinctive features, and degree
of trust in the dominant culture are relevant to a group‘s social identity. Examining what
bearing these issues have on second-generation Latino language minorities‘ persistence is
essential to understanding their underachievement.
C. Wright Mills has stated that ―the life of an individual cannot be adequately
understood without reference to the institutions within which his biography is enacted‖
(Lareau, 2003, p.14). Thus, the study of educational attainment inevitably leads to
questions surrounding the structure and function of educational institutions. Building on
second language acquisition and cultural-ecological theory, the final section of this
chapter examines how language minorities navigate social and institutional contexts and
their ability to develop institutional support (Lareau, 2003; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Social
capital theory will be used to examine how power relations permeate education and shape
the economy and exchange of valued resources. The following section will bring closure
46
to a cyclical process that begins and ends with our educational institutions and the
individuals who work in them.
Social Capital
Social capital has drawn much attention among educational researchers. Weighing
in on factors such as family structure and issues of access, researchers have linked social
capital to educational life chances. Although social capital has a history of indiscriminate
application in educational literature, current researchers show promise in developing a
more refined understanding and utility of its tenets (Dika & Singh, 2002). This section
will examine the origin of social capital theory, review its use in educational literature,
and examine the study of institutional agents within a social capital framework.
Origins and History of Social Capital
Dika and Singh (2002) outlined and critiqued the body of literature that links
social capital to educational outcomes and tested the empirical data that supports this
relationship. Their review traced the origin and definition of social capital to the work of
Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman. Whereas Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) both
accepted the role of relationships in accumulating social capital, their conceptual models
differ in many respects, and scholars have used them to different ends. Bourdieu‘s (1986)
work stemmed from theories of social reproduction and power and focused on the
structural constraints that legitimize inequality. He placed a heavy emphasis on the
quantity and quality of relationships that facilitate access to power and reproduce social
class. Less used in early educational literature, Bourdieu‘s work appears to be having a
greater impact on contemporary research. Structural functionalism was at the root of
47
Coleman‘s (1988) perspective on social capital. From his perspective, social capital is a
positive form of social control, which families transmit through norms that enhance
individual outcomes. Although Coleman ignored issues of access, his attention to family
structure and adult networks made his theory more attractive to educational scholars.
Wading through a barrage of conceptual and measurement issues, Dika and Singh
(2002) studied the trends of social capital in the educational literature. Despite
recognizing a positive association between variables measuring social capital and
educational outcomes, their findings questioned the scope and uniform utility of the term
and the directionality of the construct. Limited by the convenience of accessible data,
Dika and Singh (2002) suggested that much of the literature offered a tapered
understanding of social capital or a vague representation of the term that confounded its
meaning. They argued that a strong theoretical foundation that explained the role of
social capital in education had yet to be established. With issues related to race and class
remaining unexplained, resources and outcomes described in a circular manner, and a
lack of focus on adolescent agency, the application of social capital theory, they felt, was,
ambiguous at best. Nevertheless, Dika and Singh (2002) hoped that future research would
follow the lead of Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2001) and Lareau (1989) and further explore
social capital by examining issues of access and inequality. They voiced the expectation
that a growing number of qualitative studies would also contribute to a more
comprehensive understanding of social capital.
48
Perspectives on Social Capital and Educational Inequality
Linking Coleman‘s (1988) model of social capital to minority and immigrant
populations, Kao (2004) illustrated conceptual gaps in applying his framework to explain
the educational stratification of disenfranchised groups. Kao‘s (2004) commentary
highlighted how race, ethnicity, and immigrant status offered perspective to Coleman‘s
narrow view of socialization. As defined by Coleman (1988), social capital is an
intangible form of currency that manifests in relationships and provides access to desired
resources. Relevant to minorities, three forms of social capital are influenced by their
status: (a) obligations and expectations, (b) information channels, and (c) social norms
(Kao, 2004). Kao (2004) explained how an individual‘s immigrant status narrows or
blocks these conduits and results in differential access to resources. She suggested that
alienation creates reduced opportunities for the exchange of resources through obligations
and expectations. Limited language and cultural fluency limit minorities‘ access to
information and their ability to pass on knowledge. Finally, the benefits of social control
gained through group membership are less meaningful to immigrants, because they may
be free from common or shared expectations of behavior.
Following themes in the educational literature suggested by Dika and Singh
(2002), Kao‘s (2004) work described the conceptualization of social capital as ―murky‖
and its application as loose (p. 172). Whereas she acknowledged the link between social
capital and educational outcomes, Kao suggested that future research should focus on
issues of access related specifically to racial and ethnic minorities. A more inclusive
analysis of social capital that integrates social stratification with Coleman‘s benevolent
49
perspective may offer insight into the possibility of counterproductive forms of capital. In
calling for a more precise definition, Kao also asserted that the potential of positive or
negative forms of social capital, and the intensity of ties, are factors that should be
examined when exploring the educational outcomes of immigrant students. Her work
aligned with Dika and Singh (2002) in calling for more refinement in conceptualizing
social capital and its application in educational research.
With a focus on educational inequality, McDonough and Nuñez (2007) offered a
Bourdieuian perspective that explained how educational institutions reproduce and
legitimize social class. Relevant to minorities and immigrant populations, the authors
summarize Bourdieu‘s framework by explaining key tenets fundamental to his theory.
Bourdieu asserted that implicit, subtle actions form codes of distinction that, in turn,
shape power relations and mask oppression under the guise of meritocracy. Important to
understanding Bourdieu‘s work is the relationship and exchange between individuals and
institutions. By melding structure with culture, Bourdieu explained how interactions
among groups form the basis of educational institutions and recreate the existing social
order.
According to Bourdieu, individuals are constantly involved in the exchange of
different types of capital for the purpose of maximizing social profit. Within his theory,
capital refers to a ―relationship, attribute, characteristic or possession that can be
exchanged for goods, services or esteem‖ (McDonough & Nuñez, 2007, p. 143).
Specifically, Bourdieu described four forms of capital: economic, cultural, social, and
symbolic, all four of which can be both accumulated and converted. Economic capital is
50
simply explained as financial wealth or an individual‘s assets. Cultural capital is defined
as attitudes and behaviors valued by society and passed on by the privileged class to its
children. Examples of cultural capital include language, information, knowledge, and
credentials. Social capital refers to relationships or networks that garner access to
resources. Lastly, symbolic capital represents the power to decide what is valued in
society (McDonough & Nuñez, 2007, p. 145–148). Bourdieu equated the drive to
accumulate capital to the pursuit of power and status.
To explain educational outcomes beyond socioeconomic factors, Bourdieu
expanded his framework by developing the concepts of cultural and social capital. While
he described cultural capital as attitudes, behavior, and knowledge that facilitate school
success, he defined social capital as networks and relationships that facilitate the flow of
information and help individuals navigate systems of status. Bourdieu explained how
individuals utilize their acquired habitus, their disposition/socialization, and perceptions
to convert and maximize their cultural capital within the social space that they inhabit.
Taken together, Bourdieu‘s work offered a platform from which to explore social
reproduction and educational inequality.
In sum, the social capital framework has evolved from the work of Pierre
Bourdieu (1986) and James Colemen (1988), giving insight to issues of educational
access and minority underachievement. Although past applications of this construct
lacked uniformity, current research has become more focused and refined (Dika & Singh,
2002). The following section introduces the work of Stanton-Salazar (1997), whose
emphasis on institutional support has brought clarity to the educational experiences of
51
minority youth. Whereas the reader will find his discussion of linguistic and cultural
borders complementary to Ogbu‘s framework, Stanton-Salazar extends the social capital
construct beyond its familiar applications. By emphasizing the role of agents and their
impact on school success and status attainment, he draws attention to key forms of
support essential to accessing valued resources within the school system.
Institutional Agents and Networks of Support
Building upon components of Bourdieu‘s and Coleman‘s models of social capital,
Stanton-Salazar‘s (1997) conceptual framework integrated social capital with institutional
support. Citing Bourdieu (1986), he applied the principles of economic exchange to the
context of education, where capital is accumulated and converted through social ties and
networks. Inherent in the structure of these relationships is what Coleman (1988) has
described as obligations and expectations that facilitate opportunities to convert ties into
resources. Departing from mainstream individualistic approaches, Stanton-Salazar (1997)
explored social and ideological forces that expand and constrain these opportunities. He
used a social highway metaphor to explain how social networking pathways used by the
dominant culture are characteristically different for minority students. Functioning within
the context of class, race, and gender hierarchies, institutional agents act as gatekeepers,
or instrumental and supportive agents who control the distribution and transmission of
capital. Stanton-Salazar‘s (1997) framework seeks to explain how institutional forces that
favor the dominant class take on an exclusionary role for minority students and contribute
to their school failure.
52
Stanton-Salazar (1997) asserted that institutional support provides continuity to
healthy human development. It extends an individual‘s opportunity to develop
instrumental relationships beyond his or her home setting. While amassed social capital
may be in place, instrumental action, or converting social capital into institutional
support, requires successful interactions with agents. Examples of this capital include
knowledge, bridging, advocacy, role modeling, mentoring, and emotional or moral
assistance. Among the different forms of knowledge that foster educational attainment,
Stanton-Salazar (1997) contended, differences between primary and secondary discourses
among minority youth make it difficult for them to engage powerful adults, problem
solve, and decode the institutional culture. Contrary to their middles-class peers—and
without direct instruction on how best to manage these circumstances—minority youth
must learn to negotiate academic and politically laden contexts to access support.
Conflicted by uneven power relations and institutionalized dependency, minority
youth struggle to form supportive relationships with institutional agents. Policies and
practices, tension among groups in the surrounding community, and the conflicting and
conditional roles of school staff foster distrust and disengagement from the educational
system. Borders and barriers defining cultural perimeters are erected, and minority youth
must develop skills for entering and crossing. Because minority youth grow up within a
context of differing cultural, economic, linguistic, and structural worlds, their ability to
overcome barriers rests on their capacity to negotiate support through personal and social
agency. Minority youth must see beyond the myths of meritocracy and fair competition
and learn to recognize the exclusionary forces that stem from an individualistic ideology
53
that permeates our educational system (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Decoding the system, or
deciphering the culture of power within a school setting, is a precursor to negotiating the
power relations that lead to access to resources and promote mobility. Successful
socialization of minority youth will depend on their ability to develop a bicultural
network orientation that allows them to cross cultural borders, and insulates them from
the ambivalence of competing cultural norms. Stanton-Salazar (1997) concluded by
encouraging educational reform to move beyond interventions that socially reproduce the
existing structure and to channel efforts into network orientation models that alter the
culture of power within schools.
Empowerment Agents
Within the realm of social capital, Stanton-Salazar (1997) introduced a framework
that explores the role of institutional agents as conduits of support. In his current work, he
delved deeper into empowerment and added specificity to familiar terms and ideas.
Citing an array of research, Stanton-Salazar (2010) has remained focused on explicating
the value of nonkin relationships in fostering the prosocial development of youth.
Specifically, his work concerned low status youth‘s differential access to agents and the
capital they impart. Stanton-Salazar (2010) clearly distinguished between adults who
function as protective agents or are able to offer support and nonkin adults who
contribute to an individual‘s social mobility. Because adolescent development exists
within the context of social stratification based on class, gender, and race hierarchies, he
asserted that access to channels of institutional support is systematically different for low-
status and middle-class youth. Stanton-Salazar (2010) affirmed that healthy development
54
and socialization hinge on instrumental relationships with institutional agents, and that
the process for accessing these relationships is complex for low-status youth. He
introduced the concept of ―countervailing forces,‖ which he described as fundamental to
youth‘s empowerment (Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p. 11).
Refining existing terms, Stanton-Salazar (2010) painted a landscape of actors,
agents, networks, structure, and capital. He explained that an institutional agent is an
individual who holds a position of status and applies his or her own sources of capital on
behalf of another to transmit or negotiate the exchange of institutional support. Found
within a wide array of networks, both personal and social factors influence how
institutional agents perceive and perform their roles. Ranging from transmission to
maintenance, the capital they pass on will vary according to the social structure and
stratification system in which they exist. Stanton-Salazar (2010) revisited the challenges
faced by low-status youth that impair their ability to form supportive ties. In contrast to
their middle-class peers, minority youth must navigate a social maze characterized by
structural forces that are antithetical to generating trust and solidarity. Wedged within this
context of inequality, institutional agents emerge and ―counter‖ the exclusionary forces
that reproduce the existing social structure.
Grounded in the work of Freire (1993) and critical social work, Stanton-Salazar
(2010) directed his attention toward empowering students through a social support
system that calls on agents to enable low-status youth to decode the system of power. He
described the decoding process as one that involves competencies that must be taught.
Minority youth must learn that goal attainment can be achieved through the resources of
55
others who act as agents. Students must learn how to identify these key players and
purveyors of capital, and tap into them for support. Also essential to academic prosperity
is the ability to manage the politics of networks and to activate multiple funds of
knowledge. Mastering these funds of knowledge, which involve understanding the
implicit and explicit codes specific to the institutional context, is critical to student
mobility. Going beyond the institutional agent, Stanton-Salazar (2010) introduced the
concept of an ―empowering agent,‖ an actor who seeks to transform the consciousness of
the students he/she serves, while challenging and changing the world in which they exist
(p. 24). From this perspective, his framework addressed social change through
relationships that confront oppression through ―empowerment social capital‖ (Stanton-
Salazar, 2010, p. 28). As such, he made clear the following distinction: institutional
agents offer meaningful access to students; empowering agents change students‘ lives.
In sum, agents act within the limits of their own personal and professional
resources and the networks that are accessible to them. They can fulfill multiple roles for
the same student. Stanton-Salazar (2010) has suggested that an agent‘s ability to impart
capital rests on his/her own level of awareness and the structure of his/her social network.
Agents who adhere to a network orientation, endorse empowerment through others and
skillfully collaborate with agents who can facilitate the needs of their students. Both the
diversity of an agent‘s network and its size are important structural characteristics that
allow an agent to access resources across disciplinary and organizational boundaries.
Finally, access is multiplied when an agent functions as a bridge and broker. Whereas
56
bridging may offer a resource of quality, the span of a broker may offer diversity and
opportunities.
Conclusion to Social Capital
The literature reviewed in this last section has followed the evolution of social
capital framework in educational research. Despite past problems with its
conceptualization, measurement, and utility, social capital remains a useful lens through
which to examine the educational outcomes of minority youth. Educational scholars are
moving past vague interpretations, making meaningful contributions to this body of
literature (Dika & Sing, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2010). Integrating the work of
Coleman and Bourdieu, Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2010) developed a network analytic
approach that explains minority school performance. Consistent throughout his work are
the themes of negotiation and border crossing and a focus on the role of institutional
agents in facilitating or obstructing access to support. Stanton-Salazar (2010) calls on
institutional agents to transcend their roles by challenging the existing social order and
empowering students to change their lives.
Summary of the Literature
Despite the nation‘s ongoing educational reform efforts, disproportionate numbers
of Latinos remain locked in a cycle of poverty and low educational attainment.
Undergirding this perpetual ―achievement gap‖ is a misconstrued understanding of the
subtleties of language among the general public (Valdes, 2004) and a lack of consensus
regarding ―the extent and nature of support that second language learners require to
achieve academically‖ (Cummins, 2006, p. 57). Long-term outcomes often become lost
57
in dominant ideologies that overlook the obvious challenge of learning content and
language simultaneously. Thus, the public‘s focus on accountability measures and short-
term solutions has proven to be counterproductive in helping Latino language minority
students acquire a conceptual foundation that is essential to their academic language
proficiency and their preparation for higher education (Crawford, 2004; Cummins, 2006;
Gandara & Rumberger, 2009). Second-generation Latino language minority students
often display the characteristics that Valdes (1999) has associated with functional
bilinguals, and that Cummins (2006) has observed in partial bilingualism. They acquire
the surface features of language, but struggle with complex grammatical structures and
abstractions necessary for their academic advancement. While failed approaches endure
and models of success appear scarce, questions pertaining to persistence remain
unanswered. The literature reviewed in this chapter draws connections among individual,
group, and institutional factors that impact persistence in higher education. This chapter
concludes by reviewing key points drawn out in the literature.
Second-generation Latino students are often raised in homes where Spanish is the
dominant language, and they begin school with varying levels of English language
fluency. With language policy and theory as a backdrop, my first research question
explores how second-generation Latino language minority students describe the process
and context of learning English, and what bearing this has on their academic
advancement. By tapping into the participants‘ language histories and educational
programming, I examined individual and sociopolitical factors that impact persistence.
Wiley and Lukes (1996) have asserted that monolingual and individualistic ideologies
58
have won favor among the American public and created an educational structure that
views language diversity as a problem. Thus, students must become proficient in English
as fast as possible and master academic content simultaneously. Their inability to do so
reinforces deficit ideology and places them at risk for school failure (Crawford, 2004).
Chomsky (Crawford, 2004), Krashen (1995), and Cummins (2006) asserted that language
is both an internal cognitive function and a social construct. Their work explained the
distinction between language and learning, and draws a connection to social factors that
influence how language is acquired and used. Their frameworks were used as a
foundation to explore the relationship between academic language and persistence in
higher education. Although there is little consensus regarding what constitutes academic
language (Valdes, 2004)—and how best to achieve it—the ability to understand
classroom instruction and textbook language (Valdes, 1998) and to use this language in a
cognitively demanding manner is inextricably linked to academic success. Thus,
academic language in its intangible and abstract form represents a lifeline that is critical
to educational attainment.
Wedged between cultures, second-generation Latino language minority students
must learn to cross cultural bridges and come to terms with who they are in society. My
second research question asks: How does being a non-native English speaker shape the
identity of second-generation Latino language minority college students? How do these
students conform to Ogbu‘s typology? Given the influx of Latino language minority
students within our educational system, educators face growing numbers of English
speakers whose instructional needs do not fit neatly into categories. The image of who
59
Latino language minority students are continues to unfold with the country‘s changing
demographics and its political identity. Mirroring this diversity, students attending
community colleges enter with different language proficiency skills, cultural experiences,
and educational backgrounds (Harklau, 1999). Although public discourse often speaks of
Latino language minority students as a homogenous group, descriptive categories that
capture the unique linguistic and cultural attributes of second-generation Latino language
minority students are beginning to emerge and warrant further study and understanding.
Ogbu‘s (1987) minority typology drew attention to the social and cultural forces that
impact learning and offered an alternative explanation for minority underachievement.
He explained cultural identity by examining a group‘s distinctive features, mode of
incorporation, folk theory of success, and their relationship with the dominant culture.
Although second-generation Latino language minority students do not fit neatly into
Ogbu‘s model, my second research question explores the unique attributes of this group.
Using Mickelson (1990) and Matute-Bianchi (1986) as models, my study examines
academic advancement by testing components of Ogbu‘s framework.
Standard English is a form of institutionally sanctioned discourse essential to
decoding the system of power within schools and negotiating relationships that garner
resources (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). It can denote status and bestow—or deny—privilege
(Wiley & Lukes, 1996). As low-status youth, Latino language minorities must navigate
social networks and ties that favor the dominant culture and not their own. Following this
rationale, my third research question asks: What social networks support second-
generation Latino language community college minority students‘ progress toward
60
transfer? How are relationships forged, and who are the agents involved? Stanton-
Salazar (1997) has asserted that educational resources negotiated through social networks
and relationships are instrumental to Latinos‘ educational advancement (Stanton-Salazar,
1997). Using a social highway metaphor, he (1997), explained that the pathways used by
the dominant class are different for minority students and often take on an exclusionary
function. The literature reviewed in this chapter confirms that Latino educational
advancement is contingent on their ability to manage the politics of networks and to
activate multiple funds of knowledge. My last research question examines how Latino
language minority students forge relationships, and what impact these relationships have
on their educational trajectories.
Political rhetoric and ideological discussions existing within separate planes and
educational disciplines continue to detract attention from the institutional practices within
our school system that create barriers for language minority students (Valdes, 2004). At
the center of this discussion are questions about literacy and academic language. Within
the body of literature reviewed in this chapter, a uniform definition of academic language
remains problematic, and attention to Latino intragroup differences is just beginning to
emerge. Second-generation Latino language minorities are a unique subgroup with
distinct cultural and linguistic characteristics, and their growing presence in our schools
cannot be ignored. As low-status youth, they must navigate social and institutional
contexts and how they do so shapes their ability to develop institutional support (Lareau,
2003; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Additional research that focuses on understanding their
unique features and needs is warranted if discussions pertaining to their achievement are
61
to extend beyond gaps and short-term solutions. This study looks to generate new
knowledge relevant to the success of this understudied group.
62
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction to Methodology
Latinos represent the nation‘s fastest growing minority population, yet the number
of Latinos who earn a college degree has remained stagnant during the past two decades
(Gandara & Contreras, 2009). Transitioning from a k–12 system in need of reform,
Latino language minority students pursuing higher education are often underprepared for
college-level literacy demands (Bunch, 2009). These students—referred to as ―settlers,‖
―partial,‖ or ―functional bilinguals‖—are immersed in English instruction in the k–12
setting and most often are not literate in Spanish. They quickly develop conversational
fluency in English, but they struggle with the cognitive academic language demands of
content instruction (Bunch, 2008; Cummins, 1984; Ogbu 1987; Valdes, 1999). With
minimal options for postsecondary education, they enter community colleges ailed by
low transfer rates and enter a black hole of nontransfer-bearing coursework. Statistics
paint a bleak picture of Latino success in this setting. Overrepresented in basic skills
courses (Sengupta & Jensen, 2006), their progress toward transfer is jeopardized by a
disjointed educational system that has failed to adequately address their needs. While
politics and ideology continue to obscure a solution through fragmented approaches and
public opinion, educational and economic equity will continue to elude these students.
This applied qualitative study explores the academic trajectory of second-generation
Latino language minority students who have been instructed in English immersion
63
programs in the k–12 setting and placed into precollegiate English coursework at the
community college. This chapter outlines the study‘s methodology and offers a synopsis
of the theoretical frameworks that informed the interview protocol used for data
collection.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to explore how second-generation Latino language
minority students persist through linguistic barriers, develop academic language
proficiency, and pave a path toward higher education. Thus, the overarching goal of this
study is to understand how these students alter their academic trajectories. Contrary to
quantitative approaches that obscure Latinos‘ heterogeneity or rely on numerical data to
account for their experiences, this study focuses specifically on second-generation Latino
community college students and elicits their perspectives on matters of educational
success. Using a semistructured interview format, I examined individual, group, and
institutional factors that foster persistence toward transfer. Hagedorn and Lester (2006)
have defined transfer as a ―dichotomous event and transfer readiness as a continuous
variable or process‖ (p. 835). Although I acknowledge the value of transfer as a notable
objective, the focus of my study was to explore factors that foster persistence and build
transfer readiness; hence, transfer readiness represents a unifying strand across all of my
research questions.
