University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
MOTIVATION, LANGUAGE LEARNING BELIEFS, SELF-EFFICACY,
AND ACCULTURATION PATTERNS AMONG
TWO GROUPS OF ENGLISH LEARNERS

by

María del Carmen García

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2007

Copyright 2007 María del Carmen García

ii
DEDICATION

To my family, my loved ones
Para mi querida familia

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Key people in my life proved instrumental throughout the writing phase of
this dissertation. I experienced a myriad of emotions throughout the entire process,
but my loved ones persisted and provided insurmountable support. I especially want
to acknowledge my husband, Gabriel Gutiérrez, for having been my academic
sounding board. His recommendations and ideas only improved the overall quality
of this study. Thank you Babe!
My family, collectively, has supported, albeit from afar, every academic
achievement I have amassed resulting in this culminating project. I especially want
to acknowledge my parents’, Jesús and Luz García, for their support. Without their
wish for a better life for their children, my siblings and I would have had vastly
different lives. Gracias Mami y Papi. Los quiero mucho!
Lynn Winters, my friend, mentor, and hero, also proved invaluable. I thank
you for your academic and emotional support. I appreciate the many professional
doors you have helped me open. Thank you for serving on my committee.
In addition, I’d also like to thank Dr. Myron Dembo for having served on my
committee, and for his kind, constructive feedback. Lastly, I also want to thank my
advisor and chairperson, Dr. Robert Rueda, for his guidance and ideas. Thank you
for your rigor and motivation Dr. Rueda! You’ve handed the academic baton. Now,
it’s my turn to support younger generations of Latinos as they endeavor to also reap
their academic dreams and professional goals.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ii

Acknowledgements iii

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

Abstract ix

Chapter I 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Purpose of the Study 7
Definition of Key Terms 7

Chapter II 11
Review of the Literature 11
Organization of the Chapter 11
First Generation Immigrant and 11
Generation 1.5 English Learners
First Generation Immigrant English 11
Learner Profile
Generation 1.5 EL students 14
English Language Proficiency and Achievement 16
Acculturation and Second Language Acquisition 18
Motivation 24
Motivation Defined 24
Motivation for Learning: A Motivational 25
Science of Student Motivation Framework
Theories of Motivation in Second Language Acquisition 27
From past to present 27
Gardner’s Research and his Socio-Educational Model 27
Expanding the Motivational Framework- 30
Integrative and Instrumental Motivation
Self Efficacy 36
Additional Theories of Second Language Acquisition 38
Language Learner’s Beliefs 41
Summary and Gaps 45
Research Questions 48

v
Chapter III 49
Methodology 49
Research Design 49
Setting 49
Participants 50
Research Measures 51
The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery 51
(AMTB; Gardner, 1985)
Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale 52
Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory: 53
ESL Student Version
Self Efficacy 53
Achievement 54
Language Proficiency 54
Research Procedures 54
Data Analyses 55

Chapter IV 57
Results 57
Reliability and Validity 57
Attitude Motivation Test Battery 58
Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory 59
Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale 60
Self Efficacy 60
Research Question 1: Addressing Group Differences 61
Descriptive Statistics and 61
Independent Samples T-test
Group Differences across 61
Motivational Variables
Group Differences in Self Efficacy 62
Group Differences in Academic Achievement 63
Group Differences in Language Proficiency 64
Group Differences in Acculturation 64
Group and Gender Interaction Effects 65
Research Question 2: Relationship Among Variables 65
Intercorrelations 65
Predicting Academic Achievement 68
and Language Proficiency
Research Question 3: Predicting Academic Achievement 68
Stepwise Multiple Regression 1 68
Stepwise Multiple Regression 2 70
Research Question 4: Predicting Language Proficiency 71

vi
Chapter V 74
Discussion and Conclusions 74
Implications 81
Limitations and Recommendations 83
for Future Research

Conclusion 85

References 87

Appendix 97

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Frequency Data for Students’ Age, Grade, and Gender 103
Table 2: Independent T-test, Means, and standard deviation 104
values for the dependent variables between Newly
Arrived Immigrant EL and Generation 1.5 EL Students

Table 3: Results of a Two Way ANOVA (Group x Gender) 105
for Motivation, Language Learning Beliefs, Self-
Efficacy, and Acculturation

Table 4: Intercorrelations among Motivation Variables, 107
Self Efficacy, Acculturation Variables, and
Language Learning Beliefs

Table 5: Stepwise Multiple Regression of Motivation to 109
Learn English and English Competence
on Students’ Current GPA

Table 6: Stepwise Multiple Regression for Motivation 110
Language Proficiency, Grade Level, and Current
GPA on CST English Language Arts Achievement

Table 7: Stepwise Multiple Regression for Motivation to 111
Learn English, English Competence, and U. S.
Cultural Identity on Language Proficiency

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Socio-Educational Model (Gardner, 2001) 112

Figure 2: Group x Gender Interaction for 113
Motivational Intensity

Figure 3: Group x Gender Interaction for 114
U. S. Cultural Identity

Figure 4: Group x Gender Interaction for 115
U. S. Acculturation

ix
ABSTRACT
English Learners (EL) are often viewed as a homogenous group of students, when in
fact they are a diverse group with distinct generational differences among them.
Common methods employing generation status fail to address the differences in a
subgroup of EL students, namely, Generation 1.5. These students’ experiences,
characteristics and educational needs fall within those of recently arrived first-
generation immigrants and the U.S. born second generation children of immigrants
(Roberge, 2002). Relying on first generation and second generation categories does
not grasp the varied experiences of immigrant and U.S. born EL students (Oropesa &
Landale, 1997). The purpose of this study was to investigate motivational variables
related to language learning for secondary English Learner students based on
generational status (recent immigrant ELs or first generation), and long term ELs
(Generation 1.5). Participants’ (N = 151) motivation, beliefs, self-efficacy, and
acculturation patterns related to learning English were examined. Quantitative
methods were used to assess the differences among the groups, and to determine the
predictability of these variables on achievement and language proficiency outcomes.
Results indicate that first generation ELs reported higher levels of effort, desire,
attitudes, and motivation to learn English, while generation 1.5 ELs reported higher
levels of U. S. acculturation and identity, and more competence with English. The
predictability of motivational variables did not capture a large variance of EL
students’ academic achievement and language proficiency outcomes among this
sample. Implications for language teaching and learning are also discussed.
1
CHAPTER I
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
There are an increasing number of diverse students enrolled in the Nation’s
public schools (Valdés, 1998). The National Center for Educational Statistics
(NCES, 2005) reported that Latino students accounted for 19% of the total student
enrollment in U.S. public schools, up from 6% in 1972. A similar phenomenon is
occurring in California schools. U.S. born and non-native born Latino students
comprised almost 47% of the total statewide student enrollment in the 2004 – 2005
school year (CDE, 2005). California has seen a rise in Latino immigrants with
26.2% of the population consisting of foreign born individuals, while 32.4% of the
total state population is of Hispanic descent, with Mexicans dominating by more than
80%. Additionally, more than four million Hispanics reside in Los Angeles County
alone (U. S. Census, 2000).
Historically, immigrants of Latino (i.e. such as Mexican, Guatemalan,
Salvadoran, Colombian, etc.) descent have relocated from their countries of origin to
states in the southwest, southeast, and northeast. Waggoner (1993, 2000) noted that a
majority of new immigrants that arrived during the 1980s and 1990s were originally
from countries whose native language was Spanish. Upon their arrival, these
immigrants are torn between two cultural worlds and languages (Ariza 2004).
Immigrants to this country have traveled long distances and are faced with numerous
life altering experiences (i.e., finding work, learning a new language, adapting to a
new culture, etc.) which have impacted them physically, emotionally, and
2
psychologically. In the past, a majority of immigrants were much older in age. More
recently, however, large numbers of immigrants are now arriving in early
adolescence (Chamot, 2000; Jones, 1984). Many of these school aged immigrants
arrive with little or inadequate educational experiences in their native country and
often have not yet acquired the basic skills necessary to be successful students in
their native language. Chamot (2000) emphasized that high school aged adolescent
immigrants with inadequate schooling and no knowledge of English encounter great
difficulties in schools. This provides a great challenge for these students upon their
entrance into U.S. public schools because they have to quickly learn a second
language to be able to function in the classroom and school environment (Chamot,
2000; Garcia, 2000).
English learners bring forth many concerns for school administrators,
educators, and policy makers. Changes in Federal Legislation are of primary concern
for these stakeholders. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2001)
holds states using federal funds accountable for student academic achievement.
States are required to develop a set of high quality, annual student academic
assessments in reading or language arts, mathematics, and science. Each year
districts must report student progress in terms of percentage of students scoring at the
proficient level or above. This reporting is referred to as adequate yearly progress
(AYP). The AYP becomes a difficult issue for schools located in large, urban, and
impoverished school districts where a great majority of Spanish speaking families
and students reside (U. S. Census, 2000). Schools are also asked to show that
3
Limited English Proficient students (LEPs) are attaining higher levels of
achievement on English state mandated assessments and on language proficiency
tests. At the high school level, the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) is
a high stakes test designed to demonstrate students’ proficiency in English and Math.
Due to the mounting accountability requirements that districts face and the
increasing numbers of ELs in the Nation’s public schools, it is imperative that ELs
acquire English language skills.
When examining between-group differences across ethnicities, there are
trends of lower achievement and other educational outcomes for this group.
Specifically, Latino students are 5 times more likely than their White peers to be
affected by two or more of the following risk factors: (1) a mother with less than a
high school education, (2) living in a family receiving welfare or food stamps, (3)
living in a single-parent home, and (4) having parents whose primary language is
other than English (NCES, 2003). Consequently, Latino students’ National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics, science, and reading
performance remain lower than that of White students. Furthermore, Latino students
are less likely than White students to complete advanced mathematics, science, and
English coursework. Other academic outcomes that impact Latino students include
absenteeism, retention and suspension/expulsion rates, drop out rates, and high
school completion rates. According to the NCES (2003) report of the status and
trends of Latino students in education, Latino 8
th
and 12
th
grade students had higher
rates of absenteeism than White students. This trend is also higher for Latino
4
students when considering retention and suspension rates, with 15% of Latino
students in Kindergarten to 12
th
grade repeating a grade and 20% of 7
th
to 12
th
grade
students either being suspended or expelled. Additionally, in 2000, 28% of Latino
students dropped out of school, compared to 13% and 7% for Blacks and Whites,
respectively. The report noted that the higher drop-out rate among Latino students is
partially due to higher drop-out rates among Latino immigrant students. For
instance, 44% of Latinos born outside of the U.S. dropped out of school compared to
15% of second generation Latinos. These data show some of the between-group
differences among Latino students to that of their White and Black peers, and also
highlight important reasons for lower educational outcomes for Latino students.
EL students’ educational outcomes vary when compared to that of English-
Only (EO) students’ educational outcomes. Merickel and colleagues (2003) reported
findings based upon a 3-year longitudinal study that was conducted post-proposition
227 and found a large and consistent gap between EL and EO students’ Reading,
Mathematics, and Language arts scores on the Stanford Achievement Test, 9
th

edition (SAT – 9) from 1998 to 2001. Although gains were made by all language
groups, significant gaps persisted. Similar findings were reported for the California
Standards Test (CST) with a larger percentage of EO students scoring at or above
proficiency than that of ELs. Rumberger and Gándara (2004) corroborate the
findings presented by Merickel et al. (2003) by examining various data sources
which considered EL and EOs in their analyses. They found significant achievement
5
gaps between EL and EO students and noted that these gaps are contributing to the
continuing cycle of EL underachievement.
The literature reveals that English learners are often analyzed as a
homogeneous entity, when in fact there may be important subgroup differences.
Freeman, Freeman, and Mercury, (2003) posit that high schools in the United States
are currently coping with three diverse groups of second language (L2) learners.
Olsen and Jaramillo (1999) concur and identify three types of EL groups: (a) newly
arrived or first generation students with adequate schooling in their home country;
(b) newly arrived or first generation with inadequate schooling in their home
country; (c) U. S. born long term EL or Generation 1.5. The first and second groups
of English Language Learners who are first generation immigrants or newly arrived
are wholly different in terms of their academic abilities. The first group consists of
students with adequate schooling in their home country as demonstrated by their
literacy in their first language (Chamot, 2000). Thomas and Collier (1997)
confirmed that the number of years of formal schooling in the immigrants’ home
country serves as a powerful predictor for academic success in English. For example,
adequately schooled immigrant English Learners will obtain English proficiency in
five to seven years. Ioga (1995) adds that ELs go through a period of adjustment that
may affect the quantity of time needed to fully acquire English.
In contrast, the second group is also newly arrived but with inadequate
schooling in their home country and are often illiterate. These students may take
seven to ten years to acquire English proficiency (Chamot, 2003). The third group of
6
students, Generation 1.5, were either born in the U. S. or have lived there most of
their lives. These students possess conversational English but demonstrate
weaknesses in basic literacy and academic English (Freeman, et al, 2003; Norrid-
Lacey & Spencer, 2000; Rubinstein-Ávila, 2003). Generation 1.5 students continue
to be placed into ELD classes and are identified as ELs by their schools.
Extant literature has focused on academic outcomes (Abella, Urrutia, and
Shneyderman (2002), language proficiency (CDE, 2005), administrative and learning
environments (August & Hakuta, 1997), and teacher variables (Tellez, 2004), and
more recently, within-group differences among ELs regarding special education
classification (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, 2005), or in regard to
overrepresentation of ELs in special education (Rueda, Artiles, Salazar, & Higareda,
2002), and within-grade differences in educational outcomes (Merickel, 2003).
However, research studies often ignore motivational factors implicated in EL
students’ second language learning and academic achievement. There is also a
paucity of research considering the impact of generational status (i.e., such as first
generation immigrant and generation 1.5 U. S. born ELs) on EL students’
motivation, achievement, language learning beliefs, and levels of acculturation.
Determining whether significant differences exist across these variables between and
within these groups may provide important information for the development of
intervention. The lack of literature related to motivational variables among ELs and
a scarcity of literature on within group diversity (Artiles et al., 2005) among this
growing group of students highlights the importance of studying these issues in this
7
frame of reference. Furthermore, within the past decade, only about 3% of the
research literature has highlighted the troubles experienced by these culturally and
linguistically varied students (Suárez-Orozco & Suárez Orozco, 2001).
Purpose of the Study
Given the above, the purpose of this study is to examine motivational factors,
beliefs, self-efficacy, and levels of acculturation related to second language learning
among students at two generational points – first generation Latino immigrants and
U. S. born generation 1.5 Latino EL students. A second purpose of this study is to
examine how well acculturation, motivational factors, language proficiency, and
language learning beliefs predict academic outcomes and language outcomes.
Definition of Key Terms
Initially Fluent English Proficient (I-FEP): A student whose home language
survey reveals a primary language other than English is assessed using the CELDT.
Student scores reveal fluent English proficiency.
English Learner (EL): A student who is not proficient in English, and who is
learning English as a second language (L2). EL denotes LEP (Limited English
Proficiency) status. CELDT scores reveal ELs overall score below early advanced or
ELs overall score is early advanced or higher, but one or more of the skill area scores
is below intermediate.
Reclassified Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP): The process whereby an EL
is reclassified as fluent in English. ELs must meet four criteria: (a) a minimum score
of basic on the English Language Arts portion of the California Standards Test
8
(CST); (b) CELDT EL overall scores must be early advanced and intermediate or
higher in listening and speaking, reading, and writing; (c) teacher evaluation of
student academic performance; (d) parent opinion and consultation. R-FEP student
progress is monitored for two additional years.
Generation Status: A term referring to whether an EL student’s parents were
born in the United States or in a foreign country.
Generation 1.5: Students who were born in the United States or who have
had all or most of their education in the U. S. , whose home language is not English,
and who score less than Fluent on the CELDT when enrolling in school or who do
not meet the Reclassification criteria outlined under R-FEP above. Their
experiences, characteristics and educational needs fall within those of recently
arrived first generation immigrants and the U.S. born second generation children of
immigrants.
First Generation Immigrant: A student born outside of the U. S. This student
may be an EL or may not depending upon results of tests administered when the
student enrolls in school.
Educational Status: This indicates whether first generation Latino immigrant
ELs received adequate or inadequate schooling in their native country. This term
refers to how well prepared the EL is when entering school. More specifically, was
the student educated in either English or the native language at a level that would
enable him or her to participate successfully in grade level instruction. Adequate
preparation differs by grade level. Clearly a student entering in secondary school
9
where academic instruction in math, science, and history is required, would need a
higher level of English proficiency, grasp of academic language, and concept
development in the native language than a student entering kindergarten.
Integrativeness: A second language learner who is able to relate to the host
language, community, and culture different than his/her home language, community,
and culture.
Attitudes: The attitudes the learner has toward the learning situation; a
student's beliefs, feelings, values and dispositions that cause him/her to act in certain
ways.
Motivation: The effort, desire and affect devoted, in this case, to learning a
second language.
Language Anxiety: Trait or state anxiety (a fear, apprehension, worry,
concern or apprehension) that is a consequence of the process of learning a second
language; in this case, English.
Instrumental Orientation: The desire to obtain something practical from the
second Language; a motivation to learn English based on a desire to use it for
concrete ends, e.g. friendships, work, grades etc.
English Language Development (ELD: Curriculum for students who do not
speak English focused on certain skills, vocabulary, alphabetic knowledge and
sentence structures that monolingual English speakers acquire automatically to

10
enable EL students to participate in the monolingual curriculum. Language classes
taught through content with an emphasis on language development.
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE-Sheltered
English): Grade appropriate content taught using special techniques to make the
language understandable. Instructional techniques used by teachers in monolingual
English classrooms to make content comprehensible to non-native or EL students.
The pedagogy surrounding the logic of this practice was based upon linguistic
theories laid out by a number of researchers including Dr. Steven Krashen and Dr.
James Cummins. Their development of the "Contextual Interaction Theory" and the
hypotheses therein provides the cornerstones for S.D.A.I.E. methodology and
program design. At the heart of the theory are two major components that impact the
S.D.A.I.E. classroom. These are "comprehensible second language input" and a
"supportive affective environment". SDAIE differs from ELD in that its purpose is
to help EL student learn subject matter.
Acculturation: The acquisition of traits, attitudes, language, and other aspects
of a culture different from that in which an EL student was encultured. Unlike
assimilation, the student retains his/her own culture while displaying traits of the
different culture.
Language Learning Beliefs: ELs goals, needs, learner approaches to and
satisfaction with language instruction and knowledge that students bring with them
to the learning situation.