My research questions were informed by the three conceptual frameworks
presented in the previous chapter. The first research question asks, How do second-
generation Latino language minority students describe the process and context of learning
64
English, and what bearing does this have on their academic advancement? Language
theory was used as a lens through which to examine individual characteristics and/or
circumstances that helped the participants develop academic language. Chomsky‘s
(Crawford, 2004) language development, Krashen‘s (1995) second language acquisition,
and Cummins‘s (1984) language and literacy frameworks were used to explore key
principles that underscore language and learning. The second research question asks,
How does being a non-native English speaker shape the identity of second-generation
Latino language minority community college students? How do these students conform
to Ogbu‘s typology? This question used cultural-ecological theory to examine how a
group‘s distinctive features shape their ability to cross linguistic and cultural barriers. By
examining the participants‘ folk theory of success, status frame of reference, and their
relationship with the dominant culture, I explored how second-generation Latino
language minorities fit Ogbu‘s minority typology. The last research question was
informed by social capital theory; it asks, What social networks support second-
generation Latino language minority community college students‘ progress towards
transfer? How are relationships forged, and who are the agents involved? Following the
work of Stanton-Salazar (1997), this last question examined the role of institutional
agents and explored how others were involved in the transmission and maintenance of
social capital. Combined, these frameworks provided a tiered perspective from which to
examine student persistence. The following section describes the sampling procedures
used for the study.
65
Sample Population
The first step in developing my sample was to locate community colleges with a
large Latino demographic that could help facilitate my study. Because Latinos represent
50% of the ―La Loma Community College District (LLCCD) in Los Angeles,‖ which
educates ―approximately three times as many Latino students as all UC campuses‖
(Bunch, 2010), my goal was to conduct my study at one of its colleges. English
department chairs at several of the LLCCD colleges with the highest percentage of
Hispanic students were contacted via phone and email and were invited to participate in
the study. At the same time, contact was made with the English department chair at
Brooke Community College, a one-campus district outside of the LLCCD but also in the
Los Angeles area and with a high representation of Latino students. Although one of the
LLCCD campuses welcomed the study, logistical factors impeded the investigator from
recruiting student participants and carrying out the study as planned; thus, Brooke
Community College was the single site selected for the study.
Brooke Community College is a comprehensive public institution. Serving over
20,000 students, it is one of the five largest community colleges in Los Angeles County.
In the fall of 2011, Hispanic students accounted for 55% of its total enrollment and
constituted the largest ethnic group on the campus. At the time the study was conducted,
Brooke Community College offered academic, transfer, and occupational programs and
served a diverse population from the surrounding communities. Similar to other
community colleges that shared its student demographic, a large percentage of its
students must advance through precollegiate coursework in order to meet transfer criteria.
66
The Brooke Community College Office of Research and Planning reported that only
14.9% of its fall 2010 enrollment placed into college-level English, and 7.7% placed into
college-level math. More than two-thirds of its students attended school on a part-time
basis and more than half of its students were between the ages of 19 and 24. Taken
together, these facts confirmed that Brooke College was an optimal site to recruit students
for my study.
After I made initial contact with Mr. Davidson, the Brooke Community College
English Department chair, I obtained permission to proceed with the study from the
Office of Research and Planning. Facilitation of the study required permission to
distribute a preliminary survey in all sections of English 100,101, 102, and 103 courses,
willingness from staff to be interviewed, access to space to conduct the interviews, and
student consent to participate in the study. A purposeful sample would be developed
based on student responses to the preliminary survey. The questions on the survey
delineated the specific characteristics I sought in my sample and requested the students‘
voluntary participation and contact information. Latino students were recruited based on
the following criteria: second-generation status, Spanish used within the home,
instruction in English immersion or quick exit programs in the k–12 setting, placement
below English 100, current enrollment or completion of English 100, and a transfer
objective. One thousand nine hundred and sixty eight preliminary surveys were prepared
for distribution in 62 English classes. Twenty-eight completed packets were returned to
the investigator by the assigned deadline. The preliminary surveys were first sorted by
students who agreed to volunteer for the study, next by the study‘s participation criteria,
67
and last by gender. Forty-two students met all of the study‘s criteria and were willing to
participate in the study. The surveys were arranged in random order and numbered.
Following a numerical sequence, students were contacted by phone and or email and
asked to schedule an interview. Surveys with incorrect contact information were set
aside. Contact was discontinued with students who did not return calls or show up for
their scheduled interview dates. Alternate students were selected following a random
numerical order.
My sample consisted of nine participants: five female and four male Latino
second-generation community college students. All of the participants were instructed in
English immersion or quick exit programs in the k–12 public school system, over the age
of 18, born in the United States, and raised in Spanish-speaking homes. Two of the
students were of Central American descent, and seven were of Mexican ancestry. All of
the students indicated transfer as their educational objective, and eight out of the nine
students placed one level below English 100. Six participants were full-time students, and
three attended school on a part-time basis. Three students were unemployed at the time of
the interview, three students held part-time jobs, and three students worked full time.
Several students had the opportunity to enroll in honors line or Advanced Placement
English coursework in high school, and four of the participants reported having done so.
Two participants attended honors line English, and two others completed AP English.
These nine students served as my unit of analysis.
68
Instrumentation
Information discussed in the first chapter was used to generate a student profile
for my study. I developed a preliminary survey with questions pertaining to language and
academic advancement that matched the characteristics of second-generation Latino
language minority students at risk for attrition and underachievement. I sought students
who reported non-native English language proficiency, second-generation status,
instruction in English immersion programs, placement in precollegiate English
coursework at the community college, and a desire to transfer to a four-year university.
Because my study examined change, I wanted to include students who met the at risk
criteria, but also represented the average community college student working toward
transfer; as such, I purposely chose not recruit students from special programs on
campus.
The preliminary survey asked 12 demographic questions pertaining to the
student‘s minority status, language and educational history, language fluency, class
enrollment, and plans for transfer. It consisted of yes/no and a few fill in the blank
questions and a five-item Likert scale pertaining to the student‘s literacy skills. The
survey took an average of five minutes to complete. It was used to confirm adult status,
ask for consent to participate in the study, and obtain the student‘s contact information.
The preliminary survey was field tested with five adult volunteers who met most of the
study‘s criteria. It was revised for clarity and breadth with my dissertation chair prior to
beginning the study. The survey was distributed to students enrolled in English 100, 101,
102 and 103 classes. Although it was used primarily as a way to recruit students and
69
identify a sample pool, the survey also provided background information used as a
starting point for the student interviews.
The interview protocol used to generate data was also developed by the principal
investigator. It consisted of 32 questions that stemmed from three bodies of literature:
language theory, Ogbu‘s cultural-ecological theory, and social capital theory. With
educational policy as a backdrop, the questions explored individual, relational, and
institutional factors that had helped students navigate pathways to success. The interview
protocol was designed to be administered in a semistructured interview format over the
course of two sessions. It was field tested with four adult volunteers who met most of the
study‘s criteria. Questions were revised for clarity and depth, under the guidance of my
dissertation chair, prior to beginning the study and were grouped by theoretical construct.
The first 13 questions delved into the student‘s language history, language
proficiency, and instruction. By first examining the participant‘s language development
and programming in the k–12 setting, these questions tapped into how early experiences
shaped students‘ future educational opportunities and mobility. Thus, my first research
question asked, How do second-generation Latino language minority students describe
the process and context of learning English, and what bearing does this have on their
academic advancement? Using language theory, I developed a strand of questions based
on language constructs outlined by Cummins (1984, 2000), Krashen (1995), and
Crawford (2006). These questions were guided by Cummins‘s (1984, 2000) language
development continuum, which emphasizes the difference between basic interpersonal
language skills and more cognitively complex forms of language used in school. I asked
70
participants to self-assess their academic language skills, describe the quality of their
instruction, and identify instructional practices, or study skills that made a difference in
their learning. Questions pertaining to the social context of language were informed by
the work of Krashen (1995) and Crawford (2004) and were designed to frame the
students‘ experiences. With these questions, I sought to explore factors related to
teaching and learning and institutional and individual responsibility. Responses
pertaining to the students‘ linguistic and educational ideologies emerged unexpectedly
and offered insight into their political acumen. Overall, the questions in this strand were
designed to explore the progression of developing academic language proficiency in
English. The questions tapped the participant‘s understanding of academic language and
how it relates to learning.
The next 10 questions explored the relationship between cultural identity and
school attainment and were derived from Ogbu‘s cultural-ecological theory (1987).
Hence, this set of questions was developed to address my second research question, How
does being a non-native English speaker shape the identity of second-generation Latino
language minority community college students? How do these students conform to
Ogbu‘s typology? Ogbu (1987) offered a lens through which to examine educational
variability and student persistence. By tapping into the participants‘ mode of
incorporation, folk theory of success, social identity, and degree of trust in the dominant
culture, these questions examined the participants‘ propensity to conform to Ogbu‘s
(1987) minority typology and its bearing on educational attainment. Ogbu (1987) asserted
that language is inherently linked to identity and is part of a group‘s distinctive features.
71
Weighing in on these ideas, I sought to explore how additive or subtractive experiences,
language categories, and generational status related to the participants‘ cultural identity
and enhanced or limited their educational growth. It is generally accepted that identity
development is fluid in nature; thus, these questions explored the possibility and
conditions for change.
The last set of questions examined language as a form of currency within the
social capital framework. Using Stanton-Salazar‘s (1997) work on institutional agents,
these questions explored the students‘ access to social networks, funds of knowledge, and
school resources. Thus, my last research question asked, What social networks support
second-generation Latino language minority community college students‘ progress
toward transfer? How are relationships forged, and who are the agents involved? Using
the work of Stanton-Salazar (1997) as a base, these questions examined how second-
generation Latino language minority students decipher the system of power within our
educational institutions. By inquiring about the students‘ educational history and
background, these questions first delved into why students enrolled at the community
college and who helped them get there. The questions also explored the students‘ current
forms of social capital and inquired about new and old relationships that have supported
their pursuit of higher education. Because persistence involves maintenance and is not
simply a static transmission of capital, these questions investigated what relationships
have been instrumental to the participants and why.
72
Data Collection
The data collection process involved collaboration with the English Department,
distribution of a preliminary survey, email, and phone contact with students, two
individual interview sessions with each participant, interviews with college staff, and a
request for school records. As the primary and sole researcher, I developed the
preliminary survey and interview protocol. I conducted and transcribed the interviews,
and maintained the confidentiality of all data obtained. Initial contact was made with Mr.
Davidson to discuss the logistics and facilitation of the study. Permission to conduct
research on the school‘s campus was granted by the Brooke Community College Office
of Research and Planning. The office of the Dean of Academic Affairs arranged for
office space to conduct the interviews. The Director of Career and Assessment Services
and the Interim Language Center Director provided information about student support
services and the English placement test.
The first phase in the data collection process involved distribution of the
preliminary survey. All professors teaching sections of English 100, 101, 102, and 103
were asked for their voluntary participation. Individual packets were prepared for 38
instructors teaching a total of 62 sections of English. The study was introduced to staff
via an email from Mr. Davidson, the English Department chair, and packets were
distributed to the professors during a staff meeting. Each packet contained preliminary
surveys, an informational handout about the study, and a cover letter explaining the
distribution and return process for the surveys. The English instructors were asked to
distribute the surveys during the third week of the semester and have the students
73
complete the survey during class time. Twenty-eight packets were returned to the English
Department chair, and were then forwarded to the principal investigator.
The second phase involved developing a sample pool. The preliminary surveys
were sorted first by volunteer status, next by the study‘s participation criteria, and last by
gender. Preliminary surveys were chosen randomly, and students were contacted by
phone and/or email. Using a script, the principal investigator explained the purpose of the
study, confirmed the participation criteria, requested high school transcripts, and asked to
schedule an interview time. Reimbursement for the cost of obtaining school records was
offered to all of the students. Email reminders were sent to each student two days before
his or her scheduled appointment.
Prior to conducting the student interviews, the principal investigator reviewed the
college course catalog, interviewed college staff, and familiarized herself with the
campus. The Director of Career and Assessment Services provided information about the
English placement process, exam, and outcomes. The Interim Director of the Language
Center described the support services offered to students and the forthcoming changes to
the new Student Success Center.
The last phase involved interviewing the participants. The interviews were
conducted in a dean‘s vacant office in the humanities and social science building. Each
interview began with a few rapport-building questions about the student‘s background
and interests. The participants were then offered an informational fact sheet. Issues
related to confidentiality, voluntary participation, consent to audiotape, and the two-part
interview process were explained, and students were given the opportunity to ask
74
questions. The interviews began with questions pertaining to language development and
then addressed themes related to cultural identity and social capital. Although a standard
sequence was typically followed, the students‘ responses often dictated the order in
which questions were presented. The first interviews ranged from 45 to 90 minutes long,
depending on the student‘s time availability and response style. The goal of the first
session was to establish rapport and to cover as many of the protocol questions as
possible. A second interview was scheduled at the end of the first session, and reminder
emails were sent two days prior to the agreed upon date. During the second interview, the
remaining protocol questions were presented and elaboration and clarification on
previous responses was obtained. All interview sessions were audiotaped and transcribed.
The duration of the interviews ranged from 95 to 219 minutes long, and all of the
participants returned for a second interview. School records were requested of all of the
students, yet only one student provided high school transcripts.
Data Analysis
The first phase of data analysis involved developing individual student records.
Information gleaned from the preliminary surveys, taped transcriptions, and field notes
was organized in a case study format. Using this information, I developed a biographical
sketch of each participant. To maintain confidentiality, each student was assigned a
pseudonym. Interviews were reviewed on tape and in transcript form before I began
formal analysis.
Next, interview transcripts were color coded and numbered to match the protocol
questions. Student responses were transferred to Excel worksheets and formatted into a
75
table. Data was organized in numerical order by construct and gender. This first step
provided a general overview of the student responses and offered an abbreviated
reference that helped me locate and confirm information. Using the student narratives and
Excel worksheets, I analyzed the data for themes and patterns. A deductive approach was
used to generate themes associated with language theory, Ogbu‘s cultural-ecological
theory, and social capital theory. Transcripts were read and color coded by construct. I
examined individual student transcripts and then looked across cases for similarities and
differences. The frequency and pervasiveness of recurring content was used to identify
patterns and to assign meaning and significance. Using an inductive approach, I
examined response patterns that reflected organic ideas emerging from the students.
Following the format described above, student narratives were color coded, compared,
and examined for meaning.
This study asked the following questions:
1. How do second-generation Latino language minority students describe the
process and context of learning English, and what bearing does this have on their
academic advancement?
2. How does being a non-native English speaker shape the identity of second-
generation Latino language minority community college students? How do these
students conform to Ogbu‘s typology?
3. What social networks support second-generation Latino language minority
community college students‘ progress toward transfer? How are relationships
forged, and who are the agents involved?
76
Limitations
The major limitation I encountered in my study was the need for data
triangulation. High school transcripts and community college educational plans were
requested from the students, but were not established as a requirement for the study.
Although the participants appeared amenable to sharing this information, only one
student complied with this request. It was clear that the time and logistics involved in
obtaining these documents interfered with the participants willingness to follow through.
Perhaps other forms of accessing records should have been considered. I proceeded
without school records and relied on the participants‘ verbal reports as the sole source of
my information. I acknowledge that relying on participants‘ self-reports can pose
questions of validity and impact the accuracy of a study‘s findings.
Delimitations
Because transfer is most often measured as a discrete outcome, I chose to
concentrate on students engaged in the transfer process and accepted this criteria as a
delimitation of my study. Due to the parameters of a dissertation, I focused on language
and literacy and did not formally consider other transfer requirements or the participants‘
long-term transfer outcomes. Thus, for the purposes of my study, enrollment or
successful completion of college-level English was viewed as an important benchmark in
acquiring academic language proficiency. Although I acknowledge the value of this
important feat, I recognize that language and literacy are lifelong endeavors (Valdes,
1999) and that passing a college-level English course does not guarantee student success
in higher education. A comprehensive longitudinal study focused on the progression of
77
language development from a k–16 perspective and its correlation with transfer outcomes
might better address pertinent issues related to this study.
A second delimitation was the small sample size of the study. Nine students were
recruited to participate. The investigator‘s intention was to focus on depth rather than
breadth; thus, the interview protocol sought to explore and understand student resilience
from a holistic perspective. Due to time constraints, the investigator‘s and the site‘s
available resources, and students‘ availability, interviewing more students was not
feasible. Including additional participants in the study would have been ideal. Yet, the
primary distinction of qualitative work is that it generates new knowledge and offers
propositions that can be tested with larger samples to confirm the generalization of
findings.
78
CHAPTER FOUR
KEY FINDINGS
Introduction to Key Findings
The purpose of this study was to examine persistence toward transfer among
second-generation Latino language minority community college students. Using
qualitative methodology, I explored individual, cultural, and institutional factors that
foster academic language development and promote transfer readiness in minority
community college students. The study followed the educational trajectories of nine
participants who had placed below college-level English after transitioning from the k–12
school system. The participants were currently enrolled or had completed English 100,
the freshmen expository writing composition course. Because it is a transfer requirement,
English 100 was used as both a marker of academic language proficiency and progress
towards transfer.
The study was conducted at Brooke Community College, a one-campus district in
the Los Angeles area. Relevant to the study‘s focus, the campus served a large percentage
of Latino students who placed below college-level English and math. At the time the
study was conducted, more than half of their students were Hispanic, under the age of 24,
and attended school on a part-time basis. Students in English 100, 101, 102, and 103
classes completed a preliminary survey that asked 12 demographic questions. Latino
students were recruited based on the following criteria: second-generation status, Spanish
used within the home, instruction in English immersion in the k–12 setting, placement
79
below English 100, current enrollment or completion of English 100, and a transfer
objective. Nine subjects: five female and four male, Latino second-generation community
college students participated in the study. Each participant was interviewed twice using a
semistructured interview protocol developed by the investigator. The following section
provides individual profiles of each of the students. Pseudonyms are used throughout the
chapter to secure the anonymity of the participants and the institutions they attended.
Biographical Sketches and Student Characteristics
Eddie was 19-years-old and lived with his father and sister in a predominantly
Latino and African American neighborhood. He identified himself as Mexican American
and embraced his Mexican culture. Both of his parents were born in Mexico, and he grew
up in a Spanish-speaking home. Eddie‘s mother had passed away when he was in middle
school. She had encouraged him when he was a child to excel in school and instilled in
him a desire to succeed. Eddie‘s sister attended a private university. She had earned a
bachelor‘s degree and was working on completing her teaching credential. Eddie had
attended high school in the Catella Unified School District, where he thrived in math and
worked through honors and AP English courses. He had attended Brooke College on a
full-time basis since his enrollment, but was currently carrying a part-time load due to
problems with class availability. Eddie wanted to major in mechanical engineering or
dentistry. He worked part time in customer service and seldom spent time on campus.
Eddie placed into English 20 and passed his English 100 course with a B. He was making
steady progress in English 103 and had passed the transfer-level math course. Eddie‘s
80
interests included music and sports. He hoped to complete his transfer requirements in the
up-coming two semesters.
David was 21-years-old and lived with his mother and two brothers. His mother
was from Cuba, and his father was from El Salvador. Although his parents were currently
divorced, David was raised in a dual-parent household. Both of his parents pursued
schooling after immigrating to the U.S., and became fluent in English. Thus, David and
his siblings quickly transitioned from speaking Spanish to speaking English in the home.
David had attended high school in the Dallas Unified School District. Although his
overall high school experience had been positive, with ample opportunities to enroll in
Advanced Placement courses, David lamented not having worked harder in school. After
taking a semester off to travel, he enrolled in La Tuna City Community College in the
Los Angeles area and was the first of his siblings to attend college. David worked two
jobs while attending La Tuna City College. He had difficulty coordinating his work and
school schedule and transferred to Brooke College, which was closer to his home. David
had attended Brooke College for the past three semesters on a part-time basis and worked
full-time as a supervisor at a grocery store. He placed into English 52 and was currently
enrolled in English 100. David had not taken the math placement test, but planned to do
so soon. He first enrolled at La Tuna City College and was interested in pursuing a
degree in music, but had since changed his mind and was undecided about his major.
David had considered teaching English and had thought about working abroad. His
interests included music and travel. He hoped to transfer in a few semesters.
81
Ernest was 21-years-old and lived with his parents and two younger siblings. He
grew up in a Hispanic neighborhood and at the time of the interview resided close to
school. Although both of his parents were now conversationally fluent in English, he was
raised in a Spanish-speaking home. Ernest‘s parents were born in Mexico and had a large
extended family with whom they maintained regular contact. Despite the family‘s
financially impoverished upbringing, Ernest‘s maternal uncle and aunts had all attended
college in Mexico and were now working professionals who enjoyed frequent family
vacations. Ernest attended high school in the La Vista Unified School District in Los
Angeles County. He participated in the business academy and excelled in Advanced
Placement math and science courses. Ernest had been accepted to several private and
state universities, but opted to attend a community college due to his financial
circumstances. He enrolled at Brooke in the fall of 2008. Ernest attended school full time
and worked 38 to 50 hours a week at a tax office. Upon enrollment, he had placed into
English 52. Ernest passed his English 100 course and was making good progress in his
English 103 class. He had met the math transfer requirement and planned to enroll at Cal
State, Los Angeles in the fall of 2011 to pursue a degree in political science.
Antonio was 21-years-old and resided with his parents and his three younger
brothers. His parents were both Mexican immigrants, and he had been raised in a
Spanish-speaking home in a Latino neighborhood. Antonio had attended high school in
the White Water Unified School District in Los Angeles County. He participated in the
architecture academy, excelled in math, and worked his way through precalculus.
Antonio attended high school through the 12
th
-grade, but did not earn a diploma. As a
82
child, he had struggled with a speech impairment, and public speaking was a challenge
for him—thus, he had failed to meet the panel presentation requirement for his senior
project. With increased confidence and practice in oral presentations, he looked back with
regret and wished he could have done better in his English classes. Antonio enrolled at
the local adult school and earned his GED in six months. He enrolled at Brooke College
in the fall of 2009, after having received an ultimatum from his girlfriend and considering
the auto mechanic program at a neighboring college. Antonio was the first in his family
to attend college. He worked 35 hours a week and attended school on part-time basis.
Antonio placed into English 52 and was currently enrolled in English 100. He
occasionally spent time at the library, but was typically on campus only to attend class.
Antonio hoped to complete his transfer requirements within the next 12 to 18 months and
was interested in majoring in architecture or pursuing a culinary arts program. His
interests included music and dance.
Victoria was 19-years-old and resided with her parents and two younger sisters in
a predominantly Latino neighborhood. Both of her parents were born in Mexico, and she
grew up in a Spanish-speaking home. Shortly after immigrating to the U.S., Victoria‘s
mother earned her GED and pursued a vocational program as a dental hygienist, earning
extended certification from a UCLA program. Although Victoria‘s father became
conversationally fluent in English, Spanish remained the dominant language at home.
Frequent visits to the library prepared Victoria for school and had her reading before she
entered preschool. Victoria had attended high school in the Dallas Unified School
District, where her love of literature grew. She took an AP English course in 11
th
-grade
83
and participated in the Careers in Education, Regional Occupational Program. After
earning less-than-desirable ACT/ SAT scores, Victoria decided to enroll at Brooke
Community College and began taking courses in the fall of 2009. Victoria placed into
English 52. She earned an ―A‖ in her English 100 course and was thriving in her English
101 and 103 classes. Victoria was a full-time student and, at the time of the interview,
was not employed. She was on campus on a daily basis and visited social and recreational
areas between classes. Victoria needed to take prerequisite math classes prior to enrolling
in the math transfer requirement. She was the first in her family to attend college, and she
hoped to transfer to a UC campus in a year. Her interests included literature and dance.
Maria was 19-years-old and resided with her mother in a predominantly Latino
neighborhood. She was the youngest of four siblings and was raised by a single parent in
a Spanish-speaking home. Because Maria‘s mother worked as a teacher‘s assistant, Maria
attended preschool at an early age and was exposed to English at the age of two.
Although she and her siblings communicated in English, Maria continued to speak to her
mother in Spanish. Maria had attended high school in the Light House Unified School
District, where she participated in the health academy and took Advanced Placement
Spanish and history classes. After considering state schools, Maria opted to enroll at a
community college for financial reasons. She chose Brooke Community College because
of its ―Teacher Track‖ program and began taking courses in the fall of 2009. Maria had
maintained full-time enrollment for the past two years and, at the time of the interview,
was not employed. She was on campus every day and had a long bus commute. Maria
spent time with friends and used the library on a regular basis. She had placed into
84
English 52 and was making good progress in her English 100 course. Maria had taken
several math prerequisite courses and planned to take the required transfer math course
the following semester. She hoped to transfer in two semesters and planned on majoring
in child development. Maria was the first in her family to pursue a four-year degree.
Monica was 18-years-old and resided with her mother in Dallas, a predominantly
White neighborhood. She was the youngest of three siblings and was raised by a single
parent in a Spanish-speaking home. Monica had attended high school in the Dallas
Unified School District, where she participated in the Careers in Education, Regional
Occupational Program. She placed in Honors English during her freshman year and
participated in the AVID program in middle school. Because of her interest in teaching
and her involvement with the ROP program, Monica enrolled in the Urban Teacher
Fellowship program at Brooke Community College. She began taking courses in the
summer of 2010 and was placed in a cohort with whom she attended classes on a full-
time basis. Monica placed in English 52. She earned an ―A‖ in her English 100 course
and was making good progress in her English 103 course. Monica was on campus on a
regular basis and used the library and computer lab between classes. She did not drive
and was not employed. At the time of the interview, Monica was enrolled in the required
transfer math course and was making good progress. She hoped to transfer to a state
school in a year to pursue a degree in education. Monica was the first in her family to
attend college.
Cindy was 18-years-old and resided with her mother. She was the youngest of
five siblings and was raised by a single parent in a Spanish-speaking home. Although
85
Cindy came from a large close family, she had grown apart from her siblings due their
large age difference. She and her family maintained close connections with their family
in Mexico and visited on a yearly basis. Cindy had attended high school in the La Vista
Unified School District, where she placed in Honors English, took Advanced Placement
Spanish, history, and government classes and participated in extracurricular activities.
She had been accepted to several state universities, but reconsidered that option when she
weighed moving away from her mother. Cindy decided to enroll at Brooke Community
College because of its proximity to home and her uncertainty about her major. She had
maintained full-time status since her enrollment in the fall of 2010. Cindy placed into
English 52 and was making good progress in her Honors English 100 class. She was
currently enrolled in a prerequisite math course and planned to take the required transfer
math course the next semester. Cindy hoped to transfer in a year and a half and to major
in broadcasting or pursue a degree in dental hygiene. She worked part time in her
family‘s restaurant and did not spend time on campus outside of class. Cindy‘s interests
included music and dance.
Karina was 24-years-old and resided with her parents and three siblings. Her
father was born in Guatemala and raised in San Salvador. He had earned a teaching
degree in El Salvador and taught math before emigrating to the United States. Karina‘s
mother was born and raised in San Salvador and held a cosmetology license. Karina was
raised in a Spanish-speaking home where typical gender norms were not the rule and
literacy in both languages was encouraged. At the age of six, her mother used the phone
book and the Bible to teach her how to read in Spanish. Karina had attended high school
86
in the Los Canales Unified School District, where she took Advanced Placement courses
and graduated with honors. She had been accepted to UC and state campuses but decided
to enroll at a state college because of its proximity to home. Karina had placed into
English 95, a subcollegiate course and took the class twice before passing it. She placed
into subcollegiate math, and was unable to pass the required sequence of courses. Karina
took a leave of absence from school to address personal issues that were interfering with
her progress. She enrolled at Brooke Community College on a trial basis to complete the
prerequisite math courses that were preventing her from returning to the state campus.
After a total of six attempts, she passed the math class and completed English 100 at
Brooke College. At the time of the interview, Karina worked part time as a professor‘s
assistant in the humanities and social science department. She had overcome personal and
academic obstacles and had formed relationships with college staff. Karina hoped to
transfer in two semesters and planned to major in business. Her interests included music,
art, and writing.
Aside from satisfying the criteria to participate in the study, the nine participants
shared traits in common that proved relevant to the focus of the study. Eight of the nine
students were the first in their family to attend college or pursue a degree, had early
aspirations of attending college, and had placed one level below college-level English.
All of the students had attended high school in Los Angeles County and had taken AP or
honors line coursework in high school. In contrast to the average or academically
ambivalent students I had hoped to recruit, the preliminary survey drew a sample of
87
students whose drive to succeed had been cultivated at an early age. Table 1 below offers
a summary of the student‘s characteristics.
Table 1
Summary of Student Characteristics
Participants Age Current School Work
English Enrollment Status
Placement Status
Females
Karina 24 Completed FT PT
100
Victoria 19 Completed FT UE
100
Monica 18 Completed FT UE
100
Cindy 18 Enrolled FT PT
100
Maria 19 Enrolled FT UE
100
Males
Antonio 21 Enrolled PT FT
100
David 21 Enrolled PT FT
100
Eddie 19 Completed PT PT
100
Ernest 21 Completed FT FT
100
Note. FT= Full Time, PT = Part Time, UE = Unemployed
88
Several interrelated themes emerged from my interviews. Some were expected
and confirmed hypotheses that conformed with the existing literature; other themes
developed organically from the student narratives. The most prevalent themes that
emerged from the data were consistent across gender. The most prominent among them
were found within the cultural identity strand. The student narratives suggested that
participants‘ educational attitudes were shaped by the concrete experiences of others. A
hybrid form of cultural adaptation, characterized by voluntary and involuntary features,
was also evident. Recurring comments pertaining to individualism and self-sufficiency
drew a relationship among the remaining themes. Next in prominence were themes
related to language development. Among the participants, early English fluency was
associated with academic achievement. They reported a strong learner identity and belief
in academic meritocracy. Within the social capital strand, the data confirmed that the
participants‘ academic orientation had been cultivated by others. Native-like English
fluency was perceived as yielding status and providing access to resources and was
inherent to their academic achievement. Following the strands in my literature review, I
will first introduce the themes that pertain to the process and context of learning English.
I will then present my findings on cultural identity and end with my observations on
social capital and institutional support.
89
Learning English: Ideology and Theory
Results Research Question 1
How do second-generation Latino language minority students describe the
process and context of learning English, and what bearing does this have on their
academic advancement?
The literature reviewed in Chapter Two outlines key concepts surrounding issues
pertaining to linguistic diversity. It explains the prevailing ideology that shapes the
educational experiences of non-native English speaking students and the inherent
relationship between academic language proficiency and educational prosperity. Over the
past decade, monolingual and individualistic ideologies have won the support of public
opinion and have permeated educational reform (Wiley & Lukes, 1996). Media coverage
centered on issues of immigration and a troubled economy has promoted a foreigner
stereotype among language minority students and an antibilingual sentiment amid voters.
Political rhetoric has advanced an English-Only crusade (Gandara & Rumberger, 2009)
that views linguistic diversity as a problem to solve rather than an asset to cultivate
(Crawford, 2004). These ideologies have created an educational climate that has
abandoned the fundamental principles of language and learning.
Contrary to theoretical underpinnings described by Cummins (1984, 2006),
Krashen (1995), and Crawford (2004), language minority students are expected to
acquire English and simultaneously learn academic content as quickly as possible in
90
order to advance academically. Lost in current policy and practice are the concepts of
natural order, comprehensible input, positive affective filter, common underlying
proficiency, and the distinction between basic interpersonal communication and academic
language proficiency. Issues related to poverty, segregation, ill-equipped facilities,
teacher training, school funding, and low levels of parental education, which alone can
create a less-than-optimal climate for learning, have become secondary to the English-
Only ethos embraced by our schools. Language minority students are perceived as
deficient when they fail to prosper under these conditions. Unrelenting statistics paint a
picture of failure, place blame on students, and reinforce meritocratic ideologies that echo
the American dream. This current educational model and single-minded drive toward
English proficiency leaves many students underprepared to enter and succeed in higher
education. Latino language minority students entering community colleges are more
likely than their peers to place into remedial coursework, and their transfer rates remain
consistently low (Gandara & Contreras, 2009). This first research question strives to
understand resilience by comparing the participants‘ educational experiences and ideas
pertaining to language and instruction to language ideology, policy, and theory. It was
designed to tap into individual and sociopolitical conditions that shape learning and to
elicit student perspectives on educational persistence.
The first theme to emerge from the narratives reflected a strong association
among academic achievement, early English fluency, and individual motivation. The
participants reported being fluent in English at a young age, and they made little-to-no
distinction between becoming proficient in English and achieving academically. For the
91
purpose of the study, fluency involved accessing grade-level content. Consistent with
linguistic folk theory, most students considered themselves fluent within a year or so of
English immersion instruction. The participants‘ knowledge of language development
appeared to align with the public perception that language is best acquired through
immersion with individual effort and ability. Although a few of the female participants
described early literacy exposure in English and Spanish, ultimately they credited their
academic advancement to their individual effort and innate ability to learn. For the
participants, the process of learning involved immersion in English with minimal
amounts of instruction in their primary language. Becoming fluent in English appeared to
be embedded in a meritocratic academic orientation cultivated by family and school staff.
The students were often situated in community and learning contexts that reinforced the
belief that English is essential and inseparable from learning. Although the participants
valued bilingualism and at times acknowledged the burden of learning language and
instructional content simultaneously, they generally applauded the virtues of English
immersion programs.
The following excerpts describe how the participants learned to speak English and
the language loss that followed immersion in English-Only programs. Embedded in these
descriptions are both subtle and direct insights into the participants‘ ideological
perspectives and the context in which they learned English. The participants often spoke
of individual effort and self-determination. Although some of the participants
acknowledged that speaking Spanish at home made learning at school challenging, they
typically described this scenario as an individual obstacle—as opposed to a systemic by-
92
product of their instructional programming. Speaking English was viewed as a valued
academic and economic asset.
Maria, who was raised by a single mother and came from a close family, spoke
about her school history with pride. Although she recalled some difficulty transitioning
between languages, Maria asserted that speaking Spanish at home and learning English at
school made no difference in her education. Her comments illustrated the prevailing
belief that English can be acquired quickly. She recalled being fluent in English at the age
of three, describing the process as follows:
I honestly don‘t know, but what I do know is that I have been going to
school since I was two years old because my mom worked with my
professors before I entered preschool. She would actually take me when
she was an assistant. So I would be in school already learning Spanish and
the English all at the same time . . . My mom said by the time I entered
preschool they actually counted me in preschool. I already knew how to
read perfectly in English. So I would say between two and three, I learned
good English.
Although Maria presented herself as a confident student, she later admitted that she
sometimes felt that she was ―not fluent in Spanish or English.‖ Similar to some of the
males, she acknowledged language loss, or word-finding difficulties in both languages.
Maria indicated that she occasionally ―has to translate back to the other language to
rephrase what she has to say.‖ Her comments noted the personal and economic value she
associated with language:
[My mother] thought that we had to speak both cause in this country you
had to speak both languages to succeed. Because she doesn‘t speak
English and for her it has been a struggle not to speak English. . . . Being
bilingual because most jobs actually offer to pay more when you are
bilingual.
93
Although Maria was encouraged to be bilingual by her mother and teachers,
becoming bilingual was viewed as an individual endeavor, not an educational one.
Here Maria commented on the additive nature of retaining her culture:
Well in high school, it was my Spanish teacher. And in elementary it was
my fifth and sixth grade teacher that would always tell me ―No matter
what, you always try, you need to keep with…where you come from and
what you really are. Don‘t lose that culture you have inside of you.‖
Which was my Spanish culture. . . . It just made me stronger because I
realize that even though I‘m here, [and] not in Mexico, I can still be me
and have that culture.
When asked to compare her educational experiences to that of a monolingual English
speaker, Maria appeared to avoid the comparison by describing the experience of other
students who enter middle school not speaking English. She explained that they are
separated from students who are fluent in English and often do not advance beyond high
school. For Maria, academic advancement was a matter of individual effort and
motivation. She acknowledged individual differences in learning, but not systemic ones.
When the question was clarified, she answered as follows:
I think there is no difference. It just depends on how different you make it.
. . . Like for example, if I decide to make different choices within my
education, my education is going to be different than somebody else who
takes a different path in their education. And it depends on the way I am
able to learn, the way that person is able to learn.
Maria‘s sense of self-reliance and individual motivation came through in the
following comment:
Well, all of my choices I‘ve been doing since I can remember is always
try my best no matter what happens. If something goes wrong, try again
and keep doing it until you feel comfortable in what you are doing and
what you are learning . . . Motivating yourself and really wanting to
succeed. And then what‘s with me. It‘s just that if you can‘t help yourself
94
move forward then who will? You know? You need to help yourself first
in order to help somebody else.
Cindy, who was also raised by a single mother and came from a close family,
recalled learning English by the end of 1
st
-grade. She shared the sense of independence
and self-reliance described by Maria and several of the male participants, but also
remembered the challenges of learning English and content simultaneously and
transitioning between languages at home and at school. Cindy described how her sense of
self-determination helped her advance in school. She recalled first learning English in
preschool and having to translate for her mother at the age of four. She reported being
fluent by the end of 1
st-
grade:
I remember I was like four when my mom would take me to a ballet class
and I was trying to speak to the lady because my mom only speaks
Spanish. I was trying to be the interpreter, but some of my words wouldn‘t
come out right because I didn‘t comprehend. Then again, I was four.
Although Cindy was discouraged from speaking Spanish at school, her teachers and
mother both valued bilingualism. She received a contrasting message about language
from her older sister, who felt that Cindy might develop an accent if she became
proficient in Spanish first:
My sister hated the fact that I learned Spanish before English . . . But my
mom, she loved it. That I learned Spanish before English. So they were
like the opposite from one another, but my mom was happy because all of
the teachers, when I was growing up, they would tell my mom that was
really good. So then I would have more opportunities when I grew up, just
the fact that I was able to speak two languages and understand them very
well.
95
Cindy‘s sister‘s ideas about language offer an example of linguistic folk theory.
They reflect the language-as-a-problem perspective of second language
acquisition; she explained:
. . . my sister saw it in a completely different way. She saw it that in the
way that if I spoke Spanish before English . . . . I was going to have an
accent no matter what because English wasn‘t my first language. So that‘s
how she saw it. And now that she has her kids, they don‘t know Spanish.
So their first language is English. So I guess that‘s opposite.
Although school staff acknowledged the benefits of being bilingual, Cindy was
discouraged from speaking Spanish at school; thus, Spanish was to be learned
individually and not at school: ―I remember when I was in elementary . . . And whenever
the principal would hear us talking in Spanish, he would tell us to talk in English. So it
was the opposite [of being encouraged to communicate in Spanish].‖ When asked to
elaborate on the challenges of being a non-native English speaker, Cindy described
having to be self-reliant. Her sisters and mother could not provide academic support, so
she had to push herself to master content at school. Her comments exemplified a sense
individualism embraced by many of the participants:
I‘m guessing it would be the fact that I had to do all my work by myself
because my sisters were so much older than I was and they lived in their
house separately... So they had their own family. So it was not that I could
call them to ask for help. And my mom. The language barrier. So no help
from that side either. So I had to depend on myself. So that was another
reason that I pushed myself to learning, actually learning how to do
everything in class.
Like Maria, Cindy described word-finding difficulties when transitioning between
languages. She found it difficult to learn content while not fully proficient in English, but
ultimately viewed this situation as an individual issue, as opposed to an instructional one.
96
She explained her educational challenges as stemming from an inability to practice.
When asked if it was difficult to transition between speaking English at school and
speaking Spanish at home, she stated:
At times it was. Because I think even to this day, sometimes it‘s difficult
when I‘m trying to speak Spanish or English because even today I get
English words mixed up with Spanish or it just gets me tongue twisted
when I‘m trying to say something in English and thinking about it in
Spanish. Or I know the definition of a word in Spanish, but I can‘t figure it
out in English . . . When I was younger, it was extremely difficult because
I was learning and English and trying to speak something that I wasn‘t
really clear about or I wouldn‘t use it at home. So it wasn‘t like I had that
much practice at it. It was only at school. So it would make it difficult.
When asked if students were equally prepared to succeed in school, Cindy initially
acknowledged that sociocultural factors may have impacted her own learning.
Nevertheless, as she proceeded to answer the question, Cindy concluded that learning
English and school success depend on the individual and their motivation to succeed.
Following her previous statement, one can infer that Cindy believed that English is
essential to learning and, that if an individual strives for academic success, then he/she
must do what it takes to achieve it:
No, no. And I think it really depends not just on them, but it could also, I
don‘t think you could even blame the family because like for example,
with me I didn‘t have anyone to help me when I was small. And then so
even if, I could always think anybody could come up with an excuse and
say it‘s all this persons fault, but in reality the only person who is going to
achieve or fail is going to be you. So I don‘t think that could be an excuse,
like family or anything like that . . . I think it really depends on the
instructor and the on how much the person really works for what they
want, because even if the instructor is bad, you could always go to
tutoring. And then it really depends on you, how bad it is that you want to
achieve something.
97
David grew up speaking Spanish at home until the age of five. Both of his parents
were fluent in English and Spanish and had earned postsecondary degrees. Compared to
the other participants, David was, at the time of the interview, the least fluent in Spanish.
The following excerpt illustrated his experience learning English at school and the
language loss that followed:
I spoke Spanish, only Spanish until I was four or five when we started
going to school and everyone spoke English, and we were not the only
ones really, and I guess we just were like ―Oh Spanish, what‘s that?‖
everybody speaks English. And then from there we all just lost it. I can
speak it and understand it but it‘s really broken.
When asked to elaborate, David clarified that he spoke English prior to beginning school.
At school, he and his peers communicated predominantly in English. Over the years, he
and his siblings started speaking less and less Spanish because they went to school with
―English speaking people.‖ David remembered feeling fluent in English at the age of
seven. He offered the following description of life after his move to a predominantly
Caucasian community:
I don‘t remember speaking Spanish from middle school, elementary
school, none of that. And when I went to high school and I met more
Spanish speaking people, it was hard to go back. I barely understand it
now.
[My parents] They wish I spoke more Spanish, definitely kept that in our
roots. That is, we are Hispanic. We should know. I think everybody should
know Spanish if you are Hispanic. You know? And even now to this day,
I get my grandparents and my tias [aunts], my uncles, ―Why don‘t you
know Spanish?‖ in Spanish and I will say ―No entiendo.‖ Don‘t know
nothing. I‘ll start to say it and then catch myself and then just mumble it
out so like it doesn‘t sound as bad. But they definitely, they definitely, all
even I wish I spoke more Spanish fluently so I can carry a conversation
instead of what? ¿Que? [What?] I took Spanish three years in high school
and I took it a year at La Tuna City College and I could just never get it
back.
98
Although David was encouraged by family to maintain his Spanish language skills, he
described his language loss as irreversible. David did not feel encouraged by school staff
to remain proficient in Spanish. When asked why he thought that was the case, he
explained that English was the language used in his community and at school. His
comments offer an example of the prevailing monolingual ideology that exists in our
society today:
I never had any Hispanic or Latino teachers . . . I just, I‘m assuming
maybe we are in Dallas and most of the people don‘t speak Spanish. It‘s
all English. They wanted to keep it that way. I‘m not saying they are racist
or anything, but that could have been it.
Ernest, who grew up in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood and was raised in
a traditional Mexican household, credited his mother for helping him to escape the fate of
a bilingual program. Although he clearly valued the Spanish language, he believed that
primary language instruction was counterproductive to learning English fluently. Ernest‘s
comments were consistent with linguistic folk theory. He suggested that being bilingual
was an individual endeavor and that English can—and should—be learned quickly:
But when I was going to the Eastside they still had that bilingual thing, not
ESL, where you can do bilingual in lower classes. But my mom didn‘t
want me in there because a lot of the people she knew who did that with
their kids spoke horrible English. Not horrible, but they‘ve been here since
they were small and they still have a thick accent. So she put me into all
English, so kindergarten was learning English. I had six months to catch
up. I don‘t know how long before I actually started speaking English.
English became primary then I forgot some of my Spanish. Not until I
started going to Mexico every summer, I started to pick up my Spanish
again.
99
Ernest reported learning English in four months and feeling fluent by the end of
kindergarten. Although he described English immersion as ―sink or swim,‖ he
acknowledged his ability to learn English quickly:
Basically that whole sink or swim kind of thing. I went into elementary
school speaking all Spanish. And in kindergarten I was in all English and
they spoke all English and I picked it up. And also my baby-sitters kids
they spoke English, so I was talking with them and watching mostly
English television. I learned up like that.
Ernest commented on the language loss that followed his acquisition of English. Similar
to the other participants, he viewed bilingualism as an individual endeavor to pursue,
rather than one supported by the school system; hence, Ernest taught himself how to
write in Spanish. He stated the following about transitioning between languages:
It‘s pretty much been the same except when I was young when I was
picking up English I got to a point where I was losing a lot of Spanish. A
lot of the words, like ―What is mustard called? What is hot dog called? I
remember . . . when I was small and I was in Mexico and I would go back
and forth ―How do you say this in Spanish?‖ . . . I was just going back and
forth asking ―What is this called?‖ when I was trying to order something.
Yeah, so I had, uh losing it basically. And I don‘t like that anymore. I‘ll
ask. I‘ll try to stay with both. I want to keep it up. Then I taught myself
how to write in Spanish somewhat.
Ernest identified English as the ―school‘s language‖ and Spanish as a cultural marker; his
comment illustrated this point:
Speaking English because I need it for school, then speaking Spanish
because it is rude, it‘s more of a cultural thing. It is rude to talk to older
people in English. It looks bad. ―Tienen el nopal en la frente y no hablan
español.‖ [They bear their Mexicanness on their skin and don‘t speak
Spanish] . . .You hear that a lot. It‘s kind of rude and sometimes it‘s
embarrassing for the parents to have a kid that‘s just second-generation,
not speak Spanish. So it is important to them as much as it is to me.
100
Participating in the business academy and working at a tax office that served a
predominantly Spanish-speaking demographic, Ernest was well aware of the
opportunities that came from being bilingual. When asked about whether teachers and
staff encouraged him to maintain his Spanish, he replied:
Yeah, mostly because I did business academy in high school. Yeah they
did. It is better on your resume and then a lot of teachers, even though they
were white they‘d say ―Keep your culture.‖ It helps keep your culture
alive.
Following a short discussion on becoming proficient in reading and writing, Ernest was
asked how he thought schools should help students like himself. Given the context of the
conversation, the question asked him to comment about non-native English speaking
students. Ernest first asked for clarification on what the investigator meant by the term
―like himself.‖ He then acknowledged that schools needed to place more emphasis on
reading and writing and offered personal examples. Ernest spoke of expectations,
individual effort, and mental ―barriers.‖ Based on his own experiences, he concluded that
education should foster independence and self-reliance:
Also they shouldn‘t handicap the kids so much, like you learned Spanish,
you might not know this. I hated that crap. Handicapping the kids
themselves usually builds a mental barrier. I can‘t do this because I
learned Spanish first, so I will be bad at this. Let them figure it out.
It‘s happened right now. I have a little brother and that is why it gets me
mad. He is not dumb. He‘s ―huevon‖ he‘s lazy. Schools need to
distinguish between that. I think schools baby us too much.