11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Organization of the Chapter
It is important to have a basic understanding of Latino EL population
characteristics before explaining research pertaining to their motivation and second
language acquisition. Thus, this literature review will be organized in the following
manner: In the first section a demographic profile among two generations of Latino
ELs in the United States (first generation immigrant and generation 1.5) will be
presented. Within this section, educational outcomes, language proficiency, and
factors affecting them will be highlighted. In addition, levels of acculturation among
the generations of ELs will be examined. In the second section, a general
conceptualization of motivation as well as the most commonly used theories of
motivation for learning will be presented to provide the reader a basis of this
construct. In the third section, theories of motivation and self efficacy related to
language learning will be presented. In the fourth section, the theoretical foundation
related to beliefs about second language learning and its application to ELs as they
learn English will be presented. In the fifth section, a summary will be provided, and
the gaps in the research related to ELs will be explained. The last section, will
present the questions this research study attempts to address
First Generation Immigrant and Generation 1.5 English Learners
This section will present some of the demographic profiles of first generation
immigrant and generation 1.5 EL students. A brief summary regarding generational
12
status will follow to show how these groups are usually identified in the literature
before discussing first generation and generation 1.5 ELs. EL students are often
viewed as a homogenous group of students, when in fact they are a diverse group
with distinct generational differences among them. Typically, the term generational
status has been defined to describe the birth place of the individual or the
individual’s parents. For example, Valentine (2001) separated generation status of
Latinos into three levels: first generation, second generation, and third generation
and above. First generation status was endorsed if the Latino respondent was born
outside of the U. S., second generation status was endorsed if the Latino respondent
was born in the U. S., but his/her parents were not, and third generation status or
greater was endorsed if the Latino respondent and his/her parents were born in the
United States.
Defining students by generational status may provide information about the
manner in which these students are motivated, are self efficacious, form language
learning beliefs, and acculturate. However, common methods employing generation
status fail to address the differences in a subgroup of students, namely, Generation
1.5. These students’ experiences, characteristics and educational needs fall within
those of recently arrived first-generation immigrants and the U.S. born second
generation children of immigrants (Roberge, 2002). Thus, differentiating ELs into
first generation and second generation does not necessarily grasp the varied
experiences immigrant and U.S. born EL students face (Oropesa & Landale, 1997).
13
Hence, the discussion will follow with a review of first generation immigrant ELs
and generation 1.5 ELs.
First Generation Immigrant English Learner Profile
A first generation immigrant is defined as a school aged student born outside
of the U.S. Often, these students arrive to U. S. schools with varying degrees of
educational patterns in their native country. The educational attainment of first
generation Latino ELs in their native country and/or whether they received an
adequate or inadequate education is not typically addressed in the literature
particularly because of the difficulty of obtaining such information, as well as due to
their circular migration patterns (Macias, 1990).
First generation immigrant Latino ELs encounter numerous life altering
experiences caused by social and cultural change (Macias, 1990) and also while
attempting to acquire linguistic and academic proficiency in English (Haycock,
1998). For example, Arriaza (2004) argued that immigrants of mestizo backgrounds
from the Central México, suffered from a multifaceted low socioeconomic existence
and racial induced inferiority. In addition, Rumbaut (1996, 2005) states that
Mexican, Guatemalan, and Salvadoran immigrants are the least educated groups in
the American society. Oftentimes, the immigrants’ new life is a harsh reality of hard
labor passed on to their future generations if the educational barrier is not lowered by
the few and far between resilient immigrant students.
Valdés (1998) conducted an ethnographic study which focused on the lives of
two immigrant teenage female students and their quest to acquire English. The
14
students also had varying degrees of education in their respective home countries.
Valdés found that initially, these students did not know how to act like American
students, and that they had little understanding of their surrounding, one lost interest
and became discouraged and the other maintained her motivation to acquire English.
One female student favored attention from the boys, daydreamed and was detached
from the school environment, which impacted her ability to acquire English; she
ultimately dropped out of high school. In contrast, the other female student chose to
focus on her academics, learned English, transitioned out of ELD classes at the high
school level but was forced to take English as a Second Language classes at the
Community College level. Although this student was discouraged, Valdés predicted
that she would be successful due to her goals and focus in becoming successful.
Generation 1.5 EL students
The term Generation 1.5 is a relatively new subgroup within the frame of
generational status. Generation 1.5 students are identified as students whose home
or native language is not English, and who have had all or most of their education in
the U.S. Their experiences, characteristics and educational needs fall within those of
recently arrived first-generation immigrants and the U.S. born second generation
children of immigrants (Roberge, 2002). Rumbaut (1997) used the classification of
Generation 1.5 according to the students’ age upon arrival to the U.S. or more
specifically to refer to pre-teen school aged children. Portes and Rumbaut, (2001)

15
noted that of the 34.5 million immigrants who came to the U.S. from elsewhere, 40%
(almost 14 million) arrived as children under 18.
Harklau, Losey, and Siegal (1999) discussed the great diversity within the
Generation 1.5 students. The differences extend to their individual educational
experience, native and English proficiency, language dominance, and academic
literacy. The majority of these students grew up speaking a language other than
English. These students appear to be native English speakers but are weaker in their
academic language; especially in writing since it requires complex linguistic
structures not found in an everyday oral language. Cummins (1984) referred to this
as Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) or interpersonal
communications skills. Cummins added that the goal for Els is to achieve Cognitive
Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) or academic language.
In addition, Generation 1.5 students continue to be identified as English
Learners because of their inability to demonstrate English Proficiency as
demonstrated by their lack of meeting the minimum requirements for reclassification
in the state of California. In their description of the types of English learners, Olsen
and Jaramillo (1999) add that these students are below grade level in reading and
writing, may have a false perception of academic achievement because of their
satisfactory grades but have low test scores, and are placed in ELD instruction. The
majority are classified with needing intensive intervention and continue to receive
Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) with the intent of
strengthening their English dominance and proficiency. This section presented a
16
brief overview of first generation Latino immigrants and Generation 1.5 EL students.
What follows is a general description of motivation.
English Language Proficiency and Achievement
Students who are learning English as a second language (L2) are classified as
Limited English Proficient (LEP) or English Learners (Els; in this paper ELs will be
used to denote LEP and EL students). It is a common procedure for schools to derive
the students’ home language based on a Home Language Survey. The home
language survey serves as the first indicator of identifying students as English
learners (Rubinstein-Ávila, 2004). Once a parent or guardian has identified a
language other than English on the survey, students are tested to gauge their English
language proficiency. In California, the California English Language Development
Test (CELDT) is administered to these students and serves as the primary tool to
determine students’ English proficiency in reading, writing, and speaking.
Based upon their performance on the CELDT, students are categorized into
one of five CELDT levels: Beginning, Early Intermediate, Intermediate, Early
Advanced, and Advanced. EL students must satisfy several tools to be reclassified as
a Fluent English Proficient (R-FEP), which indicates English language proficiency.
For example, in the elementary and secondary school stages, students must satisfy
several targeted levels within the CELDT, attain a basic skills level on the California
Standards Test (CST), receive teacher evaluations based on their academic
performance, and parent notifications must be met. Students are annually assessed
with the CELDT to monitor students’ language proficiency until they achieve R-
17
FEP. It becomes very difficult for students to achieve R-FEP when they do not have
the adequate basic English Language skills and when they advance to higher grade
levels.
Recent studies, have discussed within-group differences on norm-referenced
assessments among U.S native and non-native Latino students. For example, Abella,
Urrutia, and Shneyderman (2005) examined test results among 1700 students
consisting of beginning ELs, advanced ELs and recently Redesignated FEP (R-FEP)
on the Mathematics portion of the SAT-9 and on the APRENDA, a Spanish language
achievement test. For the most part, beginning ELs’ scores on the APRENDA were
significantly higher than their SAT-9 Mathematics scores, and higher than both
advanced EL and R-FEP students on the APRENDA. The opposite effect was found
for R-FEP students, with significantly higher scores on the SAT-9 than that of the
APRENDA, and also higher scores than beginning and advanced ELs on the SAT-9.
Additionally, a query of EL students’ performance on the 2004 CST English
Language Arts (CST-ELA) examination using DataQuest (CDE, 2005) revealed
notable differences among high school R-FEP students, EL students who have
resided in the U.S. less than 12-months, and EL students who have resided in the U.
S. more than 12-months. The majority of the R-FEP students’ scores fell within a
Basic, Proficient, and Advanced level (84% of 9
th
, 78% of 10
th
, and 74% of 11
th

grade students). In contrast, for ELs who resided in the U. S. less than 12-months,
the majority scored within the Below Basic and Far Below Basic Range (78% of 9
th
,
83% of 10
th
, and 80% of 11
th
grade students). Similarly, for ELs who have resided in
18
the U. S. for more than one year, the majority of their scores were also in the Below
Basic and Far Below Basic levels (61% of 9
th
, 72% of 10
th
, and 76% of 11
th
grade
students). However, the latter group of ELs had a higher percentage scoring at the
Basic level (31% of 9
th
, 24% of 10
th
and 20% of 11
th
grade students) than the former
group of ELs (16% of 9
th
, 14% of 10
th
, 16% of 11
th
grade students). This 15%, 10%
and 4% difference for 9
th
, 10
th
, and 11
th
grade EL students, respectively, is possibly
due to their exposure to English than the former EL group. These data show great
variability among the achievement of R-FEP and EL students in English language
arts and mathematics.
Acculturation and Second Language Acquisition
This section will present the role of acculturation in second language
acquisition. The term acculturation is defined by Schumann (1978) as the social and
psychological integration of the learner with the target language group. Brown
(1986) noted that second language learning was also second culture learning. La
Fromboise, Coleman, and Gerton (1993) presented five stages to explain the process
that occurs within, between, and among cultures: assimilation, acculturation,
alternation, multiculturalism, and fusion. For the purpose of this review, only
acculturation will be presented. The review proffers that acculturation implies that
the individual, in pursuit of becoming a more capable participant in the majority
culture, will always be identified as a member of the minority culture.
Schumann (1978, 1986) was one of the first theorists to align acculturation to
second language acquisition. He added that acquiring a second language is part of
19
the acculturation process, and the degree of language proficiency is determined by
the magnitude by which the learner acculturates into the language majority group.
He created taxonomy of seven social and four affective factors that influence second
language acquisition based upon the quantity and quality of the second language
learners’ contact with the majority language group. The seven social factors include:
(a) social dominance which connotes the relationship between L1 and L2 groups; if
these are equal in status (politically, culturally, economically) language acquisition
will be enhanced, if not, the contact will not be sufficient for L2 acquisition; (b)
assimilation, preservation, and adaptation, which describe the best conditions (L1
assimilating to L2), decent conditions (L1 adapting L2 culture), and worst conditions
(L1 and L2 remain separated) for second language acquisition; (c) enclosure or the
extent to which L1 and L2 share social environments such as schools, workplaces,
churches; (d) cohesiveness and size, namely, the smaller the L2 group the more
likely contact to L1 community thus leading to a more favorable L2 acquisition; (e)
congruence or the similarity of the two language groups will lead to a higher degree
of contact to L1 group and increased connection to L2 acquisition; (f) attitudes (the
more positive views of the second language group toward L2 will lead to a more
favorable language acquisition); and (g) intended length of residence or the idea that
an extended length of planned residence will lead to a higher need to acquire L2.

20
The four affective variables include: (a) language shock; (b) culture shock; (c) ego
permeability; and (d) motivation.
Schumann’s acculturation theory emphasizes the importance of the
relationship between social and psychological “distance.” For example, if a learner’s
social and psychological distance is vast as seen in the attitudes toward the target
language and its speakers and lacks integrative motivation, it is deemed that learners’
progress beyond the early stages in language development will be compromised. In
turn, the language will remain “pidginized” or will fossilize into reduced and
simplified forms. Immigrant families arrive to this country with their set of cultural
beliefs, norms, and values. There are those that argue that immigrants must wholly
detach themselves from their previous beliefs and instead acculturate to their new
country’s culture. Yet there are those that choose to live in enclaves similar in
language and culture of their native country, and refuse or simply do not acculturate
to the mainstream. Since these enclaves do not require English to survive in daily
life, these non-native speakers may not see the importance of learning English.
Furthermore, many Latinos often return to their native Latin American country to
visit relatives and in turn reinforce their native home culture and language (Téllez,
2004).
Zea, Asner-Self, Birman, and Buki (2003) proposed that acculturation is a
bilinear process in which people incorporate different aspects of the new culture
while at the same time retaining similar aspects of their native culture. They posit
that during the acculturation process, individuals may lose native cultural
21
characteristics, depending on the “cultural context” in which the individual resides.
To examine these processes and to validate their acculturation measure, two studies,
using a college sample and a community sample were conducted. The first study
included 156 Latino and Latina students (both immigrant and U. S. born) from four
mid-Atlantic urban institutes of higher education. For the college sample, they found
that Spanish language was significantly positively correlated to Latina/Latino
cultural identity (r = .29, p<.0001), Latina/Latino cultural competence, (r = .56,
p<.0001), and total Latina/Latino acculturation (r = .81, p<.0001); and significantly
negatively correlated to U. S. cultural identity (r =-.44, p<.0001), U. S. cultural
competence (r = -.40, p <.0001), and total U. S. acculturation (r = -.49, p <.0001).
These correlations indicated that as the level of Spanish competency increased, the
higher the feelings of Latino cultural identity and acculturation, and lower feelings of
U. S. cultural identity, cultural competence, and total U. S. acculturation.
Additionally, total years in the U. S. was positively related with U. S. cultural
identity (r =.58, p<.0001), English language competence (r =.40, p<.0001), U. S.
cultural competence (r =.43, p<.0001), and total U. S. acculturation ((r =.41,
p<.0001), meaning that as the number of years the respondents resided in the U. S.
increased, the more they endorsed U. S. cultural identity, English language
competency, cultural competency, and more feelings of acculturation toward the
U.S. Whereas total years in the U. S. was negatively related to Latino cultural
competence, (r =-.41, p<.0001), Spanish language competency (r =.41, p<.0001),
and total Latina/Latino acculturation (r = -.44, p<.0001), meaning that as the number
22
of years respondents resided in the U. S. increased, the less competent they felt
regarding the Latino culture and the Spanish language, and the less they acculturated
toward the Latino culture.
Furthermore, the negative relationship between Spanish and English
competence, suggests that Spanish cannot be accomplished in cultural settings that
do not support bilingualism for children and other descendents of immigrants. These
findings indicate that younger people are less likely to retain their native culture and
that the retention of native culture is difficult in a setting that is unsupportive of
bilingualism (mid-Atlantic U. S. region). However, further attention needs to be
addressed to determine this effect in cities where there is a large influx of
immigrants, such as Miami, Florida, El Paso, Texas, Los Angeles, California, it may
be possible for children of immigrants to retain their native language and culture,
while they learn L2. This sample included college students who had been immersed
in the U. S. for longer periods of time than that of first and 1.5 generations.
The second study (Zea et al., 2003) involved 90 Central American adults
living in largely immigrant community in Washington, D.C. For the immigrant
community sample, the number of years in the U. S. was positively related with U. S.
cultural identity (r =.37, p<.0001) and total U. S. acculturation (r =.28, p<.0001),
and negatively related to Latina/Latino cultural identity (r =-.29, p<.01),
Latina/Latino cultural competence (r =-.28, p<.01), and total Latina/Latino
acculturation. Thus, it appears that as the number of years the respondents resided in
the U. S. increased, the more they endorsed feelings of total U. S acculturation and
23
cultural identity, while feelings associated with Latina/Latino identity and
acculturation declined. Unlike the college sample, there was not a significant
relationship between years of U. S. residence and Spanish language competency. In
terms of language and cultural competence, the findings for the community sample
showed no relation between English/U.S. and Spanish/Latina culture.
In terms of cultural and ethnic identity, participants who identified highly
with Latino/Latina culture endorsed lower items related to the U.S.-American culture
and vice versa. Also, Latin-American-born college students in the sample had
significantly lower U.S. American identity than U.S. born college students. They
found that American identity, English language, and U.S. American cultural
competence were significantly related to the length of U.S. residence. Similarly,
Valentine (2001) found a significant positive relationship among students’
generational status (first, second, third generations) and their level of U. S.
acculturation, meaning that the higher the level of students’ generational status was
associated with an increased sense of acculturation toward the dominant language
culture.
In sum, understanding the complexities of the process of acculturation among
first generation immigrant and generation 1.5 children would help researchers
understand and explain the distinct relationships in their patterns of acculturation and
potentially, how these patterns affect cultural and linguistic competence.

24
Motivation
Motivation Defined
The scientific study related to motivation is quite extensive and its models are
used in various fields of study including psychological and educational arenas. The
term “motivation” is often used as a general concept to identify an individual who is
seen to have a drive for some goal. However, this conceptualization of motivation
fails to grasp the complicated nature and the various factors that impact one’s
motivation.
Pintrich and Schunk (2002) defined motivation as the process whereby goal-
directed activity is instigated and sustained. More specifically, as the authors
defined it, motivation is a process that can not be observed directly, but can be
inferred by the tasks one chooses, the effort an individual places upon these tasks,
persistence and verbalizations toward the tasks. Along with being a process,
motivation requires goals, activity and commitment (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).
Motivation is generally defined by three factors: (a) active choice, (b) persistence,
and (c) mental effort. Active choice means initiating a task. For example, starting to
write a dissertation prospectus entails the learner to instigate the first step; whether it
would be deciding the topic to research, looking up scholarly journals, etc. The
second factor, persistence, is defined as “time spent on task” (Pintrich & Schunk,
2002, p. 14). According to the authors, a motivated individual persists at tasks, does
not give up, and is often used as a way to quantify motivation. The third factor,
mental effort, is defined as the exertion, whether physical or mental, displayed by the
25
learner to accomplish a task. It is said that motivated students use up an abundance
of mental effort during learning situations or when attempting some undertaking.
Motivation for Learning: A Motivational Science of Student Motivation Framework
To provide a clear and concise conceptualization of the construct of
motivation, Pintrich (2003) called for researchers to construct research on student
motivation based upon a Motivational Science Framework. This framework presents
three major themes that should be used to guide research pertaining to student
motivation. A general motivational science perspective, according to this view, is
one that incorporates carefully constructed and empirically based research, the use, if
warranted, of a multidisciplinary perspective of constructs and theories, and finally, a
focus on student motivation in applied settings, such as the classroom, which will
contribute to new, useful ideas and designs, as well as to contribute to the basic
understanding of student motivation. Pintrich’s recommendations guide the
presentation of research pertaining to student motivation, and offer seven issues that
reflect current motivational research. Pintrich added that student motivation is best
explained within a motivational science reference because it includes both a
scientific understanding and a practical utility. In the review, Pintrich discussed five
social cognitive motivational generalizations found within classroom contexts. They
share motivational research principles: (a) adaptive self-efficacy and competence
beliefs motivate students, (b) adaptive attributions and control beliefs motivate
students, (c) higher levels of interest and intrinsic motivation motivates students, (d)
higher levels of value motivate students, and (e) goals motivate and direct students.
26
The first four principles focus on psychological factors, which include values,
self efficacy, internal attributions, competence, control, and interest. Value beliefs
from the Expectancy Value Theory are described by the learner’s interest,
importance, and utility. Expectancy constructs focus on students’ beliefs about their
competence to do a certain task. If the learner expects to do well, they will. Interest
is individual or situational (i.e., I am very interested in my major), importance or
attainment value is defined as doing well on a task (i.e., Understanding the depth of
my major is very important to me), and utility is the usefulness of the task for the
learner in relation to future goals (i.e., I think the material presented in my
coursework for my major is useful for me to learn. Self efficacy is the expectation
for success in any given situation and/or having confidence.
The last cognitive motivational generalization discusses goals. All motivation
is goal driven. It is essential for goals to be concrete, current, and challenging.
According to Goal Orientation Theory (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), there are those that
exhibit an orientation toward mastery or a performance goal orientation. A mastery
oriented learner aims to truly learn for learning’s sake, for self-improvement, and for
mastering the task. A performance oriented learner wishes to display unto others the
appearance of being smart, to accomplish better than others, or as an avoidance of
appearing unintelligent onto others.

27
Theories of Motivation in Second Language Acquisition
From past to present
Extant literature on second language acquisition conceptualizes motivation as
an important variable when examining successful second language acquisition.
More specifically, Gardner and Masgoret (2003) stated that a motivated individual is
one who applies effort in order to achieve a goal, is persistent and attentive to
completing the undertaking, has short term and long range goals, enjoys the activity,
receives positive reinforcement and is dissatisfied with failure, readily applies
attributions to success or failure, and utilizes strategies to complete the goal at hand.
This literature review will show that there are several theories that attempt to
explain motivational aspects of learning a second language (L2). This section will
first focus on Gardner’s influential work in motivation and second language
acquisition and his additions and modifications to his Socio-Educational Model. A
chronological perspective of research and communication among researchers will
also be presented. Second, this review will present other theories of second language
acquisition. Third, the role of self efficacy in motivation and second language
acquisition will be addressed. Fourth, the role of language learner’s beliefs will be
detailed.
Gardner’s Research and his Socio-Educational Model
Gardner first began to develop his Socio-Educational Model depicting the
role of attitudes and motivation in second language learning in the 1960’s and has
continued to revise it given the research findings within the field. It is important to
28
note that Gardner’s (1985) work has been devoted to the formal second language
classroom setting. As a result from countless empirical studies, Gardner’s initial
finished model was presented in 1979, later revised in 1985 and yet again in 2001.
Gardner’s model (1979) depicted four variables/phases, namely social milieu,
individual differences, second language acquisition contexts and outcomes. These
are four variables that are interrelated when acquiring a second language.
The first variable, social milieu includes an individual’s cultural beliefs or
environment. The second variable, individual differences, includes four sub-
variables: intelligence (a key determinant in how quickly and how well the learner
will acquire the language), language aptitude (verbal and cognitive abilities that
determine learners with high levels of ability to generalize these abilities to the new
language), motivation (effort, desire, and affect; it is important because it determines
how active the language learner will work to acquire the second language) and
situational anxiety (is seen as an inhibiting effect on the learner’s performance in
acquiring the second language). According to Gardner, these four individual
differences are the most influential in acquiring a second language. The third
variable, second language acquisition contexts, includes the setting where the
language is being learned, the combination of formal language training and informal
language experience. The fourth variable, outcomes, include linguistic knowledge
and language skills (that include but are not limited to vocabulary knowledge,
grammar, fluency, pronunciation, etc.) and non-linguistic skills (these are seen in the
learner’s attitudes and values regarding the beliefs or cultural values of the target
29
language community). Gardner (1985) emphasized that the model is not inert but
rather depicts the interchange of the initial cognitive and affective variables and how
these influence the language learner’s behavior in the language learning
environment.
Gardner (1985) modified the model by introducing the concept of an
integrative motive within the individual differences phase/variable. This motive is
further divided into three components: integrativeness, attitude toward the learning
environment, and motivation. Integrativeness is often seen as an interest in the
second language group. It often connotes that learning the second language
necessitates acquiring characteristics from the language group. Attitude toward the
learning situation involves attitudes toward the school environment, beliefs/reactions
to the textbooks, evaluation of the language instructor, and the language course.
Motivation is the effort to learn the material, desire to learn the material, and positive
attitudes with learning the material. Gardner, Lalonde, and Pierson (1983) conducted
a causal modeling analysis on a sample of 140 university students studying first year
French. Their findings suggest that integrativeness and attitude toward the learning
situation are presented as attitudinal aspects that cause motivation to learn a second
language. Also, Gardner, Masgoret, and Tremblay (1999) further explained that
motivation and language aptitude directly impacts or supports achievement in the
second language.

30
Expanding the Motivational Framework- Integrative and Instrumental Motivation
Gardner and colleagues virtually dominated the research of second language
learning motivation. For instance, Gardner and Lambert’s (1959, 1972) research has
been reduced to the identification of two motivational orientations or reasons for
studying the language, namely integrative and instrumental orientations. Integrative
orientation is the ability to relate to the language of a community different than
yours. It further represents an interchange between self-concept, attitudes, and
motivation. Conversely, instrumental orientation allows the learner to gain
something from acquiring the language, such as in the case of acquiring a job or
enhancing one’s education. However, Gardner and Tremblay (1994) cautioned the
oversimplification of the Socio-Educational model into just the two domains of
integrative and instrumental orientations (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Dorneyi,
1994; Oxford & Shearin, 1994). They further emphasized that the most important
factor in the model is motivation. They also added that the two orientations should
not be perceived as antagonistic but that they are often positively related to the
acquisition of a second language. A study conducted by Clément, Dorney, and Noels
(1994) strengthened this point. They examined the linguistic attitudes and
motivations of 301 Hungarian high school students learning English as a Foreign
Language (EFL). They concluded that Gardner’s integrative motive was associated
with instrumental reasons, among others, for students acquiring the second language.
The early 1990’s initiated a discussion between researchers in second
language motivation. These differing viewpoints began when Crookes and Schmidt
31
(1991) instigated and later followed by Dornyei (1994) and Oxford and Shearin,
(1994), an aperture into the research in motivation and second language acquisition
by expanding, what they perceived, was a narrow perspective used to examine
motivation in this subject. Their main disagreement was within the motivation
construct.
A second criticism of the Socio-Educational Model was that it was not
practical and hence not easily applicable to the classroom. For this reason, Oxford
and Shearin (1994) and Dörnyei (1994) provided a series of strategies that could be
implemented in the classroom. Dörnyei suggested a general framework of second
language motivation that includes three levels: language level (orientations and
motives related to L2 learning; integrative and instrumental orientation), learner level
(need for achievement and self-confidence), and the learning situation level (course-
specific, teacher-specific, and group specific motivational components). This
framework serves as an all-inclusive motivational construct relevant to L2 classroom
motivation. However, this framework does have sound empirical evidence (Clément,
1994) but has not provided a linkage between the three levels.
Similarly and in spite of their call for expanding the L2 motivational
framework, Oxford and Shearin (1994) also did not present their own articulated L2
motivational model but rather resorted to presenting a series of relevant theories of
motivation and development outside of the social-psychological realms. These
theories include: expectancy-value theory, equity theory, and goal-setting theory.
32
These researchers provided sound ideas but fall short of providing empirical
evidence that supports their claims.
Dörnyei (1994) noted that research in L2 motivation upheld Gardner’s Socio-
Educational model’s empirically established relationships, but inherently added more
variables. Gardner and Tremblay (1994) agreed that the model was in fact not fixed
but ever evolving according to the latest research development. To investigate this,
Tremblay and Gardner (1995) studied the relationship among potential motivation
for learning constructs, namely, persistence, attention, goal specificity, and causal
attributions proposed in the literature (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991; Dornyei, 1994;
Oxford & Shearin, 1994), between Gardner’s (1985) Socio-Educational Model, and
measures of achievement among 75 Francophone students in a secondary school.
They found support for a LISREL structural equation model linking language
attitudes, French language dominance, and French achievement to aspects of
motivation. In this model, the motivational latent variable was reflected by
persistence, attention, and motivational intensity (effort) with indicator loadings of
.79, .97, and .85, respectively.
According to the structural model presented, the standardized coefficient of
.35 for the loading of motivational behavior on achievement was significant, and
indicates that every one unit increase in students’ motivational behavior leads to a
.35 unit increase in achievement. Another significant link present in the structural
model was the correlation (r = .29) between language attitudes and French language
dominance. This finding suggests that students had more favorable language
33
attitudes if they were dominant in French than if they were dominant in English. The
model further suggests that valence, goal salience, and self-efficacy mediator
variables influence motivational behavior, with indicator loadings of .29, .41, and
.33, respectively. Thus it is possible that by developing specific goals and by
referring to these goals frequently may lead to higher motivational behavior.
Language attitudes were shown to influence goal salience (the extent to which
students set goals and make plans, r = .67), valence (desire and attractiveness toward
the task, r = .99), and self-efficacy (beliefs that a student has about reaching a level
of achievement, r = .36). Goal salience is influenced by language attitudes possibly
by the development of specific language learning goals when students have positive
language learning attitudes. In this model language attitudes influenced valence, and
valence influenced motivational behavior indicating that students who value learning
possibly show higher levels of motivational behavior. Language Attitudes also had
an influence on students’ self-efficacy. This suggests that students who show
positive language attitudes and higher levels of self-confidence may show a higher
level of motivational behavior to learn another language. In sum, Tremblay and
Gardner (1995) suggest that language attitudes impact the mediator variables of goal
salience, valence, and self-efficacy that in turn impact motivation.
Gardner, Masgoret, Tennant, and Mihic (2004) performed a year-long study
in which outcome measures were (questionnaires issued 6 times; 2 Attitudes
Motivation Test Battery and 4 state measures) used to determine the effects of
language instruction on language attitudes, motivation, and anxiety. Anxiety is
34
defined as a distinction between trait and state anxiety. Trait anxiety is the tendency
to be anxious whereas state anxiety is one that may occur at any time (Spielberg,
1983). This study involved 197 university students enrolled in a first year
intermediate university course. At the end of the school year, the researchers
revealed through the participants’ grades, that students with a grade of an “A”
demonstrated little change that took place in their attitudes, motivation or anxiety.
The “B” students displayed a little variation, that is, they began the year with high
levels of language attitudes and motivation, and low levels of language anxiety. By
the end of the year though, their experiences during the school year and the feedback
obtained on their work and tests likely lowered their motivational levels. In contrast,
the students who were in the “C or lower” category began the course with lower
levels of motivational intensity, positive attitude and high levels of anxiety. In
essence, these students became even less motivated to learn. Given the findings, the
authors concluded that as students receive feedback, the less successful students may
not like the course and be less motivated to learn. Furthermore, the classroom
environment (i.e., teacher attitudes/ behavior) can influence students’ attitudes to
learn.
Gardner (2001) incorporated the new findings and modified the Socio-
Educational Model (Figure 1). His latest model can be described as having four
sections: external influences, individual differences, language acquisition contexts,
and outcomes. The first section, external influences, includes history (differences in
people’s backgrounds) and motivators. These in turn influence the second section,
35
individual differences, which encompass integrative motivation (integrativeness,
attitudes to the learning situation, and motivation). The learner’s aptitude and the
integrative motivation influence the third section which is called language
acquisition contexts. These are comprised of both formal and informal language
acquisition contexts. Both contexts ultimately lead to the fourth section, namely
outcomes. These outcomes can be either linguistic or non-linguistic forms of
language acquisition.
To prevent further ambiguity, Masgoret and Gardner (2003) conducted a
meta-analysis from a series of studies carried out by Gardner and associates. They
examined the relationship between five variables from the Socio-Educational model:
integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation, motivation, integrative
orientation, and instrumental orientation. The study examined 75 independent
samples involving 10,489 participants. Results are conclusive: (a) the five variables
positively relate to achievement in learning a second language, (b) motivation is
more highly correlated to L2 achievement than the other four variables, and (c)
findings are not restricted by the age of the student or the accessibility of the
language in its environment. In sum, there is strong support that integrative
motivation supports L2 acquisition (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). Based upon the
research presented above, these variables are important when trying to understand