Ernest felt that schools confused bad work habits with limited English proficiency and
made excuses for the low achievement of non-native English speakers. Consistent with
the language-as-a-problem perspective, he viewed minority underachievement as an
101
individual problem. Ernest reiterated the value of independence and self-reliance. Despite
his AP coursework, he found himself having to relearn skills at the community college:
And between transitioning from high school to Brooke College even
though it is a community college, like I had to relearn all of this stuff I
learned in high school. High school teaches you the basics. Luckily I took
AP class[es] and honors because a lot of high school classes here are not
more difficult, but the more you have to be on it yourself. Like in high
school it is like . . . Here, if you don‘t turn it in nobody will help you out.
They will enable you. [referring to high schools] . . .
Eddie received bilingual instruction in kindergarten through 1
st
-grade. He
transitioned to English immersion in 2
nd
-grade and, with the help of his older sister, was
reading and fluent in English by the end of the school year. His comment reflected the
commonly held belief that English fluency is developed quickly: ―My sister kinda helped
me learn how to read. If it wasn‘t for her I don‘t think I would have learned right away.
Because by second grade, I learned how to read English so in one year I learned how to
read.‖ Eddie‘s parents emphasized the importance of learning English, but were also
proud of his Spanish fluency. Eddie described the language loss that followed after
becoming fluent in English:
Yeah it was easy. [transitioning between English and Spanish ] I don‘t
know I was always good in Spanish, but little by little I started losing it
more and more. Like it was once I started going to Mexico from sixth
grade on I would be like I‘d go up there and I felt like I don‘t know how to
speak Spanish, but the more I went to Mexico the more I got used to it. It
seems I went from knowing too much Spanish and not knowing nothing
English, to knowing a lot of English and not knowing nothing in Spanish.
You know because I stopped using it little by little.
Eddie echoed Ernest‘s, Maria‘s, and Cindy‘s sentiment about effort and the meritocratic
nature of learning. He offered his thoughts on college preparation and comments on
individual responsibility: ―I always think it is on the person, not how much you can do. I
102
think it‘s if the person wants to do it or not . . . if they want to prepare then they will do
it.‖ The first theme noted a strong association among academic achievement, early
English fluency, and individual motivation. The second theme built on the first, drawing
a relationship between a strong learner identity and a belief in academic meritocracy.
Becoming fluent in English, as described by the participants, was embedded in a
meritocratic academic orientation cultivated by family and school staff. The participants‘
academic orientation appeared to coexist with a belief that goals could be achieved
through individual effort and self-sufficiency. This study sought to understand change
and persistence among average students, who may not have been oriented toward college,
but who were working their way through precollegiate coursework. Rather than finding
the ambivalent students I thought I might encounter, my study drew goal-oriented
students who aspired to attend college at an early age. Their meritocratic academic
orientation had been cultivated through academic success and/or recognition and
grounded in a strong learner identity. Eight of the nine participants were the first in their
family to attend college. The participants were either at the top of their class in high
school, had been recognized by others as high achievers, and/or had progressed easily
through high school curriculum. They often described situations or people who had
validated their academic competence and reinforced their positive scholastic attitudes.
Their stories offered insight into their academic strengths and indirectly acknowledged
agents who had cultivated their skills and reinforced their effort—as if the participants
bore a cloak of confidence that had been developed prior to their enrollment at the
community college. Because many of the participants had not initially planned to attend a
103
community college, they viewed their time at Brooke as temporary in nature. Six of the
nine participants described attending a community college as a compromise made for
financial reasons or to maintain proximity to their families. Two participants reported
having been accepted to private and UC campuses, and four of the participants indicated
that they had been accepted to state universities. All of the female participants expressed
certainty about transfer and their degree objective, and three of the five spoke of pursuing
advanced degrees. Two of the four male participants were the closest to meeting transfer
requirements. The two other males managed a work schedule that impacted class
scheduling. Although they expressed similar transfer goals, they were less certain about
what degree they would pursue or how much longer they would remain at the community
college.
I begin by providing a summary of the students‘ rationale for attending a
community college. For some of the participants, attending Brooke College was a
financial compromise; others saw it as an investment or a long-term guarantee for
transfer. Overall, the comments suggested a strong learner identity. It was evident that the
students considered themselves college bound and that they had invested time and effort
in college preparatory programs and curriculum. Generally, the participants referred to
Brooke College as a stepping stone. The following excerpts explain the students‘
rationales for attending a community college.
Cindy, who lived with her disabled mother, felt it important to attend college
close to home. Although she had been accepted to several state universities, she opted to
attend Brooke while she decided on a major:
104
Well, I was actually not even planning on coming to Brooke Community
College. I was planning to go to straight into a Cal State or UC . . . When I
was in high school, I did all of the research and I had applied to like four
Cal States and I got accepted to most of them. I think it was only one that
didn‘t accept me, but I chose not to go because I was for one afraid of
leaving my mom. Two, I wasn‘t sure that was really what I wanted. So I
just didn‘t want to go and waste a lot more money and then not be sure.
Raised by a single mother, Maria wanted to attend college close to home. At the
time of the interview, she had a long bus commute but was happy to spend her time on
campus. Her decision to attend Brooke was financial, as she explained:
Well I first was going to transfer straight from high school. I was going to
go to Northridge. But, then we went through some little economic issues
and I said ―No,‖ I want to go to Brooke College first and then transfer
somewhere else . . . And once I realized that they had a better program
here at Brooke that would transfer me out automatically to a certain
college university afterwards, I was like I‘m better off at Brooke.
Victoria‘s family treated college enrollment as a ticket to the ―adult table‖ at
Christmas. She had high aspirations of attending a UC campus, but was diverted by
―low‖ SAT scores. Despite Victoria‘s 3.7 GPA and her teachers‘ encouragement to
consider a state school, she enrolled at Brooke College because of its Teacher Track
program. She saw it as a guarantee to transfer:
My ROP teacher told me about the teacher track program here at Brooke
where you do two years here and then you get guaranteed a spot at Cal
State Long Beach and then you graduate with your little degree and then
you know you can be a teacher. But as soon as she said you don‘t have to
take your SAT to get to Brooke, I was like . . . gone that‘s what I‘m doing.
So I actually think a lot of my teachers were shocked that I came to a
community college. I had one teacher who…she ended up graduating
from like USC. And she told me about the English department at Cal State
Fullerton . . . She really thought I was going to at least apply to Fullerton.
But I didn‘t . . . Cause that SAT it wasn‘t that bad, but to have that SAT
score combined with like a three point seven was bad . . . But here is a
guarantee. You see? So it was easy to get in and then if I worked hard
105
enough I was guaranteed a spot like for sure. And I think that‘s what sold
me.
Monica recalled wanting to go to college at an early age. Similar to Victoria, she
was in the Teacher Track program at Brooke and saw it as a guarantee for transfer:
Because at a young age, I already knew that in order to be successful, you
had to go to college to get a good job. Because like the jobs would look at
your education and college students would be more inclined to get a better
job . . .
In high school when I was a senior, I entered an ROP program. It was
about careers and education. I was interested in becoming a teacher and
some representative of the fellowship program came and talked with to us
and they asked us if we were interested to sign up. So I tried and I signed
up and I got into the group and the program is to get into Brooke for two
years and then transfer to Cal State Long Beach.
Ernest had been accepted to several private universities. Although interested in
their engineering programs, he decided on Brooke College due to financial reasons:
Monetary, no money for the other colleges . . . I got accepted to Carnegie
Mellon. I got accepted there for their engineering program but there it‘s
like thirty grand. Florida Tech accepted me out of state. Some school up
north. I don‘t know why San Francisco accepted me. I used FASTFA and
a lot of them are free applications. And all these schools, I just applied
everywhere and all these schools accepted me, but their tuition was
ridiculous. I got accepted to Cal State Fullerton, but I just didn‘t want to
go there.
Eddie explained how he had received his letter of acceptance to Cal Poly Pomona
while he was in Mexico and missed the enrollment deadline. Eddie lamented that, unlike
his peers who had moved onto UC and CSU campuses, he was unable to do so as a result
of his mistake. He asserted that his time at Brooke College was only temporary and that,
in the long run, it was a more cost efficient option:
I wasn‘t supposed to be here. I was supposed to be at Cal Poly Pomona . . .
So I was in Mexico. I was supposed to turn in ACT/SAT scores which I
106
never submitted because I never knew I was accepted . . . Broke my heart.
I know. But then I see, in the long run I got to save money . . . People feel
like you just go to the community college but I don‘t feel like that. You
know what I‘m saying? I was like you know I‘m at that level. I probably
could have been at the UC, Cal State level. So, I know there are other
students that say, ―I got into Cal State.‖ Presumen mas. [They show off] . .
. I‘m doing what I gotta do. I could have transferred already, but I didn‘t
for the same reason. I started taking more calculus classes and all of this
stuff so I might as well as take it here . . .
When asked if he had applied to other universities, Eddie stated the following: ―I was
also accepted to UC Santa Barbara. I didn‘t go there because of my father. I didn‘t want
to leave him by himself. . . . I feel kind of bad leaving him‖
The participants‘ confidence and competence in learning appeared to stem from
self-appraisal and feedback from others. Positive school experiences fostered their belief
in meritocracy. Many of the students recalled school successes and/or academic
recognition. Thus, their motivation to meet transfer requirements appeared to be naturally
embedded in their aptitude for learning and in early experiences that had cultivated their
academic orientation. These next excerpts speak to the participants‘ educational
accomplishments and the recognition they received from others.
Karina was the oldest participant and had been in school for the longest amount of
time. She expressed frustration about being at the top of her class in high school and not
being prepared for English and math coursework at the community college. She had
initially attended a state university and enrolled at Brooke College after several failed
attempts to pass a math prerequisite course. Although Karina had taken several AP
courses and saw herself as a strong student, the transition to postsecondary education had
been difficult for her:
107
Well I was in honor role . . . principal‘s list . . . and just getting medals and
certificates and all of these recommendations and feeling like wow, you
know I‘m smart! I know what I‘m doing and almost feeling like this self-
confidence. Well for me it wasn‘t cocky, but it was confidence that I knew
I could do anything I wanted, but when I started Cal State Long Beach I
quickly learned that I was about to enter a new stage of my life, I was no
way prepared for.
Karina‘s cloak of confidence stemmed from her success in high school. Regrettably, she
found that her skills did not transfer well to higher education. Even with a 3.9 GPA and
several AP courses, she found herself struggling in precollegiate courses:
I wish somebody would have taken their time, a counselor would have
taken time, a teacher would have said you know this is what you have and
this is what you need. And you know be realistic with me and not just say
you have a three point nine GPA, you‘re great. Don‘t worry about it.
Maria participated in the health academy in high school and worked diligently to
earn her health certification. The academy provided access to job shadowing and
mentorships, and helped her prepare for college. Maria was a strong high school student.
Her academic success made her strive to do well in college. Maria methodically rewrote
notes and reviewed texts several times to ensure comprehension. The following described
her academic standards: ―It‘s probably cause all of my life it has to be a ‗B‘ or above . . .
So it is more like OK, if I can do ‗A‘s‘ in high school I know I can do ‗A‘s‘ in [a] college
class.‖
At the time of the interview, Victoria was not employed. She acknowledged that
everyone had ―options‖ and that many of her friends had to work for financial reasons.
Her decision not to work reflected the value she placed on academic attainment: ―It has to
be worth it . . . for me, my school is too important to just sacrifice even a little bit for
something that‘s not really worth my time.‖ Victoria had established friendships with her
108
English teachers in high school and took pride in her writing ability. She excelled in
reading and writing in elementary and middle school, and felt that English just came
naturally to her. Victoria entered into writing competitions at Brooke and was later hired
as a writing tutor for the learning center. She described herself as a scholar, and
considered herself an accomplished writer: ―I became really good friends with my high
school English teachers. I‘ve always been good at English . . .It‘s always been something
I like. It‘s come naturally to me.‖
Eddie was one of three participants who had satisfied both the English and math
transfer requirements. Although he was the only participant to place two levels below
college-level English, he had completed all prerequisite classes his first semester at
Brooke. Eddie was strategic in scheduling classes. He was careful to balance classes with
labs and had completed several math and science engineering courses. Although he did
not identify himself as a good writer, he recalled others having given him good feedback
on his papers and reported good progress in his English classes at Brooke. Eddie
described himself as a ―really good student in high school‖ and was proud of his 3.8
GPA. He modestly acknowledged his class standing and shared memories of his mother
encouraging him to be a good student:
Yeah my school was not the greatest school. It was . . . Unified. I could
say only like fifteen people went to Cal States, no more. The UC system
only ten people qualified. I could have gone. I was number fifteen in the
whole school . . . I was performing in school. [referring to middle school]
I‘m doing really good you know and even in high school. I was a little
nerd. I knew I had a future for me. I just have to try my hardest and then
being with peers like with the smartest students. We all grew up with the
mindset, we are all going to college. We are all doing this and that . . . A
lot of times I keep up with them. They are at UCLA and Cal Poly at all
these schools and I keep them . . . and . . . they are very proud of me.
109
David recalled impressing his teachers with his writing assignments. Early
childhood experiences confirmed his innate ability. Writing seemed to come naturally to
him. Although he had opportunities to enroll in AP courses, he avoided doing so for fear
of failing. David acknowledged that he could have been more ambitious in high school
and that schoolwork came easily for him. The following comments illustrated the
feedback and recognition he received for his writing:
I remember actually when I was seven I went to school in G. Park . . . I
was in somewhat of a mixture between eight year olds and seven year olds
. . . and I remember being invited to join them because I was above the
class.
. . . I remember one of the assignments they would do was a journal . . .
Some people would have just a sentence, a paragraph and I would just
write and write and write.
And it [writing] comes naturally to me. I think I‘ve always never really
had a problem with writing. I just, once I feel it, I just start typing and go.
I do enjoy writing. I actually do . . . I actually remember . . . I took
creative writing [in high school]. I actually enjoyed it a lot . . . I actually
wrote a poem and it made the teacher cry. I felt really good . . . Yeah it
moved her. I remember I wrote it and . . . she read it out loud in front of
everybody. And I was like, I felt embarrassed, but I was like wow!
When asked what motivated him to get through his English coursework, David confirmed
that recognition from others had built his confidence and continued to motivate him to
push himself:
I think you know with my past, seeing that I‘ve done good writing and
teachers recognize me. I guess that‘s just pushed me to keep going. You
know it feels good to be recognized sometimes by your work. . . . When
someone tells you like ―Wow!‖ your paper was really well and you
presented it well and it came out really great, good job. I guess that‘s what
pushes me a lot . . .
110
Ernest described himself as a critical thinker and as someone who enjoyed
interacting and asking questions in high school. He admitted not earning the best grades,
but carried himself with confidence. Ernest had taken several AP courses and was
transferring to a state university in the fall. He made the following observation about
students who engaged in learning and those who work hard:
[some students are] ―engaged in learning and [others] are just good
workers . . . They work hard, they read, and they study and everything but
they don‘t retain the information or they don‘t think critically. They just
think what they are told.
He described his honors coursework as follows:
Like half of my teachers, we would not use the textbook, we would use
outside sources because they didn‘t feel that they‘d actually hit the point.
A lot of teachers in the honors program, I feel like they were a lot more
blunt than in regular classes. Like in regular classes they were babied. I
would see their work like and I‘d go into other classes and the interaction
was different . . .
Discussion of Research Question 1
As accomplished students, the participants did not find fault in their language
programming. Rather, they credited their academic success to learning English quickly
and indirectly to their innate ability to do so. Despite having to take prerequisite English
course(s), the participants‘ self-reports generally reflected strong literacy skills in
English. All of the participants rated their writing skills at or above a four on a 1–5 Likert
scale. The six students who were only instructed in structured English immersion
reported fluency in English within six months to two years. The three other participants
who had received bilingual instruction in kindergarten through 1
st-
or 2
nd
-grade reported
becoming fluent in English after their first year in a structured English immersion
111
classroom. Feelings of pride and self-sufficiency resonated as the participants described
their educational trajectories and asserted their identity as accomplished students. Related
to this pride was a subtle uneasiness about identifying themselves as non-native English
speakers. The participants appeared to associate the term with other students—not
themselves. Embedded in the notion that they had acquired language quickly was perhaps
a desire to disidentify with a label that is often associated with negative educational
attributes. Although most of the participants reported some level of language loss in
Spanish, all described learning English as an additive process inseparable—and/or
essential—to their academic advancement. They valued bilingualism but viewed it as an
individual endeavor.
The second theme suggested a strong learner identity among the participants,
cultivated by family and/or their k–12 experiences. Given their confidence and
accomplishments, persistence through English coursework was inherent in their
determination to achieve their goals. Seven of the nine participants conveyed certainty
about meeting transfer requirements. They spoke with conviction and described their
plans in a stepwise fashion. Change was not apparent in their narratives. Instead, their
time at Brooke College had provided a realistic experience of higher education and
reaffirmed their identity as committed and accomplished transfer candidates. These
students had had professional aspirations from an early age, and prerequisites courses did
not deter to their persistence. Although the two males who were less certain about their
majors expressed some ambivalence about how soon they would transfer, they, too,
conveyed their resolve to earn a four-year degree.
112
Cultural-Ecological Theory
Results Research Question 2
How does being a non-native English speaker shape the identity of second-
generation Latino language minority college students? How do these students conform to
Ogbu‘s minority typology?
Using Ogbu‘s minority typology as a base, this question explored identity among
second-generation Latino language minority students by examining generational and
linguistic features that shape a student‘s academic orientation. The purpose was to
understand the heterogeneous nature of minority group status and its impact on
persistence. Relevant to the participants‘ academic orientation, I examined their
relationship to the dominant culture, status frame of reference, and instrumental response
to education. Specifically, I wanted to know how second-generation language minority
students conformed to Ogbu‘s classification system and whether their cultural adaptation
had a positive or negative impact on their learning. Because identity is malleable and
develops over time, I sought to understand the ecology and progression of the
participants‘ perspectives on language and learning. The following themes emerged from
the narratives.
With regard to Ogbu‘s minority typology, the first theme suggested that the
participants represented a hybrid from of cultural adaptation characterized by overlapping
voluntary and involuntary features. Gender differences were not apparent. The
participants‘ status frame of reference was broad. It often included models at both ends of
a spectrum and members of the nondominant group. Linguistically and academically, this
113
perspective afforded many of the participants a sense of status within a minority
hierarchy characterized by socioeconomic, cultural, and/or educational advantage.
Contrary to voluntary minorities, the participants comfortably asserted their similarities
to the dominant culture and distanced themselves from a collective identity of ―non-
native speakers.‖ Because of their immigrant background, they embraced the privilege of
citizenship and displayed no evidence of a tourist mentality. Most students reported a folk
theory of success that mirrored their parents‘ experience as voluntary minorities and
mainstream values. With regard to their own academic setbacks, the participants often
described attending a community college, having to take precollegiate course work,
repeating a class, or poor performance on an assignment as temporary detours to success
as opposed to failure. Ultimately, they perceived education as an additive process
essential to their prosperity.
The following excerpts offered examples of the participants‘ status frame of
reference, their folk theory of success, and their attitudes toward education. Their
comments illustrated the temporary nature of barriers and their embrace of mainstream
values.
Victoria had attended middle school in a predominantly low socioeconomic
Latino neighborhood. Her comments below illustrated how she contrasted her own
student identity to those of her public school peers. She felt teachers saw her differently
than others. Victoria distanced herself from a collective identity of apathetic students
whom she used as her status frame of reference:
I think the label they [teachers] put on me was eager to learn. I‘ve always
been like curious and wanting knowledge. I‘ve never been like apathetic
114
about reading or you know? I‘ve always cared, is what I‘m saying and I
think teachers don‘t see that very often, especially in public schools . . . I
think in public school, I think a lot of students feel that they‘re there
because they have to be. So they‘re really just there just to pass time.
Victoria remembered being bored and frustrated in school. Learning came easily to her,
particularly when compared to her first-generation peers. Although Victoria was able to
empathize with teachers having to meet diverse student needs, she lamented not being
challenged in class. Her comment illustrated how she used first-generation peers as her
status frame of reference for learning:
We definitely had a lot of people, a lot of kids who came from other
countries who came from other countries from Mexico and stuff and they
were struggling to get things, and I was staring back counting the holes in
the ceiling. And then I would get a ninety-eight out of one hundred and
they would be struggling and getting like a forty-eight.
Victoria was grateful for having the opportunity to pursue higher education and for the
value that her parents placed on school. She recalled moving to an ―upper middle class‖
―mostly white‖ neighborhood and getting a fresh start in high school after a rough middle
school experience. Friends from her previous neighborhood faired differently. They were
now busy parenting as opposed to attending school. Her comments contrasted her folk
theory of success, or belief in education as a vehicle for mobility, to her peers‘ less
fortunate circumstances:
I think if I had gone to W [high school] there is no telling where I would
be right now. I could be at home with a baby . . . I grew up in apartments .
. . and there was a cluster of kids . . . all of our girls . . . with the exception
of me and my cousin, they all got their babies . . . I think a lot of girls got
bored and started sleeping with their boyfriends, but we never had time for
that. Me and her have always been involved in school . . . My mom has
always been pro education. It‘s like education is so important you have to
do it. And I think it‘s true. I think education, definitely a higher degree of
education definitely equates to a better quality of life.
115
None of Victoria‘s childhood friends were in college now. Although she was very social
and had made friends at Brooke Community College, she seldom studied with others.
Victoria acknowledged that working with friends can be counterproductive and implied
that other community college students did not share her work ethic. Thus, she felt, not all
community college students took school seriously. She explained why she preferred to
study alone:
I don‘t like to because people are flaky. . . . I would love to have a group
and as soon as I find someone who‘ll actually keep a schedule and not
forget or not be like ―Oh well, I have a baby shower to go to.‖ . . . if
people weren‘t so flaky I wouldn‘t mind.
Victoria clearly identified education as a vehicle for mobility. Her comments reflected the
temporary nature of obstacles. She asserted that failure was part of learning. She offered
the following advice to prospective community college students:
They need to know that failure is part of the process. You are not just
going to fall into it. It‘s hard work. It‘s falling on your face and getting
back up again . . . you know success isn‘t doing something perfectly. It‘s
doing something not quite getting it and still finding the motivation to
push forward. Cause if you‘re a natural at school, as many people in
honors classes are, it can kind of [be] difficult to learn because you know
so much already. So, you know, you need to find the meaning in stuff.
The following comment illustrated Cindy‘s status frame of reference and her folk
theory of success. Cindy compared her own life circumstances to those of first-generation
immigrants and described how her cultural background had influenced her academic
orientation. Being part of the ―Hispanic culture‖ or being Mexican allowed Cindy to
appreciate the benefits of being a citizen:
A lot of people when they come here to the United States in order to
succeed, many of those people come looking for jobs, being the hardest
116
part because they either have to work for low wages just to succeed and
send money back home or stay here to survive for themselves or to feed
their children . . . So because of that, because of the fact that we come
here, our ancestors came here . . . kind of like pushes me . . . since I‘m
here and I‘m a U.S. citizen. Why not try and why not try to succeed in
something? . . . why shouldn‘t we take the opportunity of looking for
something better? . . . And since like now in days . . . the only way that
you could really have a promising future is through education.
Karina grew up in a low socioeconomic, mixed-minority neighborhood. In middle
school, she had had the opportunity to attend a ―very prestigious high school,‖ but
declined because her parents were concerned about the school‘s distance from her home.