36
one’s motivation to learn. The following section will discuss an important mediating
variable related to motivation, namely, self efficacy.
Self Efficacy
Another important variable that influences motivation is self efficacy. Critics
of the Socio-Educational Model (Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dornyei, 1990; 1994;
Oxford & Shearin, 1994) argued that Gardner placed too much emphasis on the
integrative and instrumental motives and ignores a list of variables with self efficacy
included among them. Bandura (1982) defined self efficacy as a perception of a
person’s judgment of his/her capabilities on a specific task. It further affects effort,
persistence, and the selection of activities to be carried out. Self efficacy is related to
expectancy values, whereby, the greater the expectancy that a behavior can produce,
the greater the motivation to perform the activity. According to Bandura (1989), self
efficacy is the most important expectancy that can be learned. Self efficacy related to
second language learning will then translate into a belief for the English learner, that
he or she can reach a certain level of English language mastery. Tremblay and
Gardner (1995) indicate that an implication of Bandura’s construct is that the extent
of motivational behavior exerted toward the task is related to students’ belief of their
probability of reaching the goal. For example, the English learner may be more
motivated toward learning English if he or she believes in the value of the task
and/or whether he or she can reach it. As noted above in Tremblay and Gardner
(1995), self efficacy was found to mediate the relationship between language
attitudes and motivational behavior. Hence, it would appear that as the language
37
learner’s attitude towards learning English improves, so too will their sense of self-
efficacy, which in turn will impact their motivation to learn L2.
In addition to its mediating role, self-efficacy has been shown to be a
predictor of academic achievement and to contribute considerably to students’
performance (Bandura & Locke, 2003; Pajares, 1996). Huang, Lloyd, Mikulecky
(1996) conducted a pilot study to validate a measure of perceived self efficacy. A 36
item scale was given to 45 English-as-Second-Language (ESL) undergraduate
college students. The refined 30-item measure, which resulted from the pilot study,
was given to 225 intermediate level ESL students in three countries at four ESL
institutions. They found that students’ perceived abilities, aspirations, persistence,
enjoyment, and writing and reading affect were related to EL students’ perceived self
efficacy. In a follow up study, Huang and Chang (1998) surveyed Asian second
language learners. The authors used the Adult Literacy and ESL Learning Self
Efficacy survey instrument created by Huang et al. (1996). The four categories in the
measure included self efficacy, ability and activity perceptions, and aspiration and
persistence. This study found that the participant’s achievement did not correlate
with their perceived self efficacy or their ability perceptions. Furthermore, Wen
(1997) investigated motivation and language learning of Chinese among students of
Asian and Asian-American backgrounds. The author surveyed 77 students from two
U.S. universities and posited that more effort should be made to increase students'
motivation, expectancy, and self-efficacy in learning L2. There are a limited number
of published studies related to Latino EL students’ self efficacy while acquiring
38
English. Despite the importance of motivational self efficacy variables, a review of
alternative theories of second language acquisition will follow.
Additional Theories of Second Language Acquisition
The Motivational Science Perspective (Pintrich, 2003) recommended that
“motivational science should draw from multiple disciplinary perspectives in terms
of theories, constructs, and methods to address questions regarding the role of
student motivation...The diversity of disciplinary approaches should lead to the
evolution of motivational science as different ideas and constructs have different
levels of relative success in helping us understand motivational phenomena” (p.
668). In this light, this section will present theories that are not necessarily second
language learning theories, but are those in which concepts from them have been
used to describe second language learning and motivation. The first alternative
conceptualization is a proposed model of Second Language Communication
(Clement, Baker & MacIntyre, 2003) and the second alternative conceptualization
includes the use of an adapted cognitive motivational theory of Self-Determination
(Noels, Pelletier, Clément, & Vallerand, 2003) to address second language learning.
The Model of Second Language Communication consists of two components.
The first component is Clément’s (1980) Socio-Context Model of second language
acquisition. The second component uses McCroskey and Baer’s (1985) theory on the
Willingness to Communicate (WTC). First, the Socio-Context model focused on a
form of integrative motivation that paid special attention to the learner’s social
context in his/her development of motivation to learn a second language. In other
39
words, the theory suggests that experiences that are positive with the language being
learned and the L2 group, lead to a form of a secondary process as seen through self
confidence with the language (as measured in the form of perceived competence and
the absence of language anxiety). Such confidence, promotes an integrative motive
to learn the language. Second, Willingness to Communicate was first pioneered with
regards to students utilizing their native language. McYntire et al. (1998) later
applied it to second language acquisition with the intent to explain various influences
that lead to initiating communication in the second language.
Clément, Baker, and MacIntyre (2003) conducted a study using the model of
second language communication that includes both social-context model and
willingness to communicate frameworks. According to the authors, integrating the
two models includes both contextual and linguistic influences on L2 communication.
Participants included a total of 378 Canadian university students; 248 Francophone
and 130 Anglophone. Based on the findings of the six part questionnaire, it was
determined that the frequency and the quality of contact with L2 group were
intercorrelated and predicted L2 confidence, and this in turn was related to WTC and
identity; both predicted frequency of L2 usage. These findings show conclusive
evidence indicating a commonality between the two previous models.
The second language acquisition framework employs Deci and Ryan’s (1985,
2002) Self-Determination theory as an adaptation to second language acquisition.
Noels et al.’s (1999, 2003) focus on intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and amotivation as
it is applied to language acquisition. Intrinsic motivation (IM) is defined as a type of
40
motivation used to initiate and follow through on an activity. Vallerand and
colleagues (in Noels et al., 2003) further identified a three part taxonomy of IM:
Knowledge (attaining new ideas), Accomplishment (the feeling of mastering the
task), and Stimulation (sensations brought forth by the task.) In contrast, extrinsic
motivation (EM), or actions carried out to accomplish an end, also have three
identified levels: external regulation (activities determined by others); introjected
regulation (performing an activity due to some pressure), and identified regulation
(self-determined external motivation; completing an activity in order to achieve the
goal.) Lastly, Deci and Ryan (1985) presented a contrast to both IM and EM with the
concept amotivation (students cannot see the relationship between their action and
the consequence.)
Using this rationale, Noels et al. (2003), conducted a study that utilized 159
primary English speakers in a French-English bilingual university. Students filled out
a questionnaire with three sections: Clément and Kruidenier’s (1983) Instrumental
Orientations, IM/EM and amotivation, and antecedents and consequences of self-
determination. Results found that IM/ EM are indeed important to understand the
usefulness of the orientations in second language motivation. Furthermore, another
study conducted by Noels, Pelletier, and Clement (1999) investigated the relevance
of IM/EM for language learning and evaluated whether perceptions of teacher’s
communicative style (i.e., the way in which the teacher interacts with the students)
were connected to various motivational subtypes: motivational variables
(motivational intensity), emotional variables (anxiety as experienced in the
41
classroom), and language competence. The participants included 78 Anglophone
students enrolled in a summer French immersion program. Bivariate correlation
analyses were conducted and indicated that positive language learning outcomes,
including greater motivational intensity, greater self-evaluations of competence, and
a reduction in anxiety were related to stronger feelings of intrinsic motivation.
This section first focused on Gardner’s influential work in motivation and
second language acquisition and the additions and modifications to the Socio-
Educational Model. A chronological perspective of research and communication
among researchers was presented. Now a discussion about the role of language
learner’s beliefs will ensue.
Language Learner’s Beliefs
There are many research studies that investigate the effects of student beliefs
on language learning. Bernat and Gvozdenko (2005) presented a summative
interpretation of current knowledge on beliefs about language learning. Factors that
have been determined to influence learners’ beliefs included: family and home
background (Dias, 2000; Schommer, 1990, 1993); cultural background (Alexander
and Dochy, 1995); classroom social peers (Arnold, 1999); interpretations of prior
repetitive experiences (Little, Singleton & Slivius, 1984; Gaoyin & Alvermannm
1995; Kern, 1995; Roberts, 1992); individual differences such as gender (Siebert,
2003) and personality (Langston and Sykes, 1997).
Language learner beliefs have been widely studied in the area of second
language acquisition. Horwitz (1987, 1988) argued that it is important to understand
42
learner beliefs about language learning in order to understand learner approaches to
and satisfaction with language instruction. She identified five areas of language
learning beliefs: foreign language aptitude, the difficulty of the language learning,
the nature of language learning, learning and communication strategies, and
motivations. Flavell (1987) defined language learner beliefs as inclusive of all that
individuals understand about themselves as learners and thinkers, including goals
and needs.
What follows is a review of pertinent research in the area of language
learners’ beliefs. Bacon and Finneman’s (1990) study included a sample size of 938
university students. They utilized self-reports of student beliefs about language
learning and found that beliefs and attitudes may play a self-fulfilling role, that is, if
a student is not interested in a specific component of the language, i.e. speaking, the
student’s ability to speak or understand can be compromised.
Mantle-Bromley (1995) carried out a study examining 208 middle school
students’ attitudes and beliefs about learning a second language. One of their
research questions examined students’ language learning beliefs. More specifically,
did students enter the classroom with misconceptions and mistaken beliefs, or both
that induced frustration with language learning? Seventh grade students’ responses to
four belief related categories of language learning obtained from the BALLI were
analyzed. The data were summarized as a percentage of responses for each of the
categories. One misconception was that students believed that learning a second
language was easy. The authors noted that this belief placed them at a disadvantage
43
or put them in danger of realizing that their performance to acquire a second
language may not have matched their beliefs. A second misconception is that
students believed that the time needed to acquire a second language was two years.
This belief would impact their attitudes about learning a second language and
consequently hinder their pursuit of L2. Other misconceptions that were noted were
mistaken beliefs about the knowledge and skills necessary for L2 acquisition. In
sum, the authors posit that students’ misconceptions about learning a second
language may impact their ability to learn and/or their progress and persistence
toward their language learning goals.
Also, Banya and Cheng (1997) studied 254 Chinese college students’ beliefs
about foreign language learning. Data included student grades and questionnaires.
Their findings showed that factors affecting students’ beliefs are attitudes toward
learning English and the use of language learning strategies. Carter (1999) conducted
another study looking into the beliefs about language learning held by 35 first year
university students of French. Results indicated that most students believed everyone
could learn L2.
In addition, Mori (1999) looked to explore the structure of language learners’
beliefs, the structure of beliefs about language learning, their relationship, and the
relationship between learner beliefs and achievement. In this study, 187 university
students completed a belief questionnaire. The author found that if students believed
their ability was controllable, they had an increased chance of obtaining higher
44
proficiency. Gardner, Masgoret, and Tremblay (1999) conducted a study that looked
into language learner’s beliefs among other variables. The author viewed how early
experiences in second language learning might be related to attitudes and beliefs
about language learning.
Huang and Tsai (2003) explored the relationship between language learner’s
beliefs and their proficiency level. This study looked into the differences of beliefs of
high and low English proficiency level students in learning English. Participants
included 89 Taiwanese high school students. In addition eight students were selected
for interviews. Findings revealed five belief discrepancies. Overall, high proficiency
learners had more positive language learning beliefs than low proficiency learners.
In addition, Peacock (1999) studied 202 Hong Kong university students in ten EFL
classes and found gaps between teacher and learner beliefs. These resulted in
negative learning outcomes for the learners, led to reduced learner confidence in and
satisfaction with the class and to a reluctance to participate in communicative
activities.
Horwitz (1999) reviewed 13 published studies utilizing the BALLI and
cautioned against the classification of inter-group belief differences under the theme
of culture. Instead, Horwitz recommends that researchers should examine the relative
status of learning a language in a mixture of countries and recognize that political,
economic, and social issues also influence learner beliefs. In sum, the studies above
highlight the impact of language learner’s beliefs on language acquisition and
provide important points for researchers regarding students’ misconceptions and
45
views toward L2 acquisition and how these impact their ability to learn a second
language.
Summary and Gaps
Motivation is a quite complex construct and is defined succinctly as the
interplay between active choice, persistence, and mental effort. A large proportion
of research related to motivation and second language learning has been conducted
using Gardner’s (2001) socio-educational model. This model holds that five
variables (integrativeness, attitudes toward the leaning situation, motivation,
integrative orientation, and instrumental orientation) are positively related to
achievement in second language acquisition, as noted above. The motivation
variable, however, has been shown to be more highly correlated to second language
acquisition. Additional theories such as the Model of Second Language
Communication (Clement, 2003) and concepts of Self-Determination Theory as an
adaptation to second language acquisition (Noels, 2003) have also been used to
frame the process of acquiring a second language. These research studies have
focused on the impact of social contexts, and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Furthermore, acculturation was included in the review because it plays an important
role in second language acquisition. Specifically, language proficiency is
determined by the magnitude by which the learner acculturates into the language
majority group (Schumann, 1986).
Additionally, the literature review noted that studying student’s language
learning beliefs are important to understand learner approaches to and satisfaction
46
with instruction (Horwitz, 1987; 1988). Beliefs may play a self-fulfilling role in
language acquisition, such that if a student has negative learning beliefs they will
have lower outcomes of language acquisition (Bacon & Finneman, 1990). Thus,
having positive language learning beliefs has been positively related to higher
proficiency outcomes (Hwang & Tsai, 2003). The BALLI has been incorporated as
an instrument to assess learner beliefs among monolingual English learners
(Horwitz, 1999), but it has not been used extensively with non-native English
learners (Horwitz, 1999). Horwitz (1999) recommended that researchers should
extend research related to learner beliefs to include language learning in multiple
cultural settings with varied economic and social factors that may influence beliefs.
The literature review above noted that most studies incorporating the Socio-
Educational model as a framework for studying motivational and second language
learning factors were conducted in Canada (Gardner et al., 1959; 1972; 1983; 1979;
1985; 1989; 1994; 1995; 2001; 2003; 2004) and other countries outside of the United
States and/or were unrelated to Latino immigrant students acquiring English as a
second language (Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1994). Furthermore, many of the
studies mentioned above discuss implications for motivation related to students
acquiring a second language through L2 as a foreign language and not as a primary
language. Additionally, research looking at acculturation and language learning
beliefs have not accounted for within group differences among EL students. There is
a lack of research on EL students’ motivation to learn L2. More specifically, there is
a lack of research that focuses on within EL differences related to motivation to learn
47
L2. This proposed study aims to learn more about within-group differences and
factors related to the ELs motivation to learn L2. This research study adds to the
literature on motivation and second language acquisition by separating EL groups by
generation status, namely, first generation immigrant and generation 1.5. There is a
dearth of research related to the 1.5 EL students within U. S. secondary schools.
Most studies regarding this new subgroup have been focused primarily in university
settings (Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999; Roberge, 2003).
Pintrich (2003) noted the importance of examining “how different cultural or
ethnic groups within a culture understand and define motivation as well as cross-
cultural differences in motivation and various self-related beliefs” (p. 681).
Therefore, this study aims to contribute to the motivational literature by trying to
understand the motivational attributes of a growing group of students (who are often
overlooked in motivational literature), namely, first generation immigrant and 1.5
generation Latino EL students. The differences among these students may provide
important information on their levels of motivation, acculturation, language learning
beliefs, and how these factors impact their language proficiency and achievement
within the school system. These data may assist practitioners and researchers in
understanding the meaning and complexity of motivation related to second language
acquisition.

48
Research Questions
The study aims to answer the following three research questions:
1. What are the differences in acculturation, motivational factors, language
learning beliefs, self-efficacy language proficiency, and achievement
between first generation immigrants and generation 1.5 Latino English
Learners (ELs).
2. What is the relationship among the above mentioned variables for English
Learners?
3. How well do acculturation, motivational factors, language learning
beliefs, self efficacy and language proficiency predict academic
achievement outcomes?
4. How well do acculturation, motivational factors, language learning
beliefs, self efficacy and achievement predict language proficiency
outcomes?

49
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to present a narrative of the research design,
the sample, the setting, the outcome measures, and the analyses of the data.
Research Design
This study used a descriptive and comparative approach between Latino
English Learners (ELs) who were first generation immigrants and generation 1.5.
These two groups of students comprised group membership in the analyses.
Setting
The study was conducted at a large urban school district located in Southern
California. The student population of the school district is quite diverse,
encompassing eight ethnic groups. Hispanic students comprised 61% the district’s
total student population. Three high schools from the school district with sufficient
proportions of English Learners (ELs) were randomly selected to participate in the
study. Alternate schools were also randomly selected in the event a school opted out
from participating in the study. Two sets of classes were randomly selected from
each of the study sites, for a total of 6 classrooms, to obtain a pool of participants.
The first set of classes was first year ELD English courses, which targets first
generation immigrant ELs who have not resided in the United States more than 12

50
months. The second sets of classes were composed of higher level ELD courses
targeting long term EL or 1.5 students.
Participants
Due to the nature of the study and its intent to examine differences in ELs’
motivation, beliefs, self efficacy, and acculturation to learn L2, the participants were
both first generation Latino immigrant EL (less than 12 months of U.S residence)
and generation 1.5 ELs (long term EL students). Students of generation 1.5 were
identified as those who were either born in the United States or who have resided in
the United States and began their schooling in this country, and are still considered
second language learners.
One hundred and fifty one high school (grades 9 through 12) EL students (84
males and 67 females) participated in the current study. Seventy-five students were
identified as first generation EL and 76 were identified as Generation 1.5. The
sample of generation 1.5 EL students had on average 8.99 years (2.2 SD) of ELD
instruction, whereas, the first generation EL sample had .17 years (.38 SD) of ELD
instruction. The ages of the students ranged from 14 to 18 years of age (see Table 1).
First Generation students were slightly older (M = 15.79 years, SD = .99) than
Generation 1.5 EL students (M = 15.16 years, SD = 1.11), t(149) = 3.675, p <.01. All
of the 151 students endorsed Spanish as their primary language based upon district
approved Home Language Survey.

51
Research Measures
The Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB; Gardner, 1985). The AMTB
has been used extensively in many studies (Gardner et al., 1959; 1972; 1983; 1979;
1985; 1989; 1994; 1995; 2001; 2004; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003) as a valid and
reliable measure of assessing motivational and attitudinal variables among students
learning a second language. Cronbach coefficient α assesses the degree of
homogeneity of the items within each scale and provides an indicator for internal
consistency of the scale. The description and reliability of each subscale of the
original AMTB that was used in this study include:
(a) Motivational Intensity (α = .83): The original measure consisted of ten
multiple choice items. This measure assesses the intensity of students’ motivation to
learn French in terms of work done for classroom assignments, future plans to make
use of and study the language, etc. A high score represents a student's self report of a
high degree of effort being spent in acquiring the language. The language focus of
this measure was changed from “French” to “English.” The reliability statistics of
this translation are provided in the results section below.
(b) Desire to learn French (α = .87): Ten multiple choice items (maximum
score = 30) were included. A high score expressed a strong desire to learn French.
(c) Attitudes toward learning French (α = .94): Attitudes toward Learning
French. This is a ten item scale adapted from Randhawa and Korpan (1973). Five of
the items are positively worded, while five express negative sentiments. A high score
(maximum = 70) indicates a positive attitude toward learning French.
52
Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale. The Abbreviated
Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AMAS; Zea, Asner-Self, Birman, & Buki,
2003) is a 42 item measure that provides an indicator of an individual’s acculturation
to the United States (see Appendix). This measure provides adequate validity
(include alphas) and reliability (include alphas) data for its use with immigrant and
their U.S. born descendents. The AMAS can be useful for immigrant samples, U.S.
born samples, or samples of combined generations (e.g., 1.5). The resulting scale
was a 42-item scale with 4-point self-report, Likert-type response options ranging
from 1(strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) for the cultural identity subscales and
from 1 (not at all) to 4 (extremely well/like a native) for the language and cultural
competence subscales. For the purpose of this study and to decrease student fatigue,
only questions related to students’ acculturation to the United States were used.
Hence, the measure included 21 questions (see Appendix ). Item scores are averaged
to form a total subscale score potentially ranging from 1 to 4. This scale was
designed to assess three factors and a composite factor associated with acculturation
in the U. S. or Latino: (1) U. S Cultural identity, α = .95; (2) English language
competence, α = .97; (3) Cultural competence, α = .90; and (4) Total U. S.
Acculturation, α = .94. This scale can be used with different groups, even though
preliminary validation was accomplished using Latino/Latina samples.
Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory: ESL Student Version. The
Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory, ESL student version (BALLI-ESL;
Horwitz, 1987) is a 33 item measure that provides an estimate of English language
53
learners’ beliefs about learning English, and has been used to understand the
similarities and differences among language learning groups (Horowitz, 1999). An
abridged version (items 1 to 20) of the BALLI was used to provide an estimate of
English language learners’ beliefs about learning English by providing a composite
score for EL students’ language learning beliefs. In this study, these data were used
to assess the interaction of beliefs with motivation to better understand the reasons
these variables impact language learning for first generation immigrant and
generation 1.5 students. The BALLI-ESL uses the following measures to assess
students’ language learning beliefs: (a) Foreign Language Aptitude items concern the
general existence of specialized abilities for language learning and beliefs about the
characteristics of more or less successful language learners; (b) The difficulty of
language learning items concern the difficulty of learning English as a second or
foreign language. (c) The nature of language learning items include a broad range of
issues related to the nature of language learning; (d) Motivation items concern
desires with the learning of English; and (e) Learning and Communication Strategies
concern the process of learning a language and spontaneous communication in the
classroom. These are directly related to students’ language learning practices.
Self Efficacy. The self efficacy measure used in this study was adapted from
two sources, the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich,
Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1991) and a dissertation (Chen, 2003). The adapted
version of the questionnaire contained 8-items addressing students’ beliefs about
their ability to succeed in the course, and about mastering the skills taught in the
54
course, etc. The measure has support for internal consistency with reported alpha
coefficient of .94. The measure has been used as a valid measure of self efficacy with
second language learners (Chen).
Achievement. Students’ fall (current) and spring grade point (cumulative)
average scores were collected to provide an indicator of their level of achievement.
Additionally, students’ fall and spring English grade was also obtained and an
English GPA score created to assess their English achievement.
Language Proficiency. Students’ level of language proficiency was assessed
using California English Language Development Test (CELDT) scores provided by
the school district. CELDT scores are associated with different levels of proficiency:
Beginner students have scaled scores in the range of 265 to 446; Early Intermediate
students have scaled scores in the range of 447 to 487; Intermediate students have
scaled scores in the range of 488 to 528; Early Advanced students have scaled scores
in the range of 529 to 568; and Advanced language students have scaled scores in the
range of 569 to 693. The proficiency levels, however, in and of themselves do not
determine whether a student’s status is reclassified as Fluent English Proficient.
Research Procedures
Consent forms were given to the parents of prospective students. Only
participants who returned signed parent consent and a student assent forms were able
to participate in answering the measures. Participants were asked to complete the
abridged AMTB, BALLI, Self efficacy measure, and AMAS in their classroom, as a
group with the Principal Investigator as the proctor. Each survey included a distinct
55
label with the students’ name, teacher names, and student identification number. The
proctor asked the students to bubble in their student identification number in the
space provided. The 79 item survey was administered as a group to minimize the
loss of class time. The participants were informed that the study was concerned with
students’ motivation, beliefs, self efficacy and acculturation about learning L2. The
participants were informed that all responses on the questionnaires would be held
strictly confidential and that the information obtained from their surveys would be
used to better understand what students think about learning L2. Students received a
small reward for completing the survey.
Data Analyses
These data were placed and analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for
Social Science, version 13.0; 2005). Descriptive statistics, such as means and
standard deviations were calculated for each of the measures. Bivariate correlations
were conducted across the following measures (Motivation, Motivational Intensity,
Desire to Learn English, Attitudes toward Learning English, U. S Cultural identity,
English language competence, Cultural competence, Total U. S. Acculturation, Self
Efficacy, CELDT scores, Current GPA, Cumulative GPA, and English Fall and
Spring grades, ) to determine the relationship among independent variables and the
dependent variable.
Additionally, a factorial ANOVA was performed to determine whether
significant differences existed between generation status (i.e., First generation and
1.5 generation EL students) and the dependent variables, language learning beliefs,
56
motivation to learn a second language, level of acculturation, language proficiency,
and achievement. Multiple regression procedures were used to determine which
factors impact EL achievement and language proficiency. Motivational variables,
language learning beliefs, acculturation variables, self efficacy were regressed upon
academic achievement to determine their predictability and obtain a regression
equation for each: Y
(academic achievement)
= β
0
+ β1(Motivation) + β2(Language Beliefs)
+ β3(acculturation) + β4(Self Efficacy) + β5(Language proficiency). Additionally,
these variables were regressed upon language proficiency, substituting academic
achievement as a predictor in this case: Y
(language proficiency)
= β
0
+ β1(Motivation) +
β2(Language Beliefs) + β3(acculturation) + β4(Self Efficacy) + β5(academic
achievement).

57

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

This chapter presents the results of the statistical procedures used to assess
the within-group diversity among newly arrived immigrant EL and generation 1.5
EL students, and to determine the predictability of motivation, beliefs, self-efficacy,
and acculturation variables on students’ academic achievement and language
proficiency. First, reliability and validity statistics are provided for the measures used
to assess students’ motivation to learn L2, self-efficacy with L2, language learning
beliefs, and acculturation. Second, descriptive statistics are provided for all of the
dependent variables. Third, independent samples t-tests were used to analyze
differences in the mean scores between generation 1.5 and first generation immigrant
EL students. Fourth, A 2 (group) x 2 (gender) ANOVA was conducted to assess
within group differences. Next, inter-correlations were used to assess the
relationship among motivation, self-efficacy, language learning beliefs,
acculturation, language competency, and academic variables. Finally, multiple
regression was used to determine the predictability of students’ motivation to learn
L2, self-efficacy, acculturation, language learning beliefs on achievement and
language proficiency.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validity statistics are provided for the measures used to assess
students’ motivation to learn L2, self-efficacy with L2, language learning beliefs,
58
and acculturation. Chronbach’s alpha is presented for each measure used in this
study.
Attitude Motivation Test Battery
The Attitude Motivation Test Battery (AMTB) consists of 11 subtests that
assess attitude and motivational variables. For the purpose of this study, only three of
the subtests were utilized. According to Gardner’s Socio-Educational Model (2001),
Motivational Intensity (effort), Desire to Learn English, and Attitudes Toward
Learning English, are conceptualized as Motivation to Learn a Second Language.
Hence, a composite score for Motivation to Learn L2 was created using the sum of
raw scores for each of the three subtests listed above. This subtest consists of ten
multiple choice items (items 29-38) which are designed to measure the intensity of a
student's motivation to learn English. For this sample, Motivational Intensity (effort)
yielded a Chronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = .75. The second subtest, Desire to
learn English consists of ten multiple choice items (items 39- 48) that express a
strong desire to learn English. Chronbach’s alpha coefficient for this subtest yielded
.626. Lastly, the Attitudes Toward Learning English subtest consists of items 49-58
and measure students’ affective attitude toward learning L2 and yielded a
Chronbach’s alpha coefficient of .884. Chronbach’s alpha for the Motivation to
Learn L2 composite measure was .892. These coefficients indicate that the
motivation measure was internally consistent. The measure is a valid and appropriate

59
for use with EL students because of its vast use with EL populations in various
countries (Gardner, 2001; 2005).
Beliefs about Language Learning Inventory
An abridged version (items 1 to 20) of the Beliefs about Language Learning
Inventory, English as a Second Language version (BALLI; Horwitz, 1985) was used
to provide an estimate of English language learners’ beliefs about learning English.
This measure was used to provide a composite score for EL students’ language
learning beliefs. The Chronbach’s alpha (α) for the 20-item BALLI was 0.523. This
measure yielded a low reliability. This lower reliability is expected as Horwitz
(1985) stated that the measure was not intended to yield a composite score. Rather, a
score for each subtest is used to assess differences and similarities with regard to
student aptitude with language, difficulty of learning language, the nature of
language learning, motivation for learning language, and learning and
communication strategies. Hence, for the purpose of this study, a composite score
was derived using Principle Components Factor Analysis with orthogonal
(VARIMAX) rotation. One factor was forced to obtain the composite score for
Beliefs about Language Learning for an EL sample. The following items (3, 4, 5, 7,
10, 16, 17, 18, and 19) had factor loadings greater than 0.30. Internal consistency of
the 9-item beliefs measure was assessed with a resulting α = 0.75. Additionally, the
9-item abridged beliefs measure was correlated (r = .45, p < .01) to the Attitudes
toward Learning English subtest of the AMTB. Based on the coefficients and
60
relationship of the measure with a similar construct, this measure is reliable and valid
for the purposes of research on EL beliefs about learning L2.
Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale
The Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AMAS; Zea, Asner-
Self, Birman, & Buki, 2003) is a 42-item measure that provides an indicator of an
individual’s acculturation to the United States and a students’ native culture. The
AMAS provides a score to identify a students’ sense of U. S. Cultural Identity,
English Competence, U. S. Cultural Competence, and total U. S. Acculturation. The
AMAS and its subtests are internally consistent as noted by their respective alpha
coefficients: U. S. Cultural Identity (items 59-64) yielded a Chronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .941; English Language Competence (items 65-73) yielded a
Chronbach’s alpha coefficient of .956; Chronbach’s alpha coefficient for the U. S.
Cultural Competence (items 74-79) subtest was .911. Together, these three subscales
were used to derive the total U. S. Acculturation composite score, and yielded a
Chronbach’s alpha .951. These measures are valid tools to estimate students’ U. S.
cultural identity, English competence, U. S cultural competence, and total U. S.
acculturation because they have been used with second language learning students
Self Efficacy

Self-Efficacy consists of 8 items (items 21-28). The Chronbach’s coefficient
alpha for the scale was .837. This indicates that the questionnaire is reliable.