Karina‘s status frame of reference included peers in her AP classes as well as her
noncollege bound friends. Her desire to leave her impoverished neighborhood offered
insight into her folk theory of success. Karina described her community as follows:
It‘s a horrible, horrible place and it keeps getting worse. So it is something
that definitely motivated me, something that definitely encouraged me.
Just because I grew up in a very poor neighborhood, that doesn‘t mean
that this is where I am going to end up. And it‘s been a struggle for me. So
far, I‘m the only one who has continued a college education.
Karina had had friends on the ESL track in high school. Although she herself did not see
them this way, she felt that they had been ―stigmatized‖ by others as being ―slow.‖ Given
the context of her community, Karina knew that she was better off than her friends and
that her English fluency made her school situation better. She commented on the
differences in curriculum between AP and ESL classes:
I remember being in a government, U.S. government class. I was learning
all sorts of stuff and they were still learning like things I learned in
elementary school . . . we had the same English class, same level, but they
were still on prepositions and what‘s a predicate? and what‘s a subject?
and parts of [an]essay and what‘s a thesis? None of my friends were
reading Shakespeare, . . . none of them were reading about history in
literature . . . None . . . my ESL friends were in AP classes.
117
Although Karina often expressed frustration about the quality of instruction she had
received in high school, she expressed pride in her school achievement and
acknowledged that other students were less fortunate than she. She later made an
analogy, comparing the school to an obstacle course. Her perspective exemplified the
temporary nature of barriers described by Ogbu, but also contrasted her own experience
to others who got through the obstacle course without setbacks. Karina had faced many
educational and personal challenges. She was twenty-four at the time of the interview and
was working diligently toward meeting transfer requirements:
I see college as an obstacle course and some people run through it and get
to the finish line and they don‘t remember the second obstacle, they don‘t
remember the third one. But some people like me go through it and they
stumble through it and they get to the finish line and they can tell you by
memory exactly where they fell, where they tripped, . . . how hard it was,
each step the ladder had, and how rusty the rope was and gain much more
experience through it because they literally endured through it . . .
Karina had struggled to get through precollegiate math coursework and felt tremendous
relief when she was able to place into transfer-level math. She described this experience
as an obstacle—as opposed to a barrier—and commented on the insight she had gained:
I used to look at those math classes as failures and now I see them as an
experience. They were certainly a very humbling experience. They were
an awakening to my life. I thought of myself as an overachiever. I would
never fail something. I would always be an A student and to me it was a
humbling process . . .Yes, I know I still have a long way to go . . . But, I
know for sure where to go to. What classes to take, who to ask for help . . .
I know that there is help out there. That there are [people] who care . . .
Similar to Victoria, Karina explained that failure is part of learning and being successful
in school; in essence, she reiterated that obstacles are temporary rather than permanent in
nature:
118
Knowing that you might make a fool of yourself, but you are willing to
learn and that it‘s okay to fail. It‘s okay, if anything failing gets us closer
to success. It‘s accepting failure not as defeat, but as victory. Because you
know that if you really paid attention to that failure you are going to learn
from it.
Eddie acknowledged that all students are not equally prepared to succeed in
college. Over the course of the interviews, he often spoke of his friends who were
pursuing math and science degrees at state and UC campuses. His status frame of
reference was broad and included students at both ends of a spectrum. Similar to Victoria,
he noted that not all community college students shared his work ethic:
I don‘t know; being a student, I see other students that don‘t, who come
here to come to school and don‘t put in that strong effort that they need to.
They don‘t put in the study time. They come, and [they think] I don‘t have
to do the homework then. If you really don‘t do the homework, how can
you expect to pass the test?
Eddie asserted that he was different from students who make a career out of attending a
community college. His comments illustrated how he disidentified with that population of
students:
You see a lot of disparity, like students that try hard and a lot of students .
. . that are registered in classes but really just [end up] dropping out. So
there is definitely like just that little small percent transferring and a lot
staying here, a lot . . . That‘s why when I came here, I‘m not going to do
three years. I‘m not going to do four years. Two years and I‘m out . . .
The following comment was an example of Eddie‘s status frame of reference. After
encountering less motivated students in his early coursework, Eddie found that other
engineering majors shared his work ethic and academic interests. Although he expressed
mixed feelings about attending a community college, he found comfort in taking lessons
119
from older students who had not worked at his pace and remained at the community
college:
Little by little I‘ve been taking my engineering classes and I‘ve been
meeting people more like me now . . . So you find things to talk [about]
and we know we are looking for something better . . . Yeah, I study with
them a lot . . . But the other ones . . . when I was in English twenty and
fifty two, I kind of felt like high school . . . with these little classes,
chemistry and stuff, I see people are trying much harder now. They are
older and I see them like they‘ve wasted a lot of time before and now we
are getting to it and working hard . . . that is why they like me, you are
young, you are doing smart and doing good . . .
The following comment illustrated Eddie‘s folk theory of success and his status frame of
reference. He lamented that others in his community had bypassed education for a job.
He believed that education leads to mobility:
And since I am coming out of a bad community, I see it a lot . . . I see
sometimes the students that don‘t go to college and I‘m like wow! ―What
are you doing?‖ ―I‘m working‖ and I say ―That is good.‖ But, I feel sad
for them because they are going to be working for their whole life. You
know?
Eddie frequently described having a ―mindset‖ to succeed that involved persevering
through challenges. He talked about short- and long-term goals and often looked ahead as
he monitored his progress. During Eddie‘s first semester at Brooke College, he registered
for all of his English and reading prerequisite coursework and carried 18 units. It was a
difficult semester, but he did not want prerequisite courses to delay his transfer. English
was not Eddie‘s forte, but he viewed these courses as temporary hurdles to overcome:
I know people [that say], I‘m not good at that subject, I‘m just going to
leave it behind. Me . . . I know I‘m not strong in it, but I still have to try
my hardest. At least to get it out of the way . . . the teacher‘s here they say
―I‘m not strong in math, that‘s why I‘m an English teacher.‖ But the same
way, I‘m strong in math. I will always try my hardest . . . You have to
have like the mindset that you‘re ready . . . You have to have your goal
120
and a future to look upon . . . whether the goal is just to finish English,
because I don‘t know how to write.
Unlike the other participants, Antonio had dropped out of high school and earned
his GED before enrolling at Brooke. He described that, after meeting his girlfriend, he
had a ―midlife crisis‖ and ended up ―changing [his] mind about school.‖ He associated
education with having a future, earning respect from others, and being a role model.
Antonio‘s status frame of reference included his parents and his peers who were not in
college. His folk theory of success involved earning a degree, but also being a role model
for his peers:
At nineteen, I really didn‘t think about school that much after I didn‘t
finish high school . . . Once she [my girlfriend] pushed me . . . I did put
my all . . . I wanted to be successful after hearing what you can do, what
you can be…You don‘t want to be like your parents and struggle. So I did
put myself in that mental position . . . I decided, because I want to be
something now . . . I wanted to be perfect in college . . . I want to be
successful . . . I want to be that Chicano . . . [A] model to my peers who
are not in college, or my brothers, my family . . . They know we [Latinos]
have struggled a lot and I want to push and say that we can do it.
Although among the participants David was the least fluent in Spanish, his
father‘s immigrant experience influenced his academic orientation and drive to succeed.
Using his father‘s experience as his status frame of reference, he commented on the
linguistic and social advantages he‘d had. His comments illustrated an additive
perspective toward schooling and a folk theory of success that viewed education as a
vehicle for mobility:
Well my dad he always pushed me to go to college. He said work is
important, but with an education you can do what you love instead of
doing what you have to do. And I see that now . . . I think he is the first to
get his degree in his family among his brothers and sisters . . . I think it
encouraged me just to see my dad. I didn‘t have any problems growing up.
121
He lived in El Salvador. He came here when he was fifteen without a
dollar in his pocket and no English . . . and you know because of what he
did and his thought of mind to go to school and become a better man to
provide for his family, I think that is definitely what pushes me.
The second theme that emerged within the cultural-ecological framework
suggested that the participants‘ academic attitudes were shaped by the concrete
experiences of others. This strand of questions drew support for Mickelson‘s (1990) and
Matute-Bianchi‘s (1986) application of Ogbu‘s framework and their discussion of real
life experiences and abstract ideological beliefs. As previously indicated, the participants
accepted and adopted their parent‘s voluntary minority folk theory of success. To a great
extent, they observed situations in which hard work had been compensated with a good
life, economic mobility, self-sufficiency, and career advancement. Consistent with this
rationale was a sense that the educational and economic opportunities available to them
in this country far exceeded those that had been available to their parents in their country
of origin. Several of the students had parents or family members who had achieved the
American dream. The participants were able to draw on concrete experiences to explain
their attitudes toward education and success, and many had had direct contact with
models of hard work compensated with prosperity. Thus, economic advancement was
tangible, through both their parent‘s experiences and their own.
Victoria often spoke with admiration of her mother‘s accomplishments. Her
mother inspired her to pursue higher education. After immigrating to the United States,
her mother became fluent in English, attended a dental program at UCLA, and helped her
family move out of a low socioeconomic neighborhood. Victoria‘s detailed description of
her mother‘s accomplishments was a concrete example the American dream:
122
My mom came over. She became a citizen. She actually went to adult
school and got her high school diploma and from there she went on into
dental stuff, so became a DA . . . She actually continued in her education.
Now she‘s an RDA-EF2 . . . it‘s registered dental assistant with extended
functions two. But basically what it is like, if it‘s like the dentist is
Batman, she‘s Robin. So she actually did that at UCLA, at the UCLA
dental school, which is huge! You know it‘s pretty hard to get in there you
know . . . Her patients don‘t know that she comes from another country…
She‘s pretty cool, amazing actually.
Victoria spoke of her mother‘s financial gain, but also of the hard work and compromises
that came with getting through the program. Her mother modeled persistence through
obstacles. She endured short-term sacrifices for long-term gain:
At that time she was earning more money than anyone in our
neighborhood . . . She moved us out of LA. We went to D . . . and when I
was in high school she began her RDA-EF at UCLA . . . I‘m really proud
of her . . . You know when she was in UCLA, it was designed for people
who had a career already . . . so it was for the weekends, eight in the
morning til eight at night . . . And that really took a toll on our family . . .
So we did, we did struggle with that for a year . . . But if you push through
the difficulties, you‘ll get where you want to be. You can‘t let things get in
the way. You have to push forward. . . . So even though things seem bleak,
you have to do what you can to get ahead.
Cindy described wanting to be an independent woman and offered examples of
role models she has had in her life. Her sisters owned a chain of successful Mexican
restaurants, and her mother had raised a large family on her own. Cindy‘s sisters were
first-generation immigrants and had not attended college. She acknowledged how hard
they and her mother worked. Cindy believed that an education could help her find
success and allow her to be a role model for her nieces and nephews:
But I mean they‘re thankfully, they [my sisters] are successful in their own
way, but they never attended college . . . They‘re successful because they
were smart at what they do, but not because they actually have a diploma
in something. I wanted to be the role model for my little nieces and
nephews, but not just that, I [want to] have a future for myself because I
123
am a woman . . . I guess being an independent woman kind of came from
my mom because that‘s how she raised me. But the fact that I actually
wanted to reach a career is to make it easier for myself. Because my mom
had to suffer more. She had to work. She had to be both a mom and a dad
and yet she was successful . . .
Karina‘s father had earned a teaching degree in math prior to emigrating to the
U.S., and her mother held a license in cosmetology. Her parents had encouraged her to
excel in school and pursue higher education. Karina‘s father‘s hard work was rewarded
with good jobs and his own business. Nevertheless, he felt that if he had earned a college
degree in the United States, his life could have been easier. ―My father never went to
college and he got his GED and he started his own business and he has two really good
jobs.‖
Eddie explained that his deceased mother had influenced his attitude toward
education and motivated him to do well in school. He contrasted his father‘s feelings
about education to the message his mother had conveyed. The following comment
offered an example that countered his father‘s argument for bypassing a college
education. Eddie‘s extended family provided concrete examples of the compensation that
comes from earning a vocational certificate, as opposed to a professional degree. He
reiterated his drive to succeed:
My dad ahh! My dad he just feels like you just have to finish school and
start paying bills. That‘s his idea. No, I‘m like your wrong! My dad has
the mindset . . . just to go to UEI college, 8 months like your cousin. Like
yeah dad, but that‘s a twelve dollar job for my whole life . . . So that‘s his
mindset, so I don‘t go to him. I feel like that‘s every Latin‘s way . . . Since
we are known as hard workers . . . we just work, that is the mindset . . .
My mom . . . was the one that always pushed me. Whatever I do it‘s going
to be for her. I want to finish school cause of her. That was her goal for
me, to be a success.
124
Eddie described mixed feelings about an older cousin who had influenced his interest in
engineering. Although he no longer considered him a personal role model, Eddie
acknowledged his cousin‘s professional accomplishments and the class privileges that
had come with his engineering career. His cousin was a concrete example of how
education led to professional success and social mobility:
One of my cousins used to be my role model. He used to live with me in
my house . . . he‘s [an] engineer. That is what made me want to be an
engineer . . . he has a nice house and everything . . . but he is like the [kind
of] people that don‘t want to be around the family and try to avoid it . . . If
you are from a low class family, you need the education to move up, but
the people that are already up there, just sometimes inherit from parents
and they keep staying there . . .
Ernest described his parents as being ―upper middle class.‖ They had investments and
owned homes. Ernest had many concrete examples in his immediate and extended family
of hard work being compensated by financial stability. Ernest frequently spoke about
family vacations/reunions and travel in Mexico. He commented on his mother‘s and
uncles‘ success. It was clear that his family‘s hard work and their investment in education
had been compensated with financial reward. Their example had oriented him toward
higher education:
[My mother] She did the whole American dream thing. Came over an
immigrant and moved up in a company . . . She is really like a diligent
worker. She works more than she has to sometimes, but she is also there
for us . . . she has fifteen brothers and sisters . . . and they were poor and
they all got an education. They all are lawyers, have businesses and she
wants that from us. She tells us that our inheritance is our education.
David‘s parents both became fluent in English after emigrating to the United
States. His father earned a degree in theology, and his mother was employed as a
preschool/kindergarten teacher. David‘s family moved from a predominantly minority
125
community to a middle-class neighborhood. Similar to Ernest‘s, David‘s parents were a
tangible example of the American dream. David expressed admiration for his parents and
their many accomplishments:
I‘ve learned very much from my dad. He came to this country when he
was fifteen. No English and he gave me and my brother and sisters a good
life. Built his company from the ground up and still going . . . So my
mom, she‘s a teacher as well. She teaches kindergarten in LA . . . She got
her AA. He [My father] got his degree . . . was a pastor for almost ten
years . . . and stopped doing that and went into insurance.
David‘s comments illustrated how his father‘s educational and work experiences had
shaped his educational attitudes:
Well my dad he always pushed me to go to college. He said work is
important but with an education you can do what you love instead of
doing what you have to do. And I see that now . . . I think he is the first to
get his degree in his family among his brothers and sisters . . . and you
know because of what he did and his thought of mind to go to school and
become a better man to provide for his family, I think that is definitely
what pushes me.
Discussion of Research Question 2
Prevalent themes that emerged relevant to Ogbu‘s minority typology conveyed a
hybrid form of cultural adaptation and access to concrete models of success. In contrast
to involuntary minorities—whose secondary cultural features draw opposition to the
dominant culture—the participants embraced American values and experienced the
rewards of hard work and academic merit. Education was associated with privilege—as
opposed to oppression. Within their minority community, the participants accessed
programs and curricula that led to their school advancement. Thus, education was viewed
as additive and as a vehicle for mobility. Inherent in the participants‘ folk theory of
success were long-term goals achieved through education and hard work. Barriers were
126
perceived as temporary in nature. The participants‘ status frame of reference included
their immigrant parents and peers as well as others in their community. Examples of
success and social stagnation were ample and reinforced the participants‘ school
orientation. By comparison, they found themselves better off than first-generation
immigrants or other second-generation peers who lacked their English proficiency or
academic orientation. The participants confirmed Mickelson‘s (1990) findings; their
academic attitudes appeared to stem from situation-specific experiences with others.
Many had family members who fulfilled the American dream through educational,
career, and professional advancement. Social mobility was feasible and concrete.
Despite the participants‘ sense of autonomy, their stories exposed the role of
others who were implicitly or directly involved in their educational advancement. The
following section addresses the themes related to social capital and looks to explain the
types of currency and agents that shaped the participants‘ academic persistence and
buffered them from the educational detours so commonly associated with minority youth.
Social Capital Theory
Results Research Question 3
What social networks support second-generation Latino language minority
community college students‘ progress towards transfer? How are relationships forged,
and who are the agents involved?
Stanton-Salazar (1997) has asserted that valuable resources essential to school
success are accessed through social networks and ties that favor the dominant culture.
Similar to an economic market where goods are accumulated, converted, and exchanged,
127
educational resources are accessed through pathways rooted in ideological forces that
breed exclusion for minority students. Within this context, institutional agents perform a
gate-keeping role and determine who merits opportunity. They control the transmission
of capital, give or withhold knowledge, and/or position students in resource-intensive
networks. It is through relationships with agents that minority youth can develop capital
and learn how to use it instrumentally for their advancement. Purposeful decoding is
essential in this process and involves deciphering the system of power and becoming
fluent in institutional discourse, or Standard English. For language minority youth,
institutional discourse is a prerequisite to accessing networks and developing
competencies valued by the dominant culture. The last set of questions examined the
types of personal connections that supported student progress toward transfer. In essence,
I wanted to know to how—and to what extent—relationships were instrumental to the
participants‘ school advancement. I began by exploring the participants‘ early education
and worked my way through their secondary and postsecondary experiences. Although
my questions were more focused on institutional agents, the student narratives drew
attention to the heterogeneous nature of dominant discourse as a form of capital and its
implications for status attainment. The themes that emerged from this strand overlapped
with each other as well as with themes pertaining to language development and status
frame of reference.
The first theme that emerged within the social capital framework suggested that
English fluency is associated with status and access. It aligned with earlier findings
pertaining to the participants‘ strong learner identity and explained how the students
128
forged relationships with others. Stanton-Salazar (1997) contended that various funds of
knowledge are essential to decoding the system of power and to establishing ties with
institutional agents. These ties depend on minorities‘ ability to adopt institutionally
sanctioned language and behavior and to meld with mainstream middle-class culture.
Comments related to the students‘ scholastic ability often aligned with being culturally
and linguistically competent in dominant discourse. Thus, English proficiency was an
important element used to access resources and support. The term ―non-native English
speaker‖ drew attention to the heterogeneity of speakers of English and to the capital
ascribed to native-like fluency and different language varieties. Despite clarification, the
term was mistakenly associated with students in the earlier stages of language
acquisition, as opposed to fluent English speakers like themselves. Although none of the
interview questions inquired directly about accents, this topic often surfaced. Several of
the participants made reference to accented English being a disadvantage in school and/or
being associated with learning difficulties. Most of the participants credited their
academic advancement to their ability to learn English quickly, and others used those
with accented English as a status frame of reference when speaking of their own
opportunities. Inherent in several of the participants‘ strong learner identities was a sense
of language currency that stemmed from their own nonaccented English or their level of
English competency. This capital allowed them access to dominant discourse and
legitimized their status in a minority intragroup hierarchy. As strong, accomplished
students, they disidentified with the attributes of less fluent minority students and a non-
129
native English speaker collective identity. Thus, they viewed their English fluency as
instrumental to their academic orientation and advancement.
The following excerpts illustrate the participants‘ awareness of intragroup
linguistic differences and the corresponding status they assigned to different English
varieties and varying levels of English fluency. Indirectly, they revealed the benefits of
becoming proficient in institutional discourse and of adopting the language and behavior
of the school community as their own. Their comments clearly suggested that the
participants did not consider the results of the English placement test to be a marker of
their English competence.
Maria recalled being exposed to English at a young age and acknowledged that
this experience had helped her to become fluent in English and to develop school
readiness skills. Because of her mother‘s job as a teacher‘s assistant, Maria had had
access to institutional discourse at the age of two. Thus, her mother‘s relationship with
the teacher was an initial network that favored Maria‘s educational standing. Maria
conveyed commitment and confidence in her academic endeavors and described success
in her high school experience. Her early English fluency and literacy skills functioned as
a form of capital that led to academic and leadership opportunities and shaped her
orientation toward school:
I have been going to school since I was two years old because my mom
worked with my professor. Before I entered preschool she would actually
take me when she was an assistant so I would be in school . . . My mom
said by the time I entered preschool . . . I already knew how to read
perfectly in English. So I would say between two and three, I learned good
English.
130
During the first part of the interview Maria was asked to compare her educational
experiences to that of a monolingual English speaker. Maria first avoided the comparison
and described the experience of other students who entered middle school not speaking
English. She explained that these students are separated from students who are fluent in
English and often do not advance beyond high school. When the question was clarified
and reiterated, she emphasized differences in learning style and personal responsibility
without directly addressing linguistic differences. Maria asserted that her education was
no different from her monolingual peers. At the same time, she indicated that her
educational experiences had included opportunities not available to less fluent English
speakers:
I think there is no difference. It just depends on how different you make it
. . . Like for example, if I decide to make different choices within my
education, my education is going to be different than somebody else who
takes a different path in their education. And it depends on the way I am
able to learn, the way that person is able to learn.
I later asked Maria about being a non-native speaker at the community college and how
this might impact her experience. Again the question made a comparison to native
English speakers. Although Maria confirmed that being a non-native English speaker
made no difference to her, she acknowledged that others with accented English might
fare differently. Her comment illustrated the inherent advantage or status associated with
native-like fluency:
I think it just depends where you come from . . . Not just Mexico, but
some other place in the world that you have a strong accent that maybe
would be hard for you to be here and studying and knowing if you are
speaking English correctly. Or if your accent is still strong enough, it
maybe depends how strong you have your English.
131
When asked why she thought she had placed into precollegiate English, Maria offered an
explanation that referenced her test-taking skills and confirmed her English competence.
She asserted her strong learner identity by challenging the association between having to
take precollegiate coursework and intellect. ―Maybe that‘s just the level the test made me
be in because some people are not good at test taking. Which doesn‘t mean you are not
smart at English, you just don‘t know how to take tests.‖
Similar to Maria, Victoria had benefited from early literacy experiences at a
young age. Alongside her mother, she had learned to read in English by the time she
entered preschool and was fluent in English by the end of 1
st-
grade. Victoria‘s time at the
library had helped her access literacy skills, which converted into academic capital that
gave her a head start over her peers. Her interest in reading blossomed into a palpable
enthusiasm for literature and a career interest in teaching English:
Well I was at home for five years you know before you start preschool . . .
[My mom] She was at home with me so we would go to the library and we
would read. So we were always at the library . . . And the librarian there,
Mrs. G, she‘s retired now. She fostered my love for reading. She would
get brand new books and she‘ll be like ―Look I just got this one!‖ So by
the time I went to preschool, and I went early because I was born in
November . . . I actually knew how to read. And you know in preschool
they‘re teaching you your alphabet and I‘m like reading words like
astronaut . . .
At home, Victoria‘s family combined English and Spanish when interacting with each
other. Within the social context of her community, code switching was accepted in
interpersonal communication. Victoria realized that this language variety was specific to
her community when her family moved to an affluent, predominantly White
neighborhood. Although conflicted by feelings of guilt, Victoria was aware that she
132
needed to modify her own language variety to match the dominant discourse at school.