61
Research Question 1: Addressing Group Differences
Descriptive Statistics and Independent Samples T-test. Descriptive statistics
and Independent samples T-tests were conducted to address the first set of research
questions: What are the differences in motivational intensity or effort, attitudes
toward learning English, Desire to Learn English, motivation to learn English,
students’ self efficacy related to learning English, language learning beliefs,
language proficiency, achievement levels, and sense of U.S. acculturation between
first generation and generation 1.5 Latino ELs? These analyses also examined the
interaction of group membership and gender on these variables.
First, mean group responses were assessed to determine whether significant
differences existed in Motivational Intensity (MI), Desire to Learn English (DLE),
Attitudes Toward Learning English (ATLE), Motivation to Learn L2 (MLL2), Self
Efficacy (SE), U. S. Cultural Identity (CI), English Competence (EC), U. S. Cultural
Competence (CC), Sense of U. S. Acculturation (SA), Beliefs About Language
Learning, Language Proficiency, Academic GPA, Current GPA, and Cumulative
GPA between Newly Arrived Immigrant and Generation 1.5 EL (1.5) students.
Means and standard deviations for each group are listed in Table 2. Means and
standard deviations are reported as raw scores for each variable.
Group Differences across Motivational Variables. Initial analyses revealed
that first generation immigrant EL students reported higher levels of motivational
intensity or effort with respect to learning English (M = 25.8, SD = 3.8) than that of
1.5 EL students (M = 23.3, SD = 3.6), t(149) = 4.162, p<.01 (see Table 2). In
62
addition, first generation immigrant EL students reported more desire to learn
English (M = 25.43, SD = 2.3) than 1.5 ELs (M = 22.32, SD = 2.94), t(149) = 7.177,
p<.01. Furthermore, first generation immigrant EL students reported stronger
attitudes toward learning English (M = 44.16, SD = 6.1) than that of 1.5 ELs (M =
39.87, SD = 5.5), t(149) = 4.527, p<.01. Finally, with respect to students’ motivation
to learn English, newly arrived EL students reported higher levels of motivation to
learn English (M = 95.41, SD = 9.5) than that reported by 1.5 ELs (M = 85.5, SD =
9.5), t(149) = 6.416, p < .01. These data indicate that distinct within-group diversity
exists for the amount of effort first generation EL students place in learning English,
their desire and attitudes toward learning English, and the level of motivation they
put forth than those EL students who have had more
U. S. schooling.
Group Differences in Self Efficacy. The analysis of sample means with
respect to EL students’ self-efficacy toward learning English proved to be null. That
is, first generation (M = 3.71, SD = 0.73) and generation 1.5 (M = 3.77, SD = 0.61)
EL students did not statistically differ with respect to their reported levels of self-
efficacy related to learning English, t(149) = -.533, p = .595. It should be noted, that
in general, both groups endorsed higher levels of agreement with respect to their
self-confidence understanding the basic and difficult concepts taught in class,
expectations of their performance on exams, and with their perceived success in
class. However, a post-hoc examination of differences in self efficacy based on
individual items indicates that first generation students reported lower levels of self-
63
efficacy than generation 1.5 EL students only when the question was related to
reading, t(147) = -1.981, p =.049. This makes sense due to the linguistic demand of
the exams. Hence, despite having different generational status, the recent immigrant
EL and Generation 1.5 EL students of this sample are fairly confident in their
abilities to learn English.
Group Differences in Academic Achievement. The descriptive statistics
indicated that both 1.5 EL and first generation EL students performed at below
average grade levels, with mean grade point averages at 1.75 and 2.0, respectively.
Despite the lower level of achievement attained by both groups, newly arrived EL
students had a statistically higher current grade point average (M = 2.05, SD = 0.89)
than that attained by 1.5 ELs (M = 1.75, SD = .90), t(149) = 2.044, p < .05);
however, their cumulative grade point average did not statistically differ t(149) =
1.847, p = .139. Similarly, both groups also performed at below average levels on the
CST ELA and Math tests. Generation 1.5 students’ performance was higher on the
California Standards Test, English Language Arts section (CST ELA) (M = 269.64,
SD = 30.6) than first generation ELs (M = 247.03, SD = 20.1), t(143) = -5.220, p <
.01; students’ mean scores on the CST Math test did not statistically differ (see Table
Group Differences in Language Proficiency. As expected, the CELDT scores
indicated that Generation 1.5 ELs had higher achievement in English reading,
English writing, English listening, and overall English language proficiency. For
example, Generation 1.5 EL students’ reading CELDT scores revealed a mean of
535.92 (SD = 29.13) compared to first Generation students’ CELDT scores of 363.39
64
(SD = 51.31), t (140) = -25.04, p <.001. Additionally, Generation 1.5 CELDT
writing scores were 533.93 (SD = 34.44) compared to first Generation CELDT
writing scores of 316.86 (SD = 69.37), t (140) = -24.082, p <.001. Moreover, on the
listening CELDT subtest, Generation 1.5 students’ scaled scores were 536.84 (SD =
33.06) which was greater than that of the first Generation (M = 249.44, SD = 71.76),
t (140) = -31.31, p <.001. Lastly, Generation 1.5 students’ overall CELDT scores
were larger (M = 535.51, SD = 25.99) than first generation (M = 294.70, SD =
61.24), t(140) = -31.21, p <.001 . These data reveal that Generation 1.5 ELs have an
advantage due to the amount of years enrolled in ELD courses and their time
exposed to the English Language versus the newly arrived ELs of less than one year,
(r = .90, p < .001).
Group Differences in Acculturation. Further review of these data highlight
that Generation 1.5 EL students endorsed higher levels of U. S. Cultural Identity (M
= 3.58, SD = 0.84, t(149) = -5.183, p < .01), English Competence (M = 3.12, SD =
0.56, t(149) = -13.98, p < .01), U.S Cultural Competence (M = 2.50, SD = 0.67,
t(149) = -7.362, p <.01), and had a stronger sense of U. S. Acculturation (M = 3.07,
SD = 0.50, t(149) = -12.12, p < .01), than that reported by first generation EL
students (see Table 2). These findings highlight an interesting series of points, that
despite having similar, poor academic achievement (i.e., low English grades and
GPA) like the First Generation cohort, the Generation 1.5 students endorsed stronger

65
levels of English Competence, and had higher levels of overall language proficiency
(CELDT scores).
Group and Gender Interaction Effects. A 2 (group) X 2 (gender) ANOVA
was conducted to assess the potential interaction effect of group and gender on the
above mentioned variables. This analysis revealed a significant main effect for
English competence, F (1, 149) = 40.115, p < .05 (see Table 3), with male and
female 1.5 EL students reporting higher rates of English competence than newly
arrived EL students, as expected. Additionally, it is worth noting that the sample
means showed that Newly Arrived female ELs reported a higher level of
Motivational Intensity (effort; M= 26.78, SD= 2.6) than Newly Arrived male ELs
(M= 24.89, SD= 4.5), Generation 1.5 Males, (M=23.5, SD=3.8) and Generation 1.5
Females, (M=23.03, SD=3.4), F (2, 147) = 3.807, p = .053 (see Figure 2). Moreover,
interaction effects were found for U. S. cultural identity, F (2, 147) = 5.473, p < .05
(see Figure 3) with 1.5 female EL students reporting higher levels of U. S. Cultural
Identity than the other students. In contrast, female first generation EL students
endorsed the lowest levels of U. S. Acculturation (M= 1.97, SD= 0.41) than the other
students, F (2, 147) = 5.914, p < .05 (see Figure 4).
Research Question 2: Relationship Among Variables

Intercorrelations. Intercorrelations among all of the variables in the analyses
are presented in Table 4. The highest correlations were selected for this review. The
bivariate correlations indicate that motivation subtests (Motivational Intensity,
Desire to Learn L2, and Attitude to Learn L2) were highly correlated with
66
Motivation to Learn L2 as expected since they were used to find the motivation
composite score (see Table 4). However, for newly arrived and 1.5 EL students,
Motivation to Learn English was moderately, negatively related to language
proficiency (r = -0.44, p < 0.01), indicating that as students’ language proficiency
improved their motivation to learn English decreased. This pattern was also evident
when the total years of ELD instruction was considered. That is, as the number of
years in ELD increased, students’ effort (r = -.330, p < 0.01), desire (r = -.507, p <
0.01), attitudes (r = -.33, p < 0.01), and total motivation to learn English (r = -.46, p
< 0.01) decreased. Additionally, students’ self reported level of English Competence
was negatively related to their motivation to learn English (r = -.19, p < 0.05),
motivational intensity to learn English (r = -.14, p < 0.05), and their desire to learn
English (r = -.26, p < 0.01 ), reflecting that as students perceived themselves to have
higher levels of English Competence, they endorsed lower levels of motivation to
learn English, lower levels of desire to learn English, and lower levels of
motivational intensity (effort) related to learning English. Furthermore, their
motivation to learn English was slightly related to their Beliefs about Learning L2 (r
= .37) and their Self Efficacy (r = .36); correlation coefficients for the other variables
included were weak.
Beliefs about Learning English was moderately related to students’ Self
Efficacy (r =.45, p < .01) and Attitude towards Learning L2 (r = .45, p < .01). In
addition, Beliefs about Learning English was related to students’ effort (r = .22), U.
S. Cultural Identity (r = .20), U. S. Cultural Competence (r = .28), and U. S.
67
acculturation (r = .26), all significant at p < .01. Furthermore, Self Efficacy was
statistically related to Attitudes toward Learning English (r = .39), U. S. Cultural
Competence (r = .32), Effort (r = .27), U. S. Acculturation (r = .29), and student
reported English Competence (r = .25). Also, Effort was highly related to Students’
Desire to Learn English (r = .54, p < .01), Attitude toward Learning English (r = .39,
p < .01), Current GPA (r = .22, p < .05), and negatively related to Language
Proficiency (r = -.29). Desire to Learn English was statistically related to Attitude
toward Learning English (r = .55) and to Current GPA (r = .23), and negatively
related to both Students’ Language Proficiency (r = -.48) and to English Competence
(r = -.26, see Table 4).
Students’ Attitude to Learn L2 was positively related to their current GPA (r
= .27, p < .01) and cumulative GPA (r = .22, p < .01), indicating that as they
mastered concepts in class, their attitude about learning English became more
positive. Conversely, as students improved their English proficiency, their attitude to
learning English decreased significantly (r = -.44, p < .01). Furthermore, cumulative
grade point average was highly correlated with current grade point average (r = .91,
p < .01) and students’ English grade point average (r = .82, p < .01). English Grade
point average was also related to Effort (r = .24, p < .01), Desire to Learn English (r
= .17, p < .05), Attitude toward learning English (r = .18, p < .05), and students’
motivation to learn English (r = .24, p < .01).
Finally, U. S. Acculturation is highly correlated to its subtests, U. S. Cultural
Identity (r = .73), English Competence (r = .89), and U. S. Cultural Competence (r =
68
.78), all significant at the p < .01 level. Cultural identity was highly correlated with
language proficiency (r = .69) and to the other subtests of the acculturation scale (see
Table 3). Interestingly, total years of ELD instruction was positively related to US
cultural identity (r = .39), English competence (r = .75), cultural competence (r =
.50), and sense of US acculturation (r = .70). Also, English competence was
strongly related to U. S. cultural competence (r = .68, p < .01) Additionally,
Language proficiency was highly related to English competence (r = .74) and
moderately related to U. S. cultural competence (r = .42).
Predicting Academic Achievement and Language Proficiency

This section assesses the predictability of motivational factors, language
learning beliefs, self efficacy, and acculturation variables on students’ academic
achievement and language proficiency outcomes.
Research Question 3: Predicting Academic Achievement
How well do motivational factors, language learning beliefs, self efficacy,
and language proficiency predict academic achievement outcomes? A series of
stepwise multiple regression analyses were conducted to develop a model for
predicting EL students’ academic achievement from their scores on the motivation to
learn English, Self-Efficacy, Acculturation, and Beliefs about learning English
questionnaires.
Stepwise Multiple Regression 1. Stepwise regression was conducted to
determine which variables best predicted EL students’ current level of academic
achievement (current GPA). Based upon the correlations among variables, Total
69
motivation to learn English, Desire to Learn English, English Competence,
Motivational Intensity, attitudes toward learning English, and U.S. acculturation
were entered into the model. Table 5 displays the unstandardized regression
coefficients (β) and intercept, R
2
, and adjusted R
2
. The following model only
included Motivation to learn English and English competence because the other
variables did not meet the .10 criterion level and were thus excluded from the model.
R for the regression was statistically significant from zero, F (2, 148) = 7.202, p
=.001, with R
2
at .089. The adjusted R
2
value of .076 indicates that 7.6% of the
variability in students’ current grade point average is predicted by students’
motivation to learn English and their self reported level of English competence.
However, only the regression coefficient for Motivation to Learn English was
statistically different from zero, t(148) = 3.14, p = .002, with 95% confidence limits
of .008 to .035. Hence, between these predictors, Motivation to Learn English
appears to be more important than the other variables when predicting students’
current grade point average. However, this predictor did not account for a large
amount of the variance is students’ current GPA. Hence, the response to the research
question is that these variables were not suitable to predict students’ current GPA.
The fit between the predictor variables and the outcome variable may have been
compromised relying solely on fall semester GPA as an indicator of academic

70
achievement. As noted in the descriptive section, both the Generation 1.5 and First
Generation EL students had below average grades.
Stepwise Multiple Regression 2. The second regression analysis answered to
the question of which of these variables predicted EL students’ scores on a statewide
norm-referenced achievement test (CST ELA). As noted above, bivariate
correlations indicated that CST ELA was correlated with students reported levels of
US cultural identity, English competence, US cultural competence, level of
acculturation, and current GPA, and overall English Language proficiency. Hence,
the stepwise analysis only included these variables and also included student’s grade
level. The stepwise analysis provided three predictive models for CST ELA
achievement. Model 1 included students’ language proficiency scores alone (overall
CELDT). R for the regression was statistically significant from zero, F (1, 135) =
25.31, p <.001, with R
2
at .158. The adjusted R
2
value indicates that 15.8% of the
variability in students’ CST ELA scores is predicted by students’ English Language
Proficiency alone (see Table 6). The second model included language proficiency
and students’ grade level. Similarly, R for model 2 was statistically significant from
zero, F (2, 134) = 16.91, p <.001, with R
2
at .202. The adjusted R
2
value of .19
indicates that the addition of students’ current grade point average added only 4.4%
unique variance beyond language proficiency to students’ CST ELA scores. Model
3 also produced an R for the regression that was statistically significant from zero, F
(3, 133) = 14.35, p <.001, with R
2
at .245. Also, the adjusted R
2
value of .228
indicates that the addition of students’ current grade point average added only 4.3%
71
unique variance beyond language proficiency and students’ grade level to students’
CST ELA scores. Thus, the answer to the question is that motivational variables,
acculturation, beliefs, and self-efficacy variables were not predictive of EL students
CST ELA scores. Although the three predictor variables were predictive of CST
ELA scores, these variables only predicted about 23% of students’ CST ELA scores.
Research Question 4: Predicting Language Proficiency
How well do acculturation, motivational factors, language learning beliefs,
self efficacy and achievement predict language proficiency outcomes? A stepwise
regression was conducted to address this question. Based upon the correlations
among variables, Total motivation to learn English, Desire to Learn English, English
Competence, U. S. Cultural Competence, Acculturation, and U. S. Cultural Identity
were entered into the model. The model only includes motivation to learn L2,
English competence, and U. S. cultural identity as predictor variables because the
other variables did not meet the .10 criterion level set by SPSS and were excluded
from the analyses. The first regression model (see Table 7) only included Motivation
to learn L2 with an R for the regression which was statistically significant from zero,
F (1, 149) = 33.89, p <.001, with R
2
at .185. The adjusted R
2
value of .180 indicates
that 18% of the variability in students’ overall CELDT score is predicted by
students’ motivation to learn English. In contrast, Model 2 included Total
Motivation to learn L2 and students’ reported level of English Competence, was also
significantly significant from zero, F (1, 148) = 111.08, p < .001, with R
2
at .600.
The adjusted R
2
value of .595 indicates that almost 60% of the variability in students’
72
overall CELDT scores is predicted by students’ motivation to learn English and by
students’ perceived English competence. Model 2 accounted for 44% more of the
variance in CELDT performance beyond motivation to learn L2 alone. Finally,
Model 3 included the first two variables of Model 2 in addition to U. S. Cultural
Identity. This model was also significantly different from zero, F (1, 147) = 82.16, p
< .001, with R
2
at .626. This model accounted for 62% of the variance in students’
overall CELDT scores. However, the predictor variable U. S. Cultural Identity
contributed 2.4% unique variance beyond that of Model 2. Based upon these results,
it appears that students’ motivation to learn English coupled with their reported
levels of English competence is the best model to predict EL students’ overall
English language performance (as based on their CELDT results).
Taken together these research questions elucidate that students’ level of
Motivation contributed a small percentage of the variance in ELs academic
achievement. The response to this question is that acculturation variables, self
efficacy, students’ language proficiency, attitudes towards learning English, beliefs
about learning English, and motivational intensity did not contribute enough variance
to account for students’ academic achievement, and thus are not good predictors of
academic achievement for first generation and Generation1.5 EL students. In
response to the latter question of this section, motivation to learn English, students
perceived level of English competence were the best predictors of students’ overall
English language proficiency. Hence, the other predictor variables do not appear to
be good predictors of English Language proficiency. The implications of these
73
findings, their relevance to students’ educational experiences, and to intervention for
ELs will be discussed in the following section.

74
CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This discussion will elaborate upon the results, the implications of the
findings, their relevance to students’ educational experiences and to potential
interventions for Latino ELs. First, the results will be summarized, evaluated, and
interpreted with respect to the original research questions. Second, theoretical and
practical implications of these findings and conclusions will be discussed. Finally,
the limitations of the present study will be reviewed and recommendations for future
research will be addressed.
This study examined the within-group differences among English Learners at
two generational points, namely, First Generation and Generation 1.5. This focus
was undertaken due to the paucity of research examining motivational variables
associated with language learning and their relationship with variables related to self
efficacy, acculturation, and students’ beliefs about learning English among Latino
EL students. Additionally, with a growing number of long term ELs (Generation 1.5)
in U. S. public schools, who are underachieving academically and with English
acquisition, data pertaining to these students is limited in k-12 educational literature
(Freeman, Freeman, & Mercury, 2003; Roberge 2002). Due to the lack of
classifications including Generation 1.5 students in their definitions, these students
are often misrepresented into first and second generation status categories and often
are viewed as a homogenous group of students (Freeman, Freeman, & Mercury;
Olsen & Jaramillo, 1999). Recent literature has noted the importance of examining
75
within-group differences among ELs (Artiles et al., 2005; Rueda et al., 2002;
Harklau et al., 1999). These data can assist educational and research stakeholders in
constructing educational praxis and theory.
First, this study indicates that the assessment tools used (i.e. AMTB, AMAS,
BALLI, SE) provided reliable and valid estimates of Latino first Generation and
Generation 1.5 EL students’ motivation, self efficacy, acculturation, and beliefs
about learning English. The modified BALLI provided a composite score for
students’ beliefs and was shown to be reliable, however further studies with similar
cohorts are recommended to determine the generalizability of the measure to this
group of students. It is important to note that the above listed measures have not been
used in the past to assess within group differences among ELs at two generational
points.
The first research question sought to examine the differences in motivational
intensity or effort, attitudes toward learning English, Desire to Learn English,
motivation to learn English, students’ self efficacy related to learning English,
language learning beliefs, language proficiency, achievement levels, and sense of
U.S. acculturation between the two groups of EL students. These findings suggested
that first generation students reported higher levels of motivation and placed much
more effort into learning English than English Learners who have been schooled the
majority of their academic years in U. S. schools (Generation 1.5). Gardner and
Masgoret (2003) also found that a motivated individual applies effort in order to
achieve a goal, among other variables. The newly arrived EL students goal is to learn
76
English and hence apply effort in order to attain the desired goal. In addition, first
generation ELs also reported more desire to learn a second language, and displayed
more positive attitudes toward learning English than their generational counterparts.
On the other hand, Generation 1.5 ELs endorsed higher levels of U. S.
acculturation, U.S. cultural competence, and English competence than those of the
newly arrived ELs. Schumann (1978, 1986) associated acculturation to second
language learning. The results in this study are similar to Zea and colleagues’ (2003)
findings that as the number of years students reside in the United States increases, so
does their sense of acculturation to the US. Similarly, Valentine (2001) also found a
positive relationship between generation status and an increase in acculturation.
These differences in motivation and acculturation variables highlight the diversity
among English learners, emphasizing that they are not a homogeneous group. These
groups, though different, also show distinct similarities. For instance, both show low
levels of academic achievement, low levels of English grades, and come from similar
socio-economic households. Despite these lower grades and achievement, they
endorsed higher levels of self efficacy toward their learning context, learning the
course material, and toward their success in learning English. Additionally, they also
endorsed similar levels of beliefs toward learning L2 despite differing levels of ELD.
For Generation 1.5 students, these levels of self efficacy and beliefs about learning
English reflect their progress with reading, writing, listening, and overall language
proficiency (CELDT scores) as can be seen from the large group differences they
had over first generation students. As Harklau and friends (1999) point out, this
77
generational group appears to demonstrate English competence, but rather reveal that
their academic language is weak and not well developed. This performance may be
attributed to the extended time Generation 1.5 students have resided in the US or the
amount of ELD instruction compared to the recent arriving first generation students
whose average U.S. residence and exposure to English has not exceeded more than
one year.
An examination of the impact of gender reveals that Generation 1.5 female
and male students have higher levels of English competence than those reported by
first Generation EL males and females. An analysis of the effects of gender revealed
that female first Generation ELs reported higher levels of motivational intensity
(effort) than first generation males and Generation 1.5 male and female ELs. This
finding extends and supports previous research noting higher levels of motivation
among high school aged females than males learning a foreign language in England
(Williams, Burden, Lanyers, 2002). Conversely, Generation 1.5 female students
report higher levels of U.S. Cultural identity and U.S. Acculturation than the other
three sets of students.
The second research question investigated the relationship among the
variables. Of these, it is important to highlight that English competence was
inversely related to motivation to learn English, their motivational intensity (effort),
and their desire toward learning English, such that as Generation 1.5 ELs rated
themselves more competent in English, they endorsed lower levels of motivation,
effort, and desire toward learning English. Moreover, as students’ years in ELD
78
classes increased, their self reported level of English Competence increased, their
level of Language Proficiency also increased, but all four motivational variables
decreased. Thus, these students may be potentially relying on their conversational
English abilities, rather than on academic English to evaluate their level of
proficiency. Continuing with this train of reason, Mantle-Bromley (1995) also found
that EL students have misconceptions about what it takes to learn a language, and
these misconceptions may impact their ability to acquire or make significant progress
with language learning. For example, Generation 1.5 students reported higher levels
of English oral abilities, which were not reflective of their performance on a
statewide assessment of English proficiency, may elucidate that they might maintain
a language learning fallacy of their true English aptitude. This may be the case due
to the circumstances that these students are often placed. For instance, these
students’ parents are most often not English speakers and rely on their children to
translate or interpret everyday situations. Furthermore, many of these students reside
in communities where the common language is their home language (Spanish).
Hence, the exposure to these everyday scenarios might lead one to believe or
maintain a false sense of English competence.
Although Generation 1.5 students possess oral or conversational competence
in English, or what Cummins (1984) calls Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills
(BICS), these students have yet to master Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency
Skills (CALPS), as revealed in their low English grades, low levels of CST scores,
overall low GPA, and most importantly, their inability to be reclassified as Fluent
79
English Proficient. Of similar consequence, as students’ reported higher levels of
Acculturation toward the US, their desire to learn English also decreased. In
addition, as years of English language development increased, students reported less
desire, less effort, weaker attitudes, and less motivation to learn English. This is a
striking finding because it may point out that the longer EL students remain in ELD,
the more acculturated they feel toward the US, and the less those motivating factors
that are essential in second language acquisition are present in their quest to achieve
RFEP. Potentially, this may amount to students’ unawareness to their designation as
an EL student. This thought is best exemplified by one Generation 1.5 student who
adamantly wrote, in large caps, on his survey, “I’M SO BEYOND THIS!”
This paper also assessed the predictability of acculturation, motivational
factors, language learning beliefs, efficacy, and language proficiency on academic
achievement outcomes (GPA and CST ELA scores). Since these variables have been
shown to be related to academic achievement, it was expected that the variables
would account for a moderate proportion of the variance in students’ academic
achievement. This was not the case for the sample, as the results of the first
regression analysis revealed that motivation was a limited predictor of academic
achievement. Motivation to learn English accounted for only 7.6% of the variance in
students’ current (Fall) academic grade point average. The predictability of the
independent variables may have been compromised by the use of first semester GPA.
This outcome variable may not be suitable to assess EL’s academic achievement.
This may be due to a lack of variability in students’ GPA; recall most of these
80
students were low achievers. Due to the potential limitations of using Fall semester
GPA, CST ELA scores were also used to measure academic achievement. What is
most interesting is that motivational variables, acculturation variables, self efficacy,
and beliefs were also not significant predictors of achievement on this test. Only
language proficiency, students’ grade level, and their current GPA accounted for
22% of the variance in students’ CST ELA scores. The same point may be made for
using CST scores as an academic achievement measure with Generation 1.5 and First
Generation (Newly Arrived) students primarily because they do not have a command
of academic English. Studies in reading and writing (National Literacy Panel on
Second Language Minority Students, 2006) indicate that oral language proficiency
becomes critical for the acquisition of these academic skills in L2 in later grades.
Hence, a more cultural and linguistic measure of academic achievement may be
more suitable to assess EL students’ current level of academic achievement.
Finally, the fourth research question assessed the predictability of
acculturation, motivational factors, self efficacy, language learning beliefs, and
current GPA on language proficiency outcomes. The third regression analysis
revealed that students’ motivation to learn English and students’ self-reported level
of English competence accounted for 60% of the variance in EL students’ language
proficiency CELDT scores. That motivation to learn L2 and self reported levels of
English competence is a striking finding. This relation points to the notion that
students’ motivation and self perceptions about learning L2, influence language
proficiency scores in some form. This might mean that the CELDT may not measure
81
academic English or CALP level in L2, but rather focus more on BICS (Callahan,
2006). The regression analyses indicated that most of the variables examined in this
study were not robust predictors of academic achievement and language proficiency
for this sample of EL students.
Implications
This study highlights some very important points for education and research
stakeholders. For one, the study showed distinct generational differences among two
groups of English Learners. This study provides empirical evidence to support
qualitative studies purporting differences among these groups of students. Thus, this
study documents the importance of reviewing this phenomenon as it pertains to EL
students’ acquisition of L2. Second, this study indicates that educators need to be
cognizant of and attend to the changes in students’ attitudes, desire, and motivation
to learn English as they progress through ELD courses. A practical suggestion for
interventions or instruction of English Learners would be to provide motivational
aspects or to incorporate positive reinforcement strategies tied to language learning
to try and motivate Generation 1.5 students. These findings also point to notion that
educators must be proactive in providing evidence-based language learning
procedures with newly arrived EL students since they show elevated levels of effort
when learning English, desire to acquire the language, stronger attitudes toward
learning English, and much more elevated levels of motivation to learn English.
These, as Gardner asserts are fundamental to the language learning process.
82
Furthermore, these findings may elucidate that current assessments such as
large scale norm referenced English achievement measures may not be suitable for
assessing newly arrived EL students. These students lack academic English skills
necessary to for the CST. A further note of caution is that many students are arriving
to the U.S. inadequately educated in the native countries. One would want to
potentially obtain students’ previous educational history by communicating with
parents to attain estimates of student’s previous education in their country or obtain
transcripts. These data would possibly disaggregate newly arrived students into
further categories, namely, those who are adequately or inadequately schooled
(Freeman, Freeman, & Mercury, 2003). For example, as Thomas and Collier (1997)
and Chamot (2000) have found, it is important to consider the adequacy or
inadequacy of First Generation EL students’ schooling in their home country and
consequently disaggregate motivation, beliefs, efficacy, and levels of acculturation
between 2 levels of groups: crossing group membership (generation 1.5 v. first
generation) with students level of education (adequate v. inadequate). In addition,
given California’s High School Exit Exam, it would be useful to both practitioners
and policy makers to predict CAHSEE scores using the academic predictor variables.
Recent statistics reveal that in California, those who were not successful in passing
the exit exam were English Learners. This was the case in this study, as many of the
Generation 1.5 students in this study had not passed the CAHSEE and were enrolled
in a CAHSEE support classes.

83
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
One of the limitations of the current study is that these data were collected at
the end of the academic school year. A more sound approach would be to conduct a
longitudinal comparison of First Generation English Learners as they progress
through their yearly English Language Development levels in order shed some
insight on further patterns of motivation. In addition, these results only obtained a
brief view of the generational differences among these groups. A more
comprehensive study incorporating a mixed, quantitative and qualitative approach,
may replicate these findings and provide more breadth to the patterns obtained by the
surveys. In addition, it would be important to consider parent and teacher input using
home and school observations and interviews.
In addition, it is important to recognize that this study relied solely on
students’ self- reports. Most of the Generation 1.5 students were enrolled in remedial
English courses and/or in double doses of English courses meeting 2 periods per day
for students demonstrating below basic or far below basic English competence on
their CST ELA exam. These levels reveal weaknesses in reading and academic
English proficiency. The self efficacy scale asked students to rate their ability to
master the material presented in the class and their ability to understand complex
materials taught in the class. Their reporting may have been inflated and/or reflective
of the lower expectations and lower skills taught in their English classes; another
good reason to use observation data. This series of low academic English
coursework prevents students from receiving advanced or academic levels of English
84
making them fall further behind in their acquisition of academic English and thereby
preventing long term English learners from being reclassified as Fluent English
Proficient. In addition, as Gardner et al (2004) noted, the classroom environment can
influence students’ attitudes to learn. The Principal Investigator made some
anecdotal observations in the various classes surveyed. In some classes, the students
that were visibly happy to be in the class and appeared to like the teacher likely self-
reported higher levels of efficacy, motivation, beliefs, and acculturation patterns. In
the other classrooms wherein students seemed to not like the teacher or the class, the
results may have reflected their feelings. Hence, the importance of class and teacher
variables vis-à-vis classroom observations cannot be understated.
Also, it should be noted that the study did not have 11
th
grade students who
were Generation 1.5 ELs. A larger sampling procedure at more schools may ensure
that both generation groups are reflected at each grade level. This may be a potential
reason that grade level was not a significant predictor of current grade point average
or language proficiency scores. Further research should ensure an equal balance of
these students at each grade level.
Another potential study might include an analysis of recent Fluent English
Proficient (RFEP) students and examine the differences and similarities in the
variables between first generation, Generation 1.5 and RFEPs. This focus might lead
to uncover variables that may be able to assist First Generation with language
acquisition and Generation 1.5 students from remaining at the BICS or oral language
ability. One would possibly want to conduct this study longitudinally to assess the
85
patterns of first generation and generation 1.5 students as they achieve R-FEP, and
assess the academic outcomes of the three groups of students. In this study, while
variables were regressed onto CST ELA scores of EL students, however, it should be
noted that these scores did not reflect mastery levels of performance. Thus, the
regression was to determine the relationship of these variables on scores considered
mastery level. To combat this, a sample of recent Fluent English Proficient (RFEP)
students would be ideal to assess how these variables predict CST and achievement
scores for these students.
One might want to consider the undertaking of assessing the differences
between other second language learner groups. For example Asian and African
(Somali) English Learners are becoming more representative in California schools
and are underachieving academically and in their language acquisition. At first
glance, it appears that some of these EL students might share some of the same
generational characteristics of the Latino ELs in this study. Further research might
elucidate comparable findings that might generalize to other ethnic generations of
English learners. These data will be helpful in carefully constructing modified
versions of motivational theories applied to second language learning.
Conclusion
In summary, this study found that within group diversity exists among urban,
Latino EL students. The motivational and acculturation patterns differ, yet beliefs
and self efficacy variables related to language learning appear to be similar despite
their generation status. The study found that Generation 1.5 EL students endorsed
86
higher levels of US identity, US cultural competence, and English competence. On
the other hand, first generation English learners endorsed higher levels of effort
(motivational intensity), attitude, desire, and motivation to learn English. Also, both
groups endorsed moderate levels of self efficacy and beliefs about language learning.
Beliefs and self efficacy about learning English did not differ among the two groups
despite differences in motivation and acculturation or despite difference in the
amount of ELD instruction or time in the United States. In addition, both generations
had low academic achievement and low CST scores. Generation 1.5 students had
higher language proficiency levels when compared to First generation EL students,
but not yet at proficient levels. It appears that Generation 1.5 student may rely on
their social language competence when reporting English competence in general,
which may impact their motivation to acquire the language. Finally, the
motivational, acculturation, efficacy, and belief variables were not robust predictors
for academic achievement. Motivation and students reported English competence
appeared to be better predictors of students’ language proficiency outcomes. Further
research is needed to strengthen the generalizability of these findings.

87
References

Abella, R., Urrutia, J., & Shneyderman, A. (2005). An Examination of the Validity
of English-Language Achievement Test Scores in an English Language
Learner Population. Bilingual Research Journal, 29, 127 – 144.

Alexander, P.A. & Dochy, F.J. (1995). Conceptions of knowledge and beliefs: A
comparison across varying cultural and educational communities. American
Educational Research Journal, 32, 413-442.

Ariza, E. (2004). Torn between two worlds: overcoming resistance to second
language learning. The Clearing House. January/ February.

Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Arriaza, G. (2004). Welcome to the front seat: Racial identity and Mesoamerican
immigrants. Journal of Latinos and Education. 3 (4) 251-265.

Artiles, A., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in
minority disproportionate representation: English language learners in urban
school districts.

August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority
children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bacon, S., & Finnemann, M. (1990). A study of the attitudes, motives, and strategies
of university foreign language students and their disposition to authentic
oral and written input. Modern Language Journal, 74, 459-473.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American
Psychologist 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1989). Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal
standards and goal systems. In A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality
in social psychology (pp. 19-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Bandura, A. & Locke, E.A. (2003) Negative self-efficacy and goal effect revisited.
Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 87-99.

Banya, K., & Cheng, M.H. (1997). Beliefs about foreign language learning: A study
of beliefs of teachers' and students' cross cultural settings. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of TESOL. Orlando, FL.
88
Bernat, E., & Gvozdenko, I. (2005) Beliefs about language learning: Current
knowledge, pedagogical implications, and new research directions. TESL-EJ.
9 (1)

Brown, H.D. (1986). Learning a second culture. In J.M. Valdes (Ed.), Culture
bound: Bridging the culture gap in language teaching (p. 33-48). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

California Department of Education. (n.d.). DataQuest, 2005 [Data file]. Available
from California Department of Education web site,
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/

California Department of Education. (2005). Reclassification of English learners
assistance packet for school districts/schools to fluent English proficient.
Retrieved December 8, 2005, from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/documents/section405.pdf

Carter, B.A. (1999). Begin with beliefs: Exploring the relationship between beliefs
and learner autonomy among advanced students. Texas Papers in Foreign
Language Education. 4 (1) 1-20.

Chen, C-Y. (2003). Motivational beliefs of students learning Chinese as a foreign
language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Los Angeles, CA: University of
Southern California.

Chamot A. U. (2000, April 18). Literacy characteristics of Hispanic adolescent
immigrants with limited prior education. Paper presented at the 2000 \
Research Symposium on High Standards in Reading for Students from
Diverse Language Groups. Retrieved November 18, 2005, from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/reading/9chamot.PDF

Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact, and communicative competence in a
second language. In H. Giles, P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language:
Social psychological perspectives (pp. 147-154). Oxford, England:
Pergamon.