She found this shift awkward, but not difficult, as she had the skills and the awareness to
do it:
I think English at school is pretty easy. It is easy to turn off the Spanish.
But it‘s harder to turn off the English. [About transitioning between the
two languages] I don‘t think I was conscious of it until I got to high school
when I got to D . . . High and it was at that time, it was mostly white and
Asian and I realized ―Oh my God!‖ Like you never notice it. Cause, when
I went to K. [Elementary] and then I went on to E [Middle school] I spoke
that way, my friends spoke that way, teachers even spoke that way. So it
wasn‘t something that you realized until you go somewhere else and it‘s
straight English all of the time, nothing else. So I didn‘t have trouble with
it, but it was really weird to get used to. I felt fake for a little bit, I felt
unauthentic. It‘s like I don‘t know, like I felt maybe I was a little ashamed
and I felt guilty for feeling that I had to hide stuff. You know because at
that time . . . D [High] was mostly white. So I felt guilty for having to tone
down a lot of things.
Similar to most of the participants, Victoria attributed not placing into English 100 to her
approach to the test. She had benefited from English 52, and she was proud of her
excellent progress in all of her English classes. Victoria was enrolled in the honors
English 101 course and had passed all of her English classes with an ―A.‖ She was
confident in her writing ability and shared several of her writing assignments with the
investigator. Victoria was later hired by the campus learning center as a writing tutor.
Similar to Maria, she asserted her competence in English:
[About placing into English 52] Because I‘m a jerk and don‘t care about
standardized testing and I just totally bombed it. I actually missed it by
three points so I think that if I had tried a little more I definitely would
have been in English 100. But I don‘t regret it. Because it was a good
thing that I got into fifty two, because I had Dr. M and he was so stringent
about MLA.
133
In contrast to Maria‘s and Victoria‘s situation, Cindy‘s academic readiness came
exclusively from school. Although she described her mother as a protective agent,
Cindy‘s mother was not able to help her with school work. Over the course of the
interviews, Cindy commented on language and its social implications. Articulate and
confident, Cindy considered herself fully bilingual. Through individual effort and hard
work, she had converted her English fluency into academic capital. The following
comments conveyed Cindy‘s experiences with different language varieties and the status
ascribed to each. The inherent status of native-like fluency was reflected in her sister‘s
comments on speaking accented English. Cindy‘s comment about her sister‘s language
fluency was suggestive of a language hierarchy:
My sister hated the fact that I learned Spanish before English . . . She saw
it that in the way that if I spoke Spanish before English . . . I was going to
have an accent no matter what because English wasn‘t my first language.
So that‘s how she saw it. And now that she has her kids, they don‘t know
Spanish. So their first language is English. So I guess that‘s opposite . . .
So she [her sister who has recently started ESL classes] wants to practice
English with them. She sounds like a street biker.
Cindy associated language with educational status. She understood the value of adopting
the dominant discourse and had the following to say about academic language:
Like I couldn‘t picture a teacher or an instructor or a professor speaking a
kind of, a very--knowing the fact they‘ve gone to school and they‘re
educated, highly educated and have them speak in a certain way that
makes them seem as they‘re not. I wouldn‘t like to see that. So therefore, I
kind of like talking to people who are educated so I kind of get their words
and speak like I‘m educated even if I‘m not completely educated.
Cindy was part of the Scholars Honors program at Brooke. She had earned an ―A‖ in her
English 52 class and was currently making good progress in the Honors English 100
course. Although the English 52 class had come easily to her, she acknowledged that it
134
―opened her eyes to a lot of mistakes‖ that she did not know were errors. When asked
why she thought she had not placed into the college-level English course, she initially
cited grammar as the issue, but ultimately concluded that it had to do with the testing
conditions and her approach to the test; thus, similar to the other participants, Cindy
asserted her competence in English:
So I don‘t know if it was just the fact that I wanted to go, that I probably
went through it quickly and really didn‘t look at it . . . I think it was
because I probably did do that and then I just went through the grammar
and punctuation and most of the questions like probably ―Oh that sounds
good‖ click. So I don‘t think I really put a lot of effort into the questions
or really looked at what it is that they were asking for . . . I don‘t think I
really took it seriously.
Karina conveyed frustration with instructors who pass judgment on students who
speak less-than-perfect English and would like to transfer to a four-year university. Her
comment illustrated the status ascribed to accented English and the negative attributes
that are associated with it. She offered the following advice to instructors:
Don‘t underestimate them. I would say don‘t underestimate them because
of the way they sound . . . I would say you know, just because they sound
because they speak . . . broken English or because their accent is thick or
because their English is very slow, doesn‘t mean they think that way! We
don‘t think with an accent! We don‘t think slowly! And there is for the
most part a group of us that really desire to learn as much from the
instructor and to learn from us as well. Don‘t think that just because you
know we just got out of an ESL class or lower division English, we‘ve
never read a novel or don‘t understand how to interpret Shakespeare, you
know?
Similar to the females, the male participants valued their English language
fluency and viewed it as a source of capital. Danny, who considered himself English
dominant, ―lost‖ his Spanish after being immersed in English instruction. In preschool,
all of his classmates were Latino, but they all spoke English. His mother was a teacher at
135
the preschool he had attended and both of his parents were, at the point of this interview,
fluent in English. Danny had moved to Dallas, an affluent predominantly Caucasian
community, where Standard English was the norm. Danny progressed easily through his
high school curriculum and conveyed confidence and pride in his writing ability. When
asked about placing below English 100, he explained that he had not taken any writing
classes in two years. Similar to the female participants, he asserted his competence in
English:
[About placing into English 52] Well like I said I didn‘t practice any
English writing skills nothing whatsoever for almost two years. And then I
had taken the placement test and I don‘t remember it being hard but I
actually was off by one point to place in the hundred [English 100] . . . I
was really close and I was pretty mad that by one point, really I have to
take a prerequisite . . . But I mean when I got in I still learned a lot so it
was still helpful . . .
Danny found Spanish obsolete in Dallas. He adapted to his new language
community and consequently ―lost‖ his Spanish. His comment illustrated the
power and status of dominant discourse. ―Most of the people don‘t speak Spanish
[in D . . .] it‘s all English and they wanted to keep it that way. I‘m not saying that
they are racist or anything, but that could have been it.‖ Danny was asked to
compare the community college experience of non-native and native English
speakers. Danny‘s comments illustrated the status associated with accented and
Standard English.
[Non-native English speakers would be] intimidated maybe. I‘ve actually
you know in classes, I‘ve seen that if you know a lot more Spanish than
you do English you know it‘s a little broken. It‘s hard for them to
participate. I‘m sure . . . they struggle trying to answer questions, they
can‘t get it out.
136
[Monolingual English speakers] I think they are a lot more dominant.
They feel they understand texts and thoughts and opinions and they can
understand when they read a book a lot more clearer. I think that‘s how
they feel. A lot more confident I guess.
Antonio conveyed similar responses to questions comparing native and non-
native English speakers. A highly determined student, he regretted that his speech
impairment had made him uneasy about oral presentations and caused him not to
graduate from high school. When compared to the other participants, Antonio had faced
added obstacles in developing language, but considered himself triumphant nevertheless.
Antonio had overcome what he described as ―stage fright‖ and had resolved to become a
successful ―Chicano role model.‖ His confidence came not only from his English fluency,
but also from his language fluency. He understood that Standard English was a
convertible form of capital that had earned—and would continue to earn—him respect
and mobility. His comments illustrated the status he associated with Standard English:
English speaking people are looked at differently, are seen differently. I
guess it‘s an advantage . . .You feel like they know a lot . . . Like they‘re
comfortable . . .
[Native English speakers] They had the advantage of learning English . . .
they‘re not that shy about talking English. So they have the advantage of
speaking and understanding and not being shy to ask the professors about
anything.
Antonio‘s comment spoke to his understanding of academic language and dominant
discourse. He said the following about transitioning between English at home and at
school:
Well, I don‘t try to use some words . . . I really don‘t talk slang. I don‘t
really like it, but I do talk a little more professional, try to use advanced
words when I talk to a teacher because I know students won‘t understand
them . . . I usually prefer to talk more academically.
137
Ernest described himself as a critical thinker. He had taken several AP courses in
high school, had many interests, and was confident in his ability to grasp concepts and
express his ideas. Ernest embraced a bicultural perspective and valued bilingualism, but
felt that bilingual programs in school were detrimental to students. He felt that they
conveyed lower expectations and ―babied‖ students. Ernest was grateful that his mother
had placed him in an English immersion program and had spared him the fate of
developing an accent:
But my mom didn‘t want me in there because a lot of the people she knew
did that with their kids [and they] spoke horrible English. Not horrible, but
they‘ve been here since they were small and they still have a thick accent.
So she put me in all English. So I went into all English without knowing
English . . . I had six months to catch up. English became primary. Then I
forgot some of my Spanish.
The following comment illustrated the status Ernest associated with accented English. In
response to how his education might have been different if he had started school in a
bilingual program, he added:
I probably would have struggled with presentations and presenting in front
of people. And I see that they are very shy about their accents and they
need to take a lot of speech classes and [practice] on presentations for
them to actually feel comfortable again or at all.
Similar to the other participants, Ernest asserted his competence in English. He felt that
his approach to the English placement test was what had caused him to place into English
52:
I don‘t know, I don‘t think I really paid much attention to the test. I just took it.
Luckily I did well enough that I didn‘t have to take reading. Some native
speakers, some people, I knew they had to take reading . . . 40 . . . It [the test] was
like sixty questions. It was too long. I got annoyed. Seriously, I was tired of
138
taking placement tests like high school standardized testing . . . I‘m glad I took
English 52 . . .
The previous theme spoke to English fluency as a form of institutional discourse
that yields status and access. As was made largely evident in the remarks, the participants
perceived English proficiency as a vehicle for learning. Many of the students spoke of
academic strengths and described themselves as experienced problem solvers. The
participants took pride in being self-sufficient and highlighted the role of ability and
effort in school. Overall, they endorsed the individualism sanctioned by our school
system and its corresponding explanation for success.
The last theme countered recurring ideas related to individualism and painted a
slightly different picture of the participants‘ academic advancement. Despite the
participants‘ ideological beliefs, the narratives confirmed that institutional agents were
involved in helping the participants secure access to higher education and/or influencing
their academic orientation. Although all of the students no doubt had relied on their own
individual strengths to acquire important funds of knowledge, they appeared less aware
of how this knowledge had drawn the support of others and impacted their learning
trajectories. Programs, and the ties and/or resources that come with them, were a part of
their grooming and had helped to cultivate their academic orientation and prepare them
for higher education. Talk of mentors and/or role models involved probing and, at times,
occurred serendipitously. Although the female participants were more likely to identify
community college staff as role models, a few of the males spoke of peer networks. Both
the female and male participants spoke of programs and, indirectly, of the ties that came
with them. They offered examples of teachers and agents who had imparted essential
139
knowledge and/or facilitated their progress. Often this bond had involved an adult
reaching out to them, or on their behalf, as opposed to the participants seeking their
support. Whether tacitly or directly, these ties were instrumental to shaping their attitudes
toward persistence and success. Educational programming worked in their favor and
helped them become college ready. The following excerpts provide a retrospective
review of how the participants accumulated capital and how relationships with agents
were embedded in programs or circumstances that involved selective membership and
knowledge.
Monica described herself as extremely shy and quiet. In 2
nd
-grade, she had moved
to Dallas, a predominantly White and affluent neighborhood. She recalled immersing
herself in reading as a way of avoiding social interactions. In middle school, she was
invited to participate in the AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) program.
When asked if the program had been helpful to her, she initially indicated that it ―didn‘t
really help‖ and was ―just a lot of extra work.‖ Upon further inquiry, she described how
the program had situated her in a social network with college-bound peers and had helped
her acquire technical knowledge, such as note taking and critical questioning skills,
which she used in her community college courses:
I took it two years in middle school [and] chose not to continue [in 9
th
-
grade]. They helped me be more social. I met a lot of my close friends
there. They taught me how to take Cornell notes and how to do critical
questions and how to not only just ask what is this? What is that? But they
taught me to ask, ―what is the effect of this? and how has it affected the
future?‖
Monica‘s comment illustrated how, at the time of the interview, she used skills that she
had acquired in the AVID program. ―Yeah, in Critical English that‘s what we‘re doing
140
today. A lot of it is think outside of the box and question everything . . . [It] prepared
me.‖ In high school Monica had opted not to continue in AVID; instead, she participated
in the Regional Occupational Program, which had helped her prepare for college and
connected her with the Urban Teacher Fellowship Program at Brooke:
In high school when I was a senior, I entered the ROP program. It was
about careers and education. I was interested in becoming a teacher and
some representatives of the fellowship [Brooke Urban Teacher
Fellowship] program came and talked to us and they asked if we were
interested to sign up. So I tried it, and I signed up, and I got into the group
and the program is to be at Brooke for two years and then transfer to Cal
State Long Beach.
Monica often described being very shy and had slowly come out her shell with the help
of teachers and friends. Her comment illustrated the meaningful relationship she had
forged with her English teacher. Mr. Rodarte had done more than teach Monica English,
he had taught her about life and was an ―empowering agent‖:
I had an English teacher, Mr. Rodarte. He lectured to us and told us to
think for ourselves, to question everything. Even the teachers and he was a
teacher, mentor and a friend at the same time…In class we were able to
express ourselves, how we felt. And we [just] didn‘t learn about English or
grammar or read stories. But, we talked about life and we would get off
subject sometimes and talk about his experiences in life. He tied it to us
and it worked . . . I could say he was one of my inspirations. He opened
my mind and I took his other class.
A progression of programs and relationships connected Monica to the UTF program at
Brooke, where she had met her student support specialist. Monica‘s comments illustrated
the support she received from peers in the program, but most importantly from the
student support specialist who provided assistance—likely beyond the scope of her job
description:
141
Right now I‘m in the UTF program. We get first priority in everything.
We already have our classes set for the next two years here at the college,
and they tell us what we need. They give us the classes that we need. They
give us support because we‘re in a cohort. So a group of girls together. So
if we need, we can ask one another instead to ask the professors and we
have a student support specialist. So she helps a lot . . . She takes notes.
She tells us to pay attention. If we‘re having trouble with something we
don‘t understand, she helps us understand . . . if we have trouble at home,
we can talk to her and try to fix things, if we need rides, she says to
contact her and she could try to help us.
When asked about mentors at the community college, Monica had more to say about the
student support specialist, Norma. She was the first person Monica went to for help. If
Norma was not available, Monica would go to another staff member, whom she
described as ―up there in the Teacher Track and UTF program.‖ Thus, Monica was
clearly situated in a UTF support network. Monica described Norma as a surrogate
mother who provided personal and academic support and was readily available to help;
[Norma] . . . she helps us and she‘s always on top of us to make sure that
we‘re doing what we‘re supposed to do be doing. She‘s like a friend, but a
mother figure. She‘s really nice and open and encourages us to like come
to her if we need help.
Among the participants, Karina‘s college experience was unique. At twenty-four-
years-old, she had been in school longer than all of the other participants and had
encountered numerous personal and educational challenges. Nevertheless, Karina
remained resolved to transfer and earn a degree. At the time of the interview, she was
employed at Brooke College as a professor‘s assistant and was considering a job offer in
a different department. Karina was well connected with professors and staff and had
many friends at Brooke. Similar to Monica, she described feeling ―at home‖ at Brooke
142
and spent a lot of her time on campus. More so than the other participants, Karina readily
identified agents who supported her progress and the institutional barriers that deterred it.
The following comment illustrated how she was inspired by her 9
th
-grade English
teacher, who had encouraged her to ―connect with her Spanish‖ in writing. Karina‘s
relationship with her teacher had helped her develop her writing skills and cultivated her
interest in the subject. Karina later earned recognition for her writing ability and
identified it as an area of strength:
[About Ms. R] . . . she kind of connected with the passion I have in writing
and literature. She was my English teacher. And she would come into
class and she was just full of energy and full, like you just saw the passion
in her eyes…And she would say ―Grab your journals and write, forget
about rules, forget about language, forget about the time. Just write . . .‖ I
remember that it was during the time, I was like discovering myself . . . in
creative writing. And she just helped me like to open those gates . . . And
the way she would just digest the book made me realize that this is what I
wanted to do. I want to write . . . the thing that impacted me the most: the
fact that ever since before her class all I heard was English…she would
say, ―How do you say that in Spanish? How does it make you feel when
you say that? . . . Okay, then write that . . .‖ to this day I take a lot of what
she taught in that class to consideration.
After multiple attempts to pass a precollegiate math course, Karina met with her math
instructor and expressed her frustration about failing the class again. She had exhausted
her ideas and resources and needed direction. The Brooke math professor asked her to
enroll in the class one last time. This initial contact led to a relationship that helped her
get through the class. She recalled that conversation:
And he said come back next semester and I will do anything I can to help
you. I will bend over backwards to help you get this, but come back. Even
if the class is packed, I will help you get in . . . Sure enough everyday he
would say ―Karina how do you do this?‖ He‘d bring me to the board and
I‘d do it. And it was around this time that family problems were rising at
143
home. So I remember him just being there for me, and surprisingly I was
doing good on my exams.
Karina passed the class after seven attempts. She could then register for the transfer-level
math course and return to Cal State Long Beach, because passing the class was a
requirement for her readmittance. Karina encountered some personal challenges upon her
return to CSULB and faced a mandatory leave of absence. She expressed gratitude to a
professor who reassured her and offered direction. Karina acknowledged that her
instructor‘s advice proved to be critical to her well-being and her subsequent re-
enrollment at Brooke.
She said ―I really care for you. I have grown to know who you are . . . as a
person and care a lot about you and I see you and I see someone going
somewhere and I see someone who is not going to give up and someone
who is going to be very successful and this is not going to get in your way
. . . I really want you to take some time off and just be you.‖
Karina described her college experience as ―humbling.‖ She learned that it is okay to ask
for help. Karina returned to Brooke College and was, at the time of the interview, only a
few classes away from transferring. Karina described feeling comfortable with her
professors. Because she worked on campus, she had embedded herself in a supportive
network that included peers, professors, and administrative staff:
Professor Shea is fabulous! I love her . . . and I feel very comfortable
going up to her . . . [Professor Ronald] I took him last semester and I felt
at home with him . . . Never shied away from trying to help me figure out
how to make the paper look better or the presentation or whatever it was . .
. For the most part, professors here I am very comfortable with.
When seeking transfer information, Karina found her colleagues working on her behalf.
For help with school, she reported feeling most comfortable seeking advice from her
boss, the department secretary. The following comment illustrated the unsolicited help
144
she had received from professors and office staff, who had helped her find a counselor
and register for classes:
Professor Osmond, who I work for knows him [counselor] very closely.
And he tried calling him several times . . . Ann who is the secretary of the
division also emailed him and called him . . . there has been other
professors here in the department who have recommended me to several
people . . . if something is going on at school I go to Ann, she‘s the
division secretary. I feel completely comfortable with her about anything .
. . For example, she is actually helping me get classes for the fall already
and the schedule isn‘t out. So yeah, I just go to her.
Karina saw many of her professors as role models, but expressed particular admiration
for two professors who shared their own educational challenges with her. Their
experiences motivated her to persevere:
I most definitely see my econ professor as a role model. I think she‘s
inspiring . . . she talks a little bit about what she‘s been through and the
fact that she started off as a political science instructor and now is an econ
professor. It kind of . . . encourages me, to know that I don‘t have to just
stick with business. I can always change my mind. I also find Professor
Amber somehow motivating . . . she shared a story with me once where it
took her ten years to get a bachelors and she didn‘t give up. And that
touched me…and it‘s just kind of a reminder that I can get/be there one
day. I can be someone who can say, I went through that [and] I just kept
going.
Although Victoria excelled academically and learned easily, her experiences in
the k–12 setting were mixed. At Brooke, she found herself in her element, excelling in
classes, growing intellectually, and motivated to succeed. Victoria was on campus on a
daily basis and was later hired as a writing tutor at the campus learning center. When
asked to comment generally about her success at the community college, Victoria drew
attention to sociocultural forces that governed opportunities to learn, but asserted that
language barriers could be overcome. Ultimately, she concluded that it was teachers who
145
make the difference. Reflecting on her experiences, one can see how she arrived at this
conclusion:
I think the one thing that I can say about my experience as a Spanish
speaker [and] English, we learn the way our world works early on. And
we might not even notice it, but a child learns things through observational
learning. If they notice things, if they see things, they start to form self-
definitions. And children, like the one thing that I‘ve noticed cross-
culturally is that children meet expectations. If you think that your
students aren‘t going to do much in life they won‘t . . . [About Latino and
Hispanic kids] If their teachers believe in them, they can push through the
language barriers. No problem. They can push through the social
awkwardness of coming from another culture. But if their teachers don‘t
believe in them, they don‘t see the point.
Victoria had had many teachers in her life who had influenced her learning and created
opportunities for her to succeed. At the age of two, the local librarian had fostered her
love for reading by introducing her to new books. ―She would get brand new books and
she‘ll be like ‗Look I just got this one!‘ So by the time I went to preschool . . . I actually
knew how to read.‖ She recalled a teacher from elementary school ―straightening her
out‖ and making her a stronger student: ―He was very noble in his teaching method. He
really didn‘t . . . take excuses . . . His expectations were much higher than a lot of the
other teachers.‖ In high school, Victoria became ―really good friends‖ with her high
school English teachers. These relationships cultivated her interest in writing and helped
her refine her skills in this area. She said the following about her 10
th
-grade English
teacher:
. . . I was friends with her. And I got to know her and I saw . . . I grew a lot
that year as far as my writing and my English skills. I really picked up on
a lot of stuff I think other teachers assumed that we knew, but didn‘t tell
us…she worked us hard, but I think we walked away with a lot from that
class.
146
Like Monica, Victoria had participated in the Regional Occupational Program in high
school. The program had helped her prepare for college, and connected her with the UTF
program at Brooke.
Actually ROP really helped a lot with that [preparing for college]. In fact
they not only helped with college, they also helped us with our resumes . .
. we even started a career portfolio in class . . .They really taught us how
to, they had a whole section on how to find a job. They taught us how to
network. They really prepared us . . . My ROP teacher told me about the
Teacher Track Program here at Brooke where you do two years here and
then you get guaranteed a spot at Cal State Long Beach and then you can
graduate with your little degree, and then you know, you can be a teacher.
Victoria acknowledged the benefits that came with being on campus on a regular basis.
She noted the importance of meeting deadlines and appreciated that one of her English
professors had required that they open Tele Net accounts. Unlike other students, she did
not experience problems with staying informed:
I‘m here on campus Monday through Friday and I‘ve signed up for all of
those things that they offer. They have like text message alerts . . . emails
and newsletters . . . Doctor Houser made us do [it] . . . It was kind of like
part of the assignment. So that was good.
In general, Victoria saw her professors as role models, but she had a special relationship
with one of her teachers; their commonalities inspired her to persevere:
I feel like if I was older I‘d be a lot like her. I really see myself in her.
Cause she was in, she did the whole community college bit for about ten
years. And she‘s mentioned a lot of things that I‘m like, yeah!!! . . . She
teaches my English 103 class. I really admire her . . . It‘s like seeing an
older version of yourself, who‘s got it together, you know? I think she‘s
pointed out that . . . I‘m sometimes too hard on myself.
As a whole, most of male participants did not report having relationships with
community college staff. When asked about role models and mentors, they often spoke
instinctively about peers and family members who exemplified strong character. With
147
further questioning came examples of peer networks, agents, school programs, or
instruction that had helped shape their educational careers and prepare them for higher
education.
In high school, Ernest had participated in the social justice, history, film, AP,
debate, and ping pong clubs. He took AP history, physics, and calculus classes and
played on the school‘s volleyball team. Ernest described himself as a ―critical thinker‖
who valued curiosity and knowledge over rote memorization and good grades. He
became involved with the business academy and recalled being approached to participate
in a special project. His participation led to opportunities and skill development:
I took business law my freshman year. I liked it. And the teacher
approached me about joining the club and that was freshman year. They
take trips up north to Bakersfield and he asked me if I wanted to join the
club and then I joined the club and he got me a seat to go up north with the
seniors and we went to Bakersfield and did the whole competition. So you
build, so [the] business club is a four year program and you take different
classes, business law, economy and other stuff and web design and
eventually you create a business . . . You build catalogs and websites,
mission statements, portfolios and all of that stuff.
When asked directly, Ernest did not identify teachers as agents. Nevertheless, over the
course of the interview, he spoke of honors and AP classes that had encouraged
discussion and inquiry and had taught him to think critically. The following comment
illustrated the distinction he made between students who regurgitate information and
others like himself. Indirectly, he explained that this awareness stemmed from
experiences he had in his classes:
Like you notice children that engage in learning and the ones that are just
like good workers, like ―A‘s.‖ Like the ones that work hard. They read and
they study and everything, but they don‘t retain the information, or they
don‘t think critically. They just think what they are told . . .
148
Ernest acknowledged a special relationship he had with his teacher. Because he was an
athlete, he felt his teacher, who was also a coach, was more invested in him as a student:
Like I had a teacher pull me off to the side and it was my physics teacher .
. . It was cool because I played volleyball and he was the wrestling coach.
So, I feel they cared about their students more.
Eddie had many social ties with family and friends. As a top student in his high
school, he had been tracked with a cohort of similarly performing students and had
excelled in AP coursework. He described himself as ―a little nerd‖ and someone who was
good with numbers. Although he did not identify a mentor or role model at Brooke, he
maintained strong connections with friends whom he visited at UC and state colleges.
The following comment illustrated the peer network that Eddie had established in his AP
classes:
I knew I had a future for me. I just have to try my hardest and then being
with peers like with the smartest students. We all grew up with the
mindset, we are all going to college and we are all doing this and that. And
we‘ve all gone so far . . . And a lot of times I keep up with them. They are
at UCLA and Cal Poly . . . and I see them on weekends and stuff and we
always socialize . . . they are very proud of me . . . I‘ve been on those
campuses . . . I‘m like wow! . . . I always talk to people like my friend
that‘s at UCLA . . . And I am always socializing with people.
Eddie considered his high school math teacher a mentor. He had offered advice and
friendship and encouraged him to do well in school. Eddie‘s description suggested that
he may have acted as an empowering agent:
He was my calculus, pre-calculus and statistics teacher. [I had him] for
two years, but I had him for three classes. He was a much older man
already, but he gave me a lot of advice. Like the same thing, try your
hardest and stuff. [He gave me advice] about math, college, and [my]
future. Yeah [we talked outside of class]. Yeah, we always used to
149
socialize about sports and from there we became close friends and he is
still there teaching.
Antonio was the only participant who had not graduated from high school. He,
too, had performed well in high school, but dropped out of school toward the end of his
senior year. Antonio was part of the architecture academy and the high school band. In
elementary school, he had received speech and language services to help improve his
articulation of sounds. Oral presentations made him nervous, and Antonio had not
completed the required panel presentation for his senior project. He earned his GED in
six months at an adult school and enrolled at Brooke College ready to overcome his fear
of oral presentations. At the time of the interview, speaking in front of a group was no
longer an obstacle for him. Unlike the other male participants, Antonio identified several
agents who offered support and imparted knowledge. At the community college, he
networked and found mentorship in a relationship with an older peer. Antonio was one of
33 students selected to participate in the architecture academy. He felt that the
architecture academy had helped him prepare for college and had placed him in a cohort
of peers with similar interests. ―The academy, well it did [help me prepare for college],
like I said, they keep us together for a full year, but not just in that class…we were stuck
together all high school year.‖ Antonio felt supported by his architecture teacher. His
counselor frequently reached out and tried to help him with his senior project:
[About his teacher] . . . he was one of my encouragers back in high school.
I did have a counselor back in high school that was always on top of me
[to finish my senior project] . . . she kept telling me, ―You need some
help? Come with me and I‘ll help you.‖ She was motivating, but I didn‘t
pay attention as well.
150
Antonio attended a community research center, where he received help with homework
and learned computer skills in 5
th
- through 9
th
-grade. He expressed admiration for the
counselor who worked in the program and considered her a role model. His comments
illustrated how she had imparted knowledge and helped him improve his skills:
There‘s one person that I admire. She‘s like a counselor for children with
problems and she works at a community research center. I used to take this
class . . . to do my homework, to help students improve themselves . . . I
met her there and her job was to help kids . . .
When asked about how schools can help non-native English speakers succeed in school,
Antonio spoke of his Chicano Studies teacher at Brooke and described him as role model
and mentor. He characterized his teacher as an empowering agent who imparted
knowledge but who also challenged him to see the world differently:
He opened our eyes . . . we learned that there was not much in expectancy
of Latinos graduating and doing well. So he‘s the one that motivated me
and told us [about] all of these programs and [about] past events . . . So he
was the one that opened my mind . . . He‘s a Chicano Studies teacher here
. . . I find him fascinating that he knows so much about our history . . . I do
look up to him because he‘s one of us. He‘s got his Ph.D.
Discussion of Research Question 3
The student narratives corroborated Stanton-Salazar‘s perspective on institutional
support. He asserted that institutionally sanctioned discourse is a ―key ingredient‖ for
navigating networks that facilitate academic advancement (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The
participants consistently associated their English fluency with their academic prosperity.
Incidental and direct comparisons to others less fluent than they, gave them a sense of
status that contributed to their confidence and/or positioned them in resource-rich
networks. All of the participants asserted their English competence. Poor test-taking
151
skills or a haphazard approach to the English placement test was how they explained
placing below English 100. As students with a strong academic orientation, they used
their English proficiency to decode the school culture and to legitimize their status within
a minority hierarchy. The participants often appeared empathic toward first-generation
immigrants, but they also seemed unwilling to be confused for one. At this point in their
educational careers, they were more likely to identify linguistically with native English
speakers than with students who spoke accented or less fluent English. Status was
attained from English proficiency and academic-specific knowledge; with this status
came opportunities for mobility.
The last the theme traced social capital through knowledge, programming, and
ties that yield status and bestow privilege. It offered unanticipated insights into the
students‘ educational backgrounds and their perspectives on academic attainment. Early
cultivation of English fluency was valued and common among the participants. It set the
tone for how they approached learning and how they, in turn, were incorporated into the
school system. Most participants were college bound and identified as such by others at
an early age. Academic knowledge and English fluency, paired with mainstream values,
earned them distinction within a minority hierarchy and gained them access to college
preparatory programming and support. Their goal of attending a four-year university was
briefly on hold during their time at Brooke College—but it was never in doubt. With
varying levels of self-awareness, the participants described programming, relationships,
and knowledge that had situated them in a network of high-achieving peers with a
152
common purpose and agents who imparted knowledge. These sometimes-invisible
networks had offered opportunities and reinforced the participants‘ sense of status.
Summary of Key Findings
Linguistic, cultural, and institutional factors working in unison propel second-
generation minority community college students toward transfer. Overlapping issues
related to the participants‘ individualistic ideologies, their desire to preserve an earned
identity and status within a minority hierarchy, and an emerging sense of the obscure
nature of social capital surfaced throughout the interviews. The purpose of this study was
to understand persistence and to explore how Latino community college students alter
their educational trajectories. Compromise rather than change was what emerged from
the student narratives. To varying degrees, the participants had been cultivated to ascend
the academic ladder. They acknowledged detours and consistently found alternate routes
to barriers. Their stories bring hope and success to a body of literature that paints a broad
picture of failure among a growing minority population.
The following chapter discusses the study‘s findings. It begins with brief review
of the questions this study sought to answer as well as the practical and theoretical
considerations that shaped my analysis of the problem. Findings are presented next. The
chapter concludes by drawing implications for practice and research.
153
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS
Background and Purpose
Findings from the Institute for Language and Educational Policy (2009) have
indicated that two-thirds of the nation‘s English Language Learners in grades k–12 are
second-generation immigrants and 75% of them come from Spanish-speaking homes. As
a group, Latinos are among the country‘s most undereducated population, and they
remain locked in a cycle of poverty and underachievement (Gandara & Contreras, 2009).
Educational reform measures centered on increasing test scores have resulted in
instructional programming that is detrimental to their learning (Gandara & Rumberger,
2009). Thus, Latinos remain underserved in a k–12 system that fails to adequately
prepare them for postsecondary education (Bunch, 2008; Gandara & Rumberger, 2009;
Hagedorn & Lester, 2006). Underprepared to succeed, college-level literacy demands
represent a major obstacle for these students (Bunch, 2009). In California, one-third of
Latinos begin their postsecondary education at community colleges, yet only 3.4 %
transfer to four-year public institutions (Ornelas & Solorzano, 2004). Although statistics
suggest an increase in their college enrollment, their retention, transfer, and completion
rates remain problematically low (Gandara & Contreras, 2009; Sengupta & Jensen,
2006). Latinos are the largest language minority population in the U.S. (Goldenberg,
2010) and are often viewed as a monolithic group. Though bound by a common
154
language, they are characterized by racial, socioeconomic, and generational differences
that impact their learning (Gandara & Contreras, 2009). Their educational attainment
weighs heavily on their life chances, and their academic advancement will require that
educators acknowledge their unique cultural and linguistic needs.
The topic of my study stemmed from larger issues of equity and diversity, and
focused on language and persistence. It examined the educational trajectories of second-
generation Latino language minority community college students educated in our k–12
public school system who placed below college-level English. By design, the subjects
recruited for the study represented the characteristics most common among minority
students in our California public schools. Thus, second-generation students raised in
Spanish-speaking homes were my target population. The purpose of the study was to
explore individual, social, and institutional factors that shaped their persistence and
prepared them for transfer. Using qualitative methodology, three bodies of literature
informed the direction of my study: language theory, cultural-ecological theory, and
social capital theory. A preliminary survey was used to recruit students who met the
study‘s participation criteria. Nine subjects were selected for the study and were
interviewed individually using a semistructured protocol designed by the principal
examiner. Student narratives were coded and analyzed for themes.
This final chapter begins by reviewing key theoretical principles that shaped the
direction of the study and by answering the research questions. Findings are presented
next. The chapter concludes with implications for practice and research.
155
Research Questions
Language Theory and Politics
Both an internal and social process, language is a distinct cognitive function
separate from learning (Collins, 1988; Lerner, 1992; Wiley & Lukes, 1996). As a social
construct, language is governed by politics and power and develops within a community
of speakers (Crawford, 2004; Collins, 1988). My first research question examined both
aspects of language and their impact on student learning. Due to current educational
reform efforts, language programming for English Language Learners often involves
structured English immersion, or quick exit programs (Crawford, 2004; Wiley& Lukes,
1996). To capture the impact of language policy on learning, instruction in English was a
requirement for participating in the study. Most of the participants were instructed
exclusively in English, and three had participated in quick exit programs.
Using the frameworks of Chomsky (Crawford, 2004), Krashen (1995), and
Cummins (1984, 2000), I explored the individual progression of developing a first
language, and becoming literate in a second. The work of Crawford (2004) and others
was used to explore the social realm of language. Together, they have explained the
prevailing English-Only, Standard English, and language as a problem ideologies that
shape language policy in our country (Crawford 2004; Cummins, 2006; Wiley and Lukes,
1996). Gandara and Rumberger (2009) completed this discussion by explaining how
language policy shapes opportunities for learning. In order to succeed academically,
language minorities must develop academic language fluency in English commensurate
with their monolingual peers (Valdes, 1998). Thus, I felt it necessary to explore how
156
second-generation Latino language minorities managed linguistic discontinuities between
their home and school environments. The first question asked: How do second-generation
Latino language minority students describe the process and context of learning English,
and what bearing does this have on their academic advancement?
Overall, participants described the process of learning English as fast and
expedient. The participants confirmed that they spoke Spanish at home and learned
English at school. Several of the students described early literacy experiences and school
success. Some of the participants found learning content and language simultaneously a
challenge, but most made little distinction between English language fluency and
academic achievement. Although varying levels of language loss in Spanish was also
noted, the participants viewed learning English as an additive process. The participants
reported being fluent in English, or being able to access grade-level content, within a year
of English instruction. Generally, they favored their instructional programming and found
it effective.
An English-Only ethos present in our American public schools defined the social
context of learning English. The participants described language ideology that echoed
across settings and stressed English fluency. English fluency was embedded in their
academic orientation and cultivated by family and school staff, who endorsed English as
the language of prosperity. Consistent with linguistic folk theory, schools fostered the
belief that English fluency could and should be developed quickly and that language is
acquired through individual effort. Spanish was perceived as a cultural marker to be
157
preserved within the home and community. Bilingualism was valued by family and
school agents, but viewed as an individual endeavor.
It is easy to conclude that the participants‘ school orientation and their additive
perspective of language served them academically. To a large extent, the participants
represent the outliers in statistics typically associated with Latino students. They had
advanced through high school curriculum, adopted mainstream values of success, and
were making steady progress toward transfer. From an access and retention point of view,
the participants had profited from their individual circumstances and educational
experiences. Instructional programming, peer networks, and family support had shaped
their perspectives on persistence and worked in their favor. Although the participants‘
individual accounts illustrated a positive response to the process and context of learning
English, it is difficult to ascertain what long-term language or group outcomes might be
associated with their advancement.
Cultural-Ecological Theory
Cultural identity is characterized by beliefs that govern behavior and shape how
we see the world (Ogbu & Simmons, 1998). Language is part of an individual‘s cultural
identity and defines the space we inhabit. My second research question explored group
factors related to language and the impact they had on persistence. Because Latinos
represent a diverse group, my study focused specifically on the unique characteristics of
second-generation Latinos. Ogbu (1987) has asserted that educational variability among
minority students rests on a group‘s history, mode of incorporation, and how they relate
to the dominant culture. He devised a minority typology that explains patterns of school
158
success and failure based on a group‘s social status. Ogbu‘s (1987) classification system
distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary characteristics. Using Ogbu‘s cultural-
ecological theory, I examined the participants‘ folk theory of success, status frame of
reference, and collective identity and explored how these features influence school
achievement. My second research question asked: How does being a non-native English
speaker shape the identity of second-generation Latino language minority community
college students? How does their cultural identity conform to Ogbu‘s minority typology?
The data has suggested that the participants did not readily associate themselves
with a collective identity of non-native English speakers. As accomplished students, early
English fluency was embedded in a strong learner identity. During the interviews, the
participants more readily identified their own language skills with native fluency. The
participants valued bilingualism. They viewed Spanish as a cultural marker and
recognized English as a vehicle for mobility. Several participants had parents who had
become fluent in English and all had family who endorsed English fluency as a valuable
asset. Overall, their English competency supported a student identity that aligned with the
dominant culture and fortified their status within a minority hierarchy.
As second-generation minorities, the participants represented a hybrid form of
cultural adaptation characterized by voluntary and involuntary features. Their status
frame of reference involved first-generation immigrants, second-generation peers, and
members of the dominant group. In contrast to involuntary minorities, they did not
perceive education as subtractive. Their academic orientation was framed by their
parents‘ immigrant perspective, but also by the experiences of underachieving or socially
159
stagnant peers who likely fit Ogbu‘s involuntary minority classification. The participants
adopted a voluntary minority folk theory of success. They viewed obstacles as temporary
and believed in merit and hard work. In contrast to involuntary minorities, they displayed
no signs of an oppositional identity.
Social Capital Theory
Social capital is often linked to educational outcomes (Dika & Singh, 2002) and is
defined as an intangible form of currency that manifests through relationships and
provides access to desired resources (Coleman, 1988). Relevant to the study of diversity,
current research has used social capital theory to draw attention to issues of access and
equity (Dika & Singh, 2002). Stanton-Salazar (1997) has extended social capital theory to
explore institutional support and its impact on low-status minority youth. Stanton-
Salazar (1997) has asserted that institutional networks favoring the dominant culture are
characteristically different for minorities. Furthermore, linguistic discontinuities between
the home and school environment make it difficult for minorities to engage high-status
adults and to decode the system of power within a school. Conflicted by institutionalized
dependency and uneven power relationships, institutional forces constrain their ability to
form social ties that favor mobility. My third research question used Stanton-Salazar‘s
framework to examine persistence. Building on the premise that language is used to
bridge relationships and to navigate the politics of support, my last research question
asked: What social networks support second-generation Latino language minority
community college students‘ progress toward transfer? How are relationships forged, and
who are the agents involved?
160
The participants‘ educational histories suggested the presence of protective agents
who endorsed a strong academic orientation. Early literacy among a few of the
participants was supported through community resources such as libraries and learning
centers, employers and/or family members. In high school, honors and AP courses
situated the participants in peer networks with students who shared common academic
goals and attitudes. Programs such as Advancement Via Individual Determination
(AVID), the Regional Occupational Program (ROP), Puente, and school learning
academies also involved cohorts of peers and provided access to agents. Thus, through
coursework and programs, the participants found themselves immersed in staff and peer
networks that supported their academic advancement. Networks at the community
college involved peers, professors, and staff working with special programs.
Due to the participants‘ strong learner identities, the discussion of agents and
support often involved probing. They asserted self-sufficiency and conveyed varying
levels of awareness about how others had helped them advance academically.
Relationships with agents often involved school staff reaching out to the participants—or
on their behalves—within the context of instruction or programs. The participants
described connecting with teachers who taught a preferred subject or an area of interest.
Personal relationships evolved from shared interests or an agent acting beyond their job
requirement. On a practical level, institutional agents imparted knowledge, and cultivated
skills. Tacitly, they helped build the participants‘ confidence and inspired them to pursue
new interests or ideas. Although teachers were most often identified as agents, support
from librarians, counselors, coaches, and clergy was also evident.
161
Summary of Findings
My study has drawn four salient points relevant to the persistence of second-
generation Latino language minority community college students: (a) Woven throughout
each of the participants‘ narratives is a staunch sense of individualism that colored all
aspects of their learning; (b) stability, rather than change, was evident in the participants‘
educational trajectories; their persistence emerged from a strong learner identity that had
been cultivated at an early age; (c) individual academic attainment obscures the
differences between English fluency and academic achievement; (d) the participants‘
academic success was supported by a sociocultural context that enabled them to cross
cultural and linguistic boundaries. These findings frame the remainder of this chapter.
Finding 1
Overlapping data from the different strands of literature derived a common theme
among the participants and form the basis of my first finding; individual effort was
associated with all aspects of persistence and success. Students often described adept
problem-solving skills. They took pride in being self-sufficient and—whether by choice
or chance—the onus of academic advancement was perceived as their own. The
participants valued individual determination and believed that hard work was rewarded
with success. As accomplished students, their educational trajectories reinforced a heroic
mindset that de-emphasized the nature of social capital and the ecology of learning. This
finding illustrates the individualist tradition described by Stanton-Salazar (1997) that
stresses choice and responsibility and supports Wiley and Lukes‘s (1996) discussion of
ideologies that shape learning. Whereas the participants‘ innate ability and effort cannot
162
be denied, Stanton-Salazar (1997) has warned that a stoic sense of individualism can
undermine help-seeking behavior and be counterproductive to the long-term success of
minority youth.
Finding 2
The second finding indicated stability, rather than change, in the participants‘
educational trajectories; persistence emerged from a strong learner identity cultivated at
an early age. Several of the participants described early literacy experiences and/or an
interest in reading supported by family and school staff. Early success in school led to
access to mainstream, honors line, and/or Advanced Placement coursework in high
school. As suggested by social capital theory, language was used as a convertible form of
currency that bestowed access to resources (Bourdieu, 1986). The role of institutional
support described by Stanton-Salazar (1997) was evident in participants‘ school
networks. From the participants‘ perspective, relationships with high-status adults
appeared to evolve organically and were typically accessed through programs and
instruction. They perceived themselves as different from other students and felt that
agents did as well. Agents imparted knowledge and skills and helped them to decode the
system of power within the school. For many of the participants, attending a community
college was an alternative option for higher education. Parental values echoed the
school‘s and encouraged their advancement.
Finding 3
The third finding suggested that individual academic attainment obscures the
differences between English fluency and academic achievement. The participants‘
163
perspectives on language and literacy counter language frameworks proposed by Krashen
(1995) and Cummins (1984), which emphasize time and meaning over immersion or
quick exit programs. The participants described learning English quickly and associated
early English fluency with academic advancement. English competence afforded them
access to mainstream, honors, and AP coursework and prepared them for postsecondary
education. Spanish was viewed as a cultural marker and English as the language of
prosperity. Dialogue pertaining to language often led to the topic of accented English
and language varieties. Within this context, the participants subtly drew attention to a
language hierarchy that denoted privilege to native-like fluency, such as their own. This
distinction drew support and recognition from others and leveled their status with agents.
From Bourdieu‘s perspective, this finding explains the power and politics of language
stratification (McDonough & Nuñez, 2007). Lost is a critical awareness of group
implications of language and learning, common among language minority students.
Consistent with the findings of Crawford (2004) and Wiley and Lukes (1996), this
perspective absolves the school system of linguistic reciprocity, reinforces the status quo,
and supports ethnocentric ideologies that associate early English fluency with
advancement and privilege, and limited English fluency with underachievement (Wiley
& Lukes, 1996). Consequently, issues of equity and access that undergird social change
remain misrepresented by this surface understanding of language.
Finding 4
Stanton-Salazar (1997), Ogbu (1987), and Cummins (2006) have stressed the
relationship between a bicultural identity and positive educational outcomes among
164
minority youth. The last finding confirms that the participants‘ academic success was
supported by a sociocultural context that enabled them to cross cultural and linguistic
boundaries. Consistent with Ogbu‘s (1992) findings on minority status and school
success, most of the participants reported a dual frame of reference that was neutral rather
than subtractive. They conveyed pride in their parents‘ cultural background and readily
identified with American mainstream culture. Bilingualism was valued, yet viewed as an
individual endeavor. Education was not perceived as a threat to their identity, but rather
as a part of it. The participants viewed their English fluency and academic competence as
important cultural markers that brought distinction. In contrast to involuntary minorities
in Ogbu‘s (1987) typology, the participants disidentified with a collective identity of
underachieving minority peers. They embraced citizenship and conveyed no evidence of
an oppositional identity. Overall, cultural boundaries appeared permeable and not
oppressive.
Also critical to the participants‘ academic advancement were school and
community forces that supported the participants‘ school orientation. As Mickelson
(1990) found in her study of Black high school students, the participants‘ academic
attitudes were shaped by the concrete experiences of their parents and community
members. The participants‘ immigrant parents modeled hard work, which was
compensated with social mobility and/or financial rewards. Their instructional context
situated them among peers who shared their academic orientation and programs that drew
the support of agents. The participants believed that they had equal access to education
and to the rewards that it brings. They viewed the opportunity structure as fair and
165
associated their generational differences with advantage and privilege. This finding
illustrated the positive impact of institutional support on educational outcomes described
by Stanton-Salazar (1997). It also speaks to Matute-Bianchi‘s (1986) findings on the role
of community forces in the academic attitudes of minority youth.
Limitations
The purpose of this study was to understand persistence through the experiences
of second-generation Latino community college students. It drew participants who
represented select characteristics relevant to the focus of the study. In examining a
study‘s findings, a researcher must acknowledge design constraints that should be
considered in its analysis. Although the participants were selected randomly, the findings
reflect the experiences of students who volunteered to participate. This self-imposed
limitation may have drawn a group of participants who do not represent the typical
community college student. The students‘ socioeconomic status was not a focus of the
study, yet this information at times emerged spontaneously in our discussions. Because
some participants volunteered this contextual background and others did not, I did not use
it as part of my analysis.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study draw implications for practice relevant to k–12 and
community college educators and stakeholders involved in educational programming and
design. The first implication focuses on institutional support; the second relates to models
of success. Combined, they reinforce an additive perspective of learning that supports
positive educational and social outcomes.
166
Relevant to institutional support, the participants described agents reaching out to
them or acting on their behalf. Whereas they embraced these relationships and, indeed,
benefited from them, the participants‘ sense of individualism appeared to preclude them
from seeking the help of others. Educators working with minority youth need not confuse
reluctance to ask for help with indifference or self-assuredness. Many of the students
described teachers as roles models and mentors; others described them as empowering
agents. Although the knowledge they imparted was essential, the participants most often
noted the personal connections they made with staff. At the community college, many of
the participants found comfort in their professors‘ personal stories of having overcome
adversity and their simple advice on college life. As evident in the study‘s findings, the
social context of learning played a key role in their advancement.
Mickelson (1990) and Matute-Bianchi (1986) have asserted that real-life
experiences have a positive influence on the value that students place on education. Many
of the participants had parents who modeled the American dream and cultivated their
commitment to learning. Although the job opportunity structure makes this scenario
inaccessible to all students, stakeholders involved in educational design and
programming may want to consider introducing concrete models of success through
mentor programs, apprenticeships, or fieldwork opportunities. Two of the participants
who had participated in the Regional Occupational Program spoke of the occupational
knowledge and experiences they gained. Others spoke of work-related information they
accessed through different learning academy activities. In several instances, programs
and role models had shaped the students‘ interests in professional opportunities. Real-life
167
experiences that expose youth to careers and bridge employment with education may help
counter abstract ideologies that simply rely on students to trust in the benefits of
education.
Implications for Research
Research has confirmed that language and literacy are essential to Latinos‘
academic advancement and that community colleges play a vital role in preparing Latinos
for postsecondary education (Bunch, 2008; Gandara & Contreras, 2009; Valdez, 2004).
The results of this study point to three areas of research that warrant further exploration.
This study examined persistence among second-generation Latino community
colleges students educated in our California k–12 public school system who place below
college-level English. My sample drew college-bound, goal-oriented students. Many had
placed in honors line and Advanced Placement coursework in high school and had been
accepted to four-year universities. Eight of the nine participants placed one level below
college-level English. Because these characteristics are generally associated with positive
educational outcomes, it is unclear whether the students sampled represent the experience
of the average second-generation Latino community college student. Further research that
explores the unique features of this growing community college student population may
bring clarity to issues of access, retention, and degree completion.
Valdes (2004) has asserted that dialogue surrounding academic language is
fragmented within professional communities and between the scholarly and public
spheres. Although language theory guided the direction of this study, the study‘s findings
draw attention to the ambiguous nature of academic language noted by Valdes. The
168
participants accepted their language programming without question, and their
understanding of language and literacy mirrored public perception. It is unclear what
impact this perspective may have had on their literacy skills. Although this point is
beyond the scope of this study, it echoes Valdes‘s (2004) appeal for a uniform definition
of academic language. Further research into the conceptualization of academic language
would bring consistency to a fragmented body of knowledge and new insights into
literacy outcomes.
Also related to the study of academic language is the discontinuity evident in the
transition between secondary and postsecondary education. All of the participants in the
study had attended California public high schools, were instructed exclusively if not
predominantly in English, and had placed below college-level English. Although the
participants reported having benefitted from English 52, most did not anticipate this
requirement. In 2010, only 14.9% of the Brooke‘s student population placed into college-
level English. Given the large number of students requiring precollegiate coursework and
the large Latino population that attends California community colleges, secondary and
postsecondary institutions must become instructionally aligned in their literacy demands.
Further research focused on developing a unified k–16 literacy perspective may help
improve dialogue and collaboration between institutions and lead to increased academic
attainment.
Conclusion to Study
The purpose of this study was to understand and acknowledge the success of
second-generation Latino language minority community college students who are
169
working towards transfer. It traced their journey through a path of individual, group, and
institutional factors that can often lead to closed doors and missed opportunities. In
contrast to their peers, many of the participants had begun their education with early
literacy skills that planted a seed of growth and drew recognition and cultivation from
others. They found support and stability in their homes, opportunities to learn at school,
and continuity in values across settings. A strong sense of individualism emerged from
their experiences, and with it, a cloak of confidence that propelled them toward academic
advancement. Under these conditions, linguistic diversity did not deter the participants
from achieving their goals. Postsecondary education was not a result of short-term
planning, but rather a long-anticipated destination.
The study‘s findings confirm the work of prominent scholars and draw attention
to the complexity of language and its impact on educational outcomes. The participants
adopted institutionally sanctioned individualism as their explanation for advancement.
Although their individual circumstances blurred their critical awareness of language, their
English fluency and educational stability led to a strong learner identity. Immersed in a
sociocultural network that cultivated and embraced this identity, they found themselves
able to bridge their cultural and linguistic worlds.
Implications for practice emphasize the value of trusting relationships and the
practical applications of education. Educators are reminded to consider the ideological
barriers that prevent students from requesting assistance. Those involved in programming
are asked to contemplate the benefits of real-life experiences that tie career opportunities
to learning. Recommendations for future research involve looking beyond group
170
homogeneity, developing a uniform definition of academic language, and undertaking
further examination of the critical transition between secondary and postsecondary
education. This study concludes with an appeal to educators who work with language
minority students to embrace a transformational role and to challenge their students to
critically evaluate the ideological perspectives that shape language policy in this country.
Equity will be achieved when all minorities have equal access to education and the
rewards that it brings.
171
REFERENCES
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171–217.
Bunch, G. (2010, March). How testing and placement policies affect language minority
students in California community colleges. Unpublished paper presented at the
Pace Seminar for Educational Policymakers and Scholars, Sacramento, CA.
Bunch, G. C. (2008). Language minority students and California community colleges:
Current issues and future directions. Community College Policy Research, Spring
(1). Retrieved from http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6x39n5kd
Callahan, R. (2005). Tracking high school English learners: Limiting opportunities to
learn. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 305–328.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Collins, J. (1988). Language and class in minority education. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 19(4), 299–326.
Corson, D. (1993). Language, minority education and gender: Linking social justice and
power. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Corson, D. (1995). Using English words. New York: Kluwer.
Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic English words. Language Learning,
47(4), 671–718.
Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English language learners (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Bilingual Education Services.
Crawford, J. (2006). A diminished vision of civil rights. Institute for Language and
Educational Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.elladvocates.org/media/NCLB/EdWeek6jun07.html
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention.
Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18–36.
Cummins, J. (2006). Language power and pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire.
Clevedon, NJ: Multilingual Matters.
172
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Application of social capital in educational literature: A
critical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31–60.
Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic mission
of the community college. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 586, 92–119.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gandara, P., & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of
failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gandara, P., & Rumberger, R. (2009). Immigration, language and education: How does
language policy structure opportunity? Teachers College Record, 111(3), 750–
782.
Garcia, G. E. (2002). Chapter 1 (Introduction). In Student cultural diversity:
understanding and meeting the challenge (3
rd
ed.) (pp.3–39). Boston, MA:
Houghton-Mifflin.
Goldenberg, C. (2010). Reading instruction for English learners. In M. Kamil, P. D.
Pearson, E. Moje, & P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, vol. IV,
(pp. 684–710). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Gray, M. J., Rolph, E., & Melamid, E. (1996). Immigration and higher education:
Institutional responses to changing demographics. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Hagedorn, L. S., & Cepeda, R. (2004) Serving Los Angeles: Urban community colleges
and educational success among
Hagedorn, L. S., & Lester, J. (2006). Hispanic community college students and the
transfer game: Strikes, misses and grand slam experiences. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 30(10), 827–853.
Hagedorn, L. S., Maxwell, W., Chen, A., Sypers, S., & Moon, H. S. (2002). A community
college model of student immigration, language, GPA and course completion:
The Los Angeles TRUCCS Project. Office of Educational Research and
Improvement. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED 471–578)
Harklau, L. (1999). Generation 1.5 students and college writing. Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org
173
Harklau, L. (2000). From the ―good kids‖ to the ―worst‖ representations of English
language learners across educational settings. TESOL Quarterly , 34(1), 35–67.
Holme, J. J. (2002). Buying homes buying schools: School choice and the social
construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 177–205.
Institute for Language and Education Policy. (2009). Who are English language
learners? Retrieved from http://www.languagepolicy.net.
Kao, G. (2004). Social capital and its relevance to minority and immigrant populations.
Sociology of Education, 77, 172–183.
Krashen, S. D. (1995). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
Hertfordshire, Great Britain: Prentice Hall Europe.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and second language
acquisition. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Explaining second language
acquisition (pp. 197–221). Manwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage. New York: Falmer.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Lerner, J. (2000). Learning disabilities: Theories, diagnosis and teaching strategies (8th
ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Louie, V. (2009). The education of the 1.5 generation from an international migration
framework. In M. Roberge, M. Siegal, & L. Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in
College Composition (pp. 35–64). New York: Routledge.
MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2003). Linguistic diversity, schooling and social class:
rethinking our conception of language proficiency in language minority
education. In C. B. Paulsten & G. R. Tucker (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: The
essential readings (pp. 329–342). Oxford: Blackwell.
MacSwan, J., & Rolstad, K. (2005). Learning English bilingually: Age of onset exposure
and rate of acquisition among learners in a bilingual education program. Bilingual
Research Journal, 29(3), 653–678.
Matute-Bianchi, M. E. (1986). Ethnic identities and patterns of school success and failure
among Mexican-descent and Japanese-American students in a California high
school: An ethnographic analysis. American Journal of Education, 95(1), 233–
255.
174
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
McDonough, P. M., & Nunez, A. (2007). Bourdieu‘s sociology of education: Identifying
persistent inequality, unmasking domination and fighting social reproduction. In
C. A. Torres & A. Teodoro (Eds.), Critique and utopia (pp. 131–154). MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Mickelson, R. A. (1990). The attitude-achievement paradox among black adolescents.
Sociology of Education, 63, 44–61.
Mills, C. W. (1959). The sociological imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of
an explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 312–334.
Ogbu, J. U. (1992). Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Educational
Researcher, 21(8), 5–24.
Ogbu, J. U. (1998). Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155–188.
Ogbu, J. U., & Simmons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural
ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155–188.
Ornelas, A., & Solorzano, D.G. (2004). Transfer conditions of Latina/o community
college students: A single institution case study. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 28, 233–248.
Parrish, T. B., Merickel, A., Perez, M., Linnquanti, R., Socia, M., Spain, A., et al. (2006).
Effects of the implementation of Proposition 227 on the education of English
learners, K-12: Findings from a five-year evaluation. Palo Alto, CA: American
Institutes for Research and WestEd.
Rhoads, R. A., & Valadez, J. R. (1996). Democracy, multiculturalism, and the community
college. New York: Garland Publishing.
Roberge, M. (2009). A teacher‘s perspective on generation 1.5. In M. Roberge, M.
Siegal, & L. Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in College Composition (pp. 3–24).
New York: Routledge.
175
Rueda, R. (2005). Student learning and assessment: Setting an agenda. In P. Pedraza &
M. Rivera (Eds.), Latino education: Setting an agenda (pp. 185–204). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Santrock, J. (2009). Life-span development (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sengupta, R., & Jepsen, C. (2006). California‘s Community college students. California
Counts: Population Trends and Profiles. 8, 1–21.
Solorzano, R. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications and remedies for English
language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 260–329.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review,
67(1), 1–40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional
agents & their role in empowerment of low-status students & youth. Unpublished
manuscript, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA.
Suarez, A. (2003). Forward transfer: Strengthening the educational pipeline for Latino
community college students. Community College Journal of Research and
Practices, 27(2), 95–117.
Valdes, G. (1998). The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant
children. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 4–18.
Valdes, G. (1999). Nonnative English speakers: Language bigotry in English mainstream
classrooms. ADFL Bulletin, 31(1), 43–48.
Valdes, G. (2001). Learning and not learning English: Latino students in American
schools. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Valdes, G. (2004). Between support and marginalization: The development of academic
language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 7(2), 102–132.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican youth and the politics of
caring. Albany: State University of New York Press.
176
Wiley, T. G., & Lukes, M. (1996). English-only and standard English ideologies in the
U.S. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511–535.
Yorio, C. (1989). Idiomaticity as an indicator of second language proficiency. In K.
Hyltenstaum & L.K. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across a lifespan: Aspects of
acquisition, maturitand loss (pp. 55-72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
177
APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY SURVEY
Name _______________________________Date ____________________ Age ____________
In what course are you currently enrolled? Please circle one.
English 100 English 101 English 102 English 103
1. Were you born in the U.S.? YES NO
2. Were your parents born in another country? YES NO
If yes, where? _____________________
3. Did your parents or caregivers speak Spanish to you when you were growing up?
YES NO
If you answered no to the first three questions you do not need to complete the remainder of
this survey. Thank you for your time.
4. What languages do you speak? ___________________________________
What language did you speak first? ________________________________
What is your dominant language? _________________________________
What language do you use at home? ________________________________
What language do you use at school? _______________________________
Above Below
Average Average
How well do you speak English? 5 4 3 2 1
How well do you speak your other language? 5 4 3 2 1
How well do you read in English? 5 4 3 2 1
How well do you read in your other language? 5 4 3 2 1
How well do you write in English? 5 4 3 2 1
How well do you write in your other language? 5 4 3 2 1
5. Did you attend high school in the Los Angeles Unified School District? YES NO
If not, what school district did you attend? __________________________________
178
6. Did you graduate from high school? YES NO
If no, do you have a GED? YES NO
7. Were you ever enrolled in a bilingual program/ did you receive instruction in your primary
language? YES NO
8. How much of your K-12 instruction was in English? Please circle one.
< 1 year 1 - 3 years 4 – 7 years 8- 11 years > 12years
9. Were you required to take Developmental English or ESL coursework prior to placing into
English 100? YES NO
What course did you place into? ________________________________________
10. Are you planning to transfer? YES NO
If yes, where? __________________________
11. Have you passed the required transfer Math course? YES NO
Are you enrolled in the required transfer Math course? YES NO
When do you plan to take this course? ___________________________________
12. When do you plan to transfer?
Please enter the number of semesters needed or your expected year of transfer.
__________ Semesters _______________ Year
13. Would you be interested in participating in a study about college literacy and school
achievement? YES NO
If yes, please provide your contact information.
Name ___________________________________________________
Home # ( ) _________________ Cell # ( ) _________________
Email ____________________________________________________
What is the best way to contact you? Home Phone Cell Phone Email
Thank you for your time.
179
APPENDIX B
STUDENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Research Question 1: How do second-generation Latino language minority students
describe the process and context of learning English and what bearing does this have on
their academic trajectories?
1. Describe how you learned to speak English?
2. Have teachers and staff encouraged you to use and develop your language skills
in Spanish? Why do you think this is so?
3. How comfortable/confident do you feel about your ability to:
understand what you read in textbooks and explain it in your own words?
express yourself in writing?
express your thoughts and opinions in class?
How long has it taken you to feel comfortable with reading and writing in
English?
4. Do you think that your education has differed from your White monolingual peers
who enter school speaking English? How so? (Valdes, 2001)
5. How did you get to the community college?
What did you intend to do after high school?
6. Did you feel prepared for college level English?
What or who helped, and how?
Do you feel that all students are equally prepared to succeed in college?
7. Compare the expectations of your high school English class with the
demands/expectations of your community college English 100 class?
8. How do you study or prepare for your classes now?
What study habits have been most useful to you in improving your reading
and writing skills?
Where or how did you learn these strategies?
9. Has being a non-native English speaker been a problem for you? Has it changed
the kinds of opportunities you‘ve had? (Valdes, 2001)
10. Has speaking Spanish ever been an advantage to you at the community
college/work/high school?
11. What grade did you receive in English 52, 100?
What were your grades like in high school?
12. Some students place directly into English 100, others have to take courses before
getting into English 100. Why do you think you placed into English 52?
180
13. What advice would you give to students who do not place into English 100 and
would like to attend a four-year university?
Research Question 2: How does being a non-native English speaker shape the identity of
second-generation Latino language minority community college students? How do these
students conform to Ogbu‘s typology?
14. Describe the student population at the community college you attend?
15. Do you feel part of the community college campus?
16. What does it mean to be a non-native speaker of English on your campus?
How does that feel?
How is this different than being a White, monolingual English speaker?
17. Explain how you feel about participating in academic discussions or asking and
answering questions in your community college classes?
18. What does it mean to you to be successful and where did these ideas come from?
19. What motivated you to get through English 52/English 100 prerequisite courses?
20. Why was/is it important for you to pass English 100? How will/did you
accomplish this?
21. How do you think community college instructors feel about teaching students
who have difficulties with reading and writing?
Do they expect them to succeed?
22. Do you trust that schools are doing everything they can to support students like
yourself (non-native English speakers), achieve the same school success as their
monolingual peers?
23. What is the one thing you would like for English 100 instructors to know about
teaching students like yourself, who are non-native English speakers, and placed
below English 100?
Research Question 3: What social networks support second-generation Latino language
minority community college students‘ progress towards transfer? How are relationships
forged and who are the agents involved?
24. As a non-native speaker of English, what kind of help have you needed at the
community college setting that is different from your monolingual peers?
25. How familiar are you with how the community college works and what you need
to do to transfer?
How have you come by this information?
26. Have you encountered school policies or practices that make it difficult for you to
meet your transfer requirements?
27. Has being a non-native speaker of English ever made you reluctant to ask for
help?
181
What do you do when you need help?
Who do you go to?
28. What types of services have you used at the community college and why?
What services or programs did you use in high school?
29. Do you have role models or mentors (school/home)?
What have they taught you?
Describe them?
30. Has speaking Spanish been an advantage to you?
31. Who has helped you get through your English 100 prerequisite courses? Describe
how they‘ve helped.
32. What advice would you give to community college staff interested in helping
students like yourself?
182
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL CORRELATION GRID
Research
Question
Theoretical
Framework
Interview
Items
RQ:1
How do second-generation
Latino language minority
students describe the process
and context of learning
English and what bearing does
this have on their academic
trajectories?
Language Theory
Language Ideology, Politics,
& Policy:
Crawford, 1994, 2004
Wiley & Lukes (1996)
Cummins (2006)
Valdes (1999, 2004)
Gandara & Contreras (2009)
Gandara & Rumberger (2009)
Language Development:
Universal Grammar:
(Chomsky, Crawford, 2004)
Second Language Acquisition:
Krashen (1995)
Language & Literacy:
Cummins (1986 & 2006)
Items # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, *17, * 24, * 27, *28
*30 & *31
RQ: 2
How does being a non-native
English speaker shape the
identity of second-generation
Latino language minority
college students? How do
these students conform to
Ogbu‘s typology?
Cultural-Ecological Theory
Ogbu‘s Minority Typology, Status
Frame of Reference, Folk
Theory of Success, &
Collective Identity (1987 & 1992)
Minority Academic Orientation
and Attitudes Toward School:
Mickelson (1990) &
Matute-Bianchi (1986)
Items: *4, *6, *9, *10 *12, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, & 23
RQ: 3
What social networks support
second-generation Latino
language minority community
college students‘ progress
towards transfer? How are
relationships forged and who
are the agents involved?
Social Capital
Social Capital Framework:
McDonough & Nunez (2007)
Application of Social Capital
Framework in Education:
Dika & Singh (2002)
Social Capital & Immigrant/Minority
Students: Kao (2002)
Institutional Support:
Stanton- Salazar (1997, 2010)
Items: *1, *2, *4, *5, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30, 31, & 32
*Questions overlap between frameworks.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study examined persistence toward transfer among second-generation Latino language minority students, an understudied and unique minority subgroup, who represent a growing population in our nation’s schools. Using qualitative methodology, the investigator explored the academic trajectories of students who began their education in quick exit or English immersion programs in the k–12 setting and placed into precollegiate English coursework at the community college. Language theory, Ogbu’s (1987) cultural-ecological framework and social capital theory were used to examine individual, group, and institutional factors that shape academic language development. The students who participated in the study were currently enrolled or had completed English 100 at the community college and had indicated a desire to transfer to a four-year university. All participants were second-generation Latinos, raised in Spanish-speaking homes, and instructed predominantly in English in the k–12 setting. The four overlapping findings that emerged from the data support the work of educational scholars cited in this study. A strong sense of individualism, stability rather than change, the belief that early English fluency leads to academic attainment, and a bicultural orientation supported the participants’ persistence towards transfer. Implications for practice evince the value of institutional support and the impact of real-life experiences on a student’s academic orientations. Recommendations for future research involve looking beyond group homogeneity, developing a uniform definition of academic language, and further examining the critical transition between secondary and postsecondary education.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Significant others in the lives of Latino first-generation college students: how social capital aids persistence
PDF
Defying odds: how teachers perceive academic language growth despite high poverty
PDF
Latino male community college students' persistence to transfer
PDF
Are acculturation and parenting styles related to academic achievement among Latino students?
PDF
The growing gender gap among Latino students attaining a postsecondary education: a study of a minority male support program
PDF
Equitable access to learning opportunities when the minorities have become the majority
PDF
Four year college access for undocumented Latino students
PDF
The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution
PDF
Educational factors at urban public school that contribute to variation in academic achievement: comparison of high and average achieving Chinese Americans
PDF
The impact of learning communities on the retention and academic integration of Latino students at a highly selective private four-year institution
PDF
Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students
PDF
The impact of Upward bound on first generation college students in the freshman year of college
PDF
Voices of adult Latinos with physical disabilities and their families
PDF
Beyond persistence and graduation rates: examining the career exploration processes of first-generation college students
PDF
A pathway to success: experiences of first-generation minority students in academic jeopardy
PDF
A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students
PDF
The impact of college success program on first generation college students in their preparation for college
PDF
Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent
PDF
Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university
PDF
Academic dishonesty among international students: Exploring aspects of language and culture
Asset Metadata
Creator
De La Riva, Silvia
(author)
Core Title
Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
06/25/2012
Defense Date
04/04/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic language,educational variability,linguistic diversity,OAI-PMH Harvest,second-generation Latino language minority students,social capital,transfer readiness
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Baca, Reynaldo R. (
committee chair
), Fischer, Linda A. (
committee member
), Green, Alan Gilford (
committee member
), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
rivazen@sbcglobal.net,sdelariv@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-49144
Unique identifier
UC11290423
Identifier
usctheses-c3-49144 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-DeLaRivaSi-903.pdf
Dmrecord
49144
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
De La Riva, Silvia
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
academic language
educational variability
linguistic diversity
second-generation Latino language minority students
social capital
transfer readiness