Clément, R., Baker, S.C. MacIntyre. (2003) Willingness to communicate in a second
language: the effects of context, norms and vitality. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology. 22 (2) 190-209.

Clément, R., Dörney, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1994) Motivation, self-confidence, and
group cohesion in the foreign language classroom.” Language Learning 44
(3) 417-48.

89
Clément, R. and Kruidenier, B.G. (1983), Orientations in second language
acquisition: 1. The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their
emergence, Language Learning, 33, 273-291.

Crookes, G., & Schmidt R.W. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda.
Language Learning, 41(4), 469-512.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and
pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination
in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination.
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Dias, R.L. (2000). Lebanese students' beliefs about learning English and French: A
study of university students in a multilingual context. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 62 (02), 497A (UMI No. 3004253).

Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning.
Language Learning 40, 45-78.

Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom.
Modern Language Journal, 78, 273-284.

Dornyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning:
advances in theory, research, and applications. Language Learning,
53, 3-32.

Dweck, C.S. & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Flavell, J.H. (1987). Speculation about the nature and development of metacognition.
In F.E. Weinert, & R.H. Kluwe, (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and
understanding (pp.1-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Freeman, Y., Freeman, D, & Mercuri, S. (2003). Helping middle and high school age
English language learners achieve academic success. NABE Journal of
Research and Practice. Winter, 110-122.

Furnham, A., Johnson, C. & Rawles, R. (1985). The determinants of beliefs in
Human nature. Personality and Individual Differences, 6(6), 675-684.

90
Gaoyin, Q. & Alvermann, D. (1995). Role of epistemological beliefs and learned
helplessness in secondary school students' learning science concepts from
text. Journalof Educational Psychology, 87(2), 282-292.

Garcia, G. (2000). Lessons from research: What is the length of time it takes limited
English proficient students to acquire English and succeed in an all-English
classroom? Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Education.

Gardner, R. C. (1979). Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition.
In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Language and Social Psychology. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.

Gardner, R.C. (1982). Language attitudes and language learning. In E. Bouchard
Ryan & H. Giles, Attitudes towards language variation (pp. 132-147).
Edward Arnold.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of
attitudes and motivation. London: Arnold.

Gardner, R. (1991). “Foreword,” in Language Anxiety: From Theory and Resear
Classroom Implications. Elaine K. Horwitz and Dolly J. Young (Ed.)
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Gardner, R.C. (2001). Language Learning Motivation: The Student, the Teacher, the
Researcher. University of Texas at Austin. March.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, R. C. (1959). Motivational variables in second
language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 13, 266-272.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second
Language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury.

Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., & Pierson, R. (1983). The socio-educational model
of second language acquisition: An investigation using LISREL causal
modeling. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2, 51-65.

Gardner, R.C., Masgoret, A.-M., Tennant, J., Mihic, L. (2004). Integrative
motivation: changes during a year-long intermediate-level language course.
Language Learning, 54, 1-34.

Gardner, R.C., Masgoret, A.-M., Tremblay P.F. (1999). Home background
characteristics and second language learning. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology. 18 (4), 419-437.
91

Gardner, R. C., Masgoret, A. M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L. (2004). Integrative
Motivation: Changes During a Year-Long Intermediate-Level language
course. Language Learning, 54, 1 – 34.

Gardner, R. C., & Tremblay, P. F. (1994). On motivation, research agendas, and
theoretical frameworks. Modern Language Journal, 78, 359-368.

Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college
composition: Issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of
ESL. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters: How well-qualified teachers can close
the gap. Thinking K-16, 3, (2).

Horwitz, E.K. (1987). Surveying student beliefs about language teaming. In A.L.
Wenden & J. Robin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 119-
132).London: Prentice Hall.

Horwitz, E.K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning foreign
language students. Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294.

Horwitz, E.K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language
learners' beliefs about language learning: A Review of BALLI Studies
[Special Issue]. System, 27, 557-576.

Huang, S.C., & Chang, S.F., (1998). Self-efficacy of English as a second language
learners: An example of four learners. Journal of Intensive English Studies
12, 23-40.

Huang, S.C., Lloyd, P., Mikulecky, L. (1999). ESL literacy self-efficacy:
Developing a new scale. Taiwan (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
427-541).

Huang, S.C. & Tsai, R.R. (2003). A Comparison between high and low English
proficiency learners' beliefs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
482579)

Ioga, C. (1995). The inner world of the immigrant child. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Jones, R. C. (1984). Changing patterns of undocumented Mexican migration to south
Texas. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 465 – 481.

92
Kern, R.G. (1995). Students' and teachers' beliefs about language learning. Foreign
Language Annals, 28, 71-92.
La Fromboise, T, Coleman, H.L.K., Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impacts of
biculturalism: evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin. 114 (3), 395-412.

Langston, C.A. & Sykes, W.E. (1997). Beliefs and the Big Five: Cognitive bases of
broad individual differences in personality. Journal of Research in
Personality, 31, 141-165.

Little, D. Singleton, D., & Slivius, W. (1984). Learning second languages in
Ireland:Experience, attitudes and needs. Dublin: Trinity College.

Macias, J. (1990). Scholastic antecedents of immigrant students: Schooling in a
Mexican immigrant-sending community. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 21 291 – 318.

MacIntyre, P.D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z.,& Noels, K.A. (1998). Conceptualizing
willingness to communicate in a L2:A situational model of L2 confidence
and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562.

MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second
language proficiency: the role of language anxiety. Language Learning. 47,
265-287.

Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive Attitudes and Realistic Beliefs: Links to
Proficiency. The Modern Language Journal 79/3, 372-386.

Masgoret, A.-M., Gardner, R.C. (2003) Attitudes, motivation, and second language
learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates.
Language Learning, 53, 123-163

McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985, November). Willingness to communicate: The
construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of
the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO.

Merickel, A., Linquanti, R., Parrish, T. B., Perez, M., Eaton, M., and Esra, P. (2003)
Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English
Learners, K-12 (Year 3 Report). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for
Research.

Mori, Y. (1999). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do
language learners believe about their learning? Language Learning. 49 (3)
377-415.

93
National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Status and Trends in the Education
of Hispanics, (NCES 2003–008). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
National Center for Education Statistics (2005). State nonfiscal survey of public
elementary/secondary education, 2004-05. Washington D. C.: U.S.
Department of Education.

National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. (2006).
Developing literacy in second language learners. In D. August & T.
Shanahan (eds.), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Noels, K.A., Pelletier, L., & Clément, R. (1999). Perceptions of teacher
communicative style and students’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Modern Language Journal, 83, 23-34.

Noels, K.A., Pelletier, L.G., Clément, R., Vallerand, R.J. (2003). Why are you
learning a second language? Motivational orientations and second language
learning. Language Learning. 53, 33-63.

Norrid-Lacey, B. & Spencer, D.A. (2000). Experiences of Latino immigrant students
at an urban high school. NASSP Bulletin, 84, 43-54.

Olsen, L., & Jaramillo, A. (1999). Turning the tides of exclusion: A guide for
educators and advocates for immigrant students. Oakland: California
Tomorrow.

Oropesa, R.S. & Landale N.S. (1997) In search of the new second generation:
strategies for identifying second-generation children and understanding their
acquisition of English. Sociological Perspectives 40, 429-455.

Oxford, R. & Shearin, J. (1994) Language learning motivation: expanding the
theoretical framework. The Modern Language Journal, 78 (1), 12028.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Academic Settings. Review of
Educational Research 66, 543-578.

Peacock, M. (1999). Beliefs about language learning and their relationship to
proficiency. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 9, 247-265.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational
Psychology. 95 (4) 667-686.

94
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research
and applications (2
nd
ed.). New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D., Garcia., T., & McKeachie, W. (1991). The motivated
strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: NCRIPTAL,
the University of Michigan.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R.G. (2001). Legacies: the story of the immigrant second
generation. New York: UC Press.
Roberge, M. M. (2002). California’s generation 1.5 immigrants: What experiences,
characteristics, and needs do they bring to our English classes? CATESOL
Journal 14 (1) 107-129.

Roberge, M. M. (2003). Generation 1.5 Immigrant Students: What Special
Experiences, Characteristics and Educational Needs do they ring to our
English classes? Paper presented TESOL convention. Baltimore, Maryland.

Roberts, L.P. (1992). Attitudes of entering university freshmen toward foreign
language study: A descriptive analysis. Modern Language Journal, 76(3),
275-283.

Rubinstein-Avila, E. (2004) Conversing with Miguel: an adolescent English
language learner struggling with later literacy development. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy. 47, 290-301.

Rueda, R., Artiles, A., Salazar, J. J., Higareda, I. (2002). An analysis of special
education as a response to the diminished academic achievement of
Chicano/Latino students: an update. In R. R. Valencia (Ed.) Chicano School
Failure and Success: Past, Present, and Future (2
nd
ed). New York:
Routledge Falmer.

Rumbaut, R. (1996) Chapter 2 of California's Immigrant Children: Theory,
Research, and Implications for Education Policy, edited by Rubén G.
Rumbaut and Wayne A. Cornelius and published by the Center for U.S.-
Mexican Studies at the University of California, San Diego.

Rubmaut, R. (1997). Ties that bind: immigration and immigrant families in the US.
pp. 3-46 in International Migration and Family Change. Edited by Alan
Booth, Ann C. Crouter and Nancy S. Landale. New York: Lawrence
Earlbaum.

Rumbaut, R. G., Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for
language minority students. Alexndria, VA: National Clearinghouse for
Bilingual Education
95

Rumberger, R. W. & Gándara, P. (2004). Seeking equity in the education of
California's English learners. Teachers College Record, 106, 2032 – 2056.

Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498-504.

Schommer, M. (1993). Epistemological development and academic performance.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 406-411.

Schumann, J. H. (1978). The acculturation model for second language acquisition.
In R. C. Gingras (Ed.), Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language
Teaching, 27-50, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Schumann, J. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language
acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 379-
392.

Siebert, L. (2003). Student and teacher beliefs about language learning. Foreign
Language Annals, 33(4), 394-420

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
(Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Suarez-Orozco, M.M. 1991. “Immigrant Adaptation to Schooling: A Hispanic Case.”
In Minority Status and Schooling: A Comparative Study of Immigrant and
Involuntary Minorities (pp. 37–61). Eds. Margaret A. Gibson and John U.
Ogbu. New York, NY: Garland.

Suarez-Orozco, C & Suarez Orozco M.M. (2001). Children of Immigration.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Téllez, K. (2004). Preparing Teachers for Latino Children and Youth: Policies and
Practice. The High School Journal 88, 43-54.

The Networks on Transitions to Adulthood. (2004 March) Young Adults in the
United States: A Profile. (Research Network Working Paper No. 4).

Tremblay, P.F., & Gardner, R. C. (1995) Expanding the motivation construct in
language learning. Modern Language Journal. 79, 505-518.

96
U.S Census Bureau (2001). The Hispanic population: Census 2000 Brief. Retrieved
November 18, 2005, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-
3.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). No child left behind act. Retrieved November
18, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/index/az/index.html#A

Valdés, G. (1998). The world outside and inside schools: language minority and
immigrant children. Educational Researcher, 27, (6), 4-18.

Valentine, S. (2001). Self-esteem, cultural identity, and generation status as
determinants of Hispanic acculturation. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 23, 459 – 468.

Waggoner, D. (1993) Census information on countries of birth of foreign-born
population. Numbers and Needs: Ethnic and Linguistic Minorities in the
United States. 3 (3): 1-3

Waggoner, D. (2000). The demographics of diversity in the United States. In R.
Duenas Gonzalez (Ed.), Language Ideologies: Critical perspectives on the
Official English Movement (5-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wen, X. (1997) Motivation and language learning with students of Chinese Foreign
Language Annals, 30, 235-51

Williams, M., Burden, R., Lanvers, U. (2002). French is the language of love and
stuff: Student perceptions of issues related to motivation in learning a foreign
language. British Educational Research Journal, 4, 503-528

Zea, M. C., Asner-Self, K. K., Birman, D., & Buki, L. P. (2003). The abbreviated
multidimensional acculturation scale: Empirical validation with two Latino/a
samples. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9, 107-126.

97
APPENDIX
Survey

Dear Student,

Thank you very much for agreeing to complete this survey. I value and respect your
opinion. The information you provide will be kept strictly confidential. The results of
the survey will help to inform teachers on how to best help you learn.

Beliefs About Learning English (BALLI)
Questions 1-20

For questions 1 & 2, please select only one of the answers that best reflects what
you think:

1) English is:
a) a very difficult language
b) a difficult language
c) a language of medium difficulty
d) an easy language
e) a very easy language

2) If someone spent one hour a day learning a language, how long would it take
them to speak the language very well:
a) less than a year
b) 1-2 years
c) 3-5 years
d) 5-10 years
e) You can’t learn a language in 1 hour a day

For questions 2 – 20, please use the following scale to answer the statement:

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

3) I believe that I will learn to speak English very well.
4) People from my country are good at learning new languages.
5) It is important to speak English with an excellent pronunciation.
6) You shouldn’t say anything in English until you can say it correctly.
7) It is best to learn English in an English-speaking country.
8) It’s o.k. to guess if you don’t know a word in English.
9) I have a special ability for learning new languages.
10) It is important to repeat and practice a lot.
98
11) Women are better than men at learning new languages.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

12) I feel timid speaking English with other people.
13) The most important part of learning a new language is learning the grammar.
14) It is easier to speak than understand a new language.
15.) The most important part of learning English is learning how to translate
from my native language.
16.) If I learn English very well, I will have better opportunities for a good job.
17.) People who speak more than one language are very intelligent.
18.) I want to learn to speak English well.
19.) Everyone can learn to speak a new language.
20.) It is easier to read and write English than to speak and understand it.

SELF EFFICACY
Questions 21-28

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

21.) I am certain I can master the skills being taught in this class
22.) I am confident I can understand the basic concepts taught in this course
23.) I am certain I can understand the most difficult material presented in the
reading for this course
24.) I am confident I can understand the most complex material presented by the
instructor in the course
25.) Considering the difficulty of this course, the teacher, and my skills, I am
confident I can do well
26.) I expect to do very well on most exams
27.) I have no doubts about my capability to do well on exams
28.) Even when the questions are difficult, I know I can succeed

99
MOTIVATION: AMTB
Questions 29-58
Questions 29 – 48:
Please select only one answer for each statement that best reflects what you
think:

29.) I actively think about what I have learned in my English class:
a) very frequently.
b) hardly ever.
c) once in awhile.

30.) If English were not taught in school, I would:
a) pick up English in everyday situations (i.e., read English books and
newspapers, try to
speak it whenever possible, etc.).
b) not bother learning English at all.
c) try to obtain lessons in English somewhere else.

31.) When I have a problem understanding something we are learning in English
class, I:
a) immediately ask the teacher for help.
b) only seek help just before the exam.
c) just forget about it.

32.) When it comes to English homework, I:
a) put some effort into it, but not as much as I could.
b) work very carefully, making sure I understand everything.
c) just skim over it.

33.) Considering how I study English, I can honestly say that I:
a) do just enough work to get along.
b) will pass on the basis of sheer luck or intelligence because I do very little
work.
c) really try to learn English.

34.) If my teacher wanted someone to do an extra English assignment, I would:
a) definitely not volunteer.
b) definitely volunteer.
c) only do it if the teacher asked me directly.

35.) After I get my English assignment back, I:
a) always rewrite them, correcting my mistakes.
b) just throw them in my desk and forget them.
c) look them over, but don’t bother correcting mistakes.
100

36.) When I am in English class, I:
a) volunteer answers as much as possible.
b) answer only the easier questions.
c) never say anything.

37.) If there were a local English T.V. station, I would:
a) never watch it.
b) turn it on occasionally.
c) try to watch it often.

38.) When I hear a English song on the radio, I:
a) listen to the music, paying attention only to the easy words.
b) listen carefully and try to understand all the words.
c) change the station.

39.) During English class, I would like:
a) to have a combination of Spanish and English spoken.
b) to have as much English as possible spoken.
c) to have only English spoken.

40.) If I had the opportunity to speak English outside of school, I would:
a) never speak it.
b) speak Spanish most of the time, using English only if really necessary.
c) speak it occasionally, using English whenever possible.

41.) Compared to my other courses, I like English:
a) the most.
b) the same as all the others.
c) least of all.

42.) If there were a English Club in my school, I would:
a) attend meetings once in awhile.
b) be most interested in joining.
c) definitely not join.

43.) If it were up to me whether or not to take English, I:
a) would definitely take it.
b) would drop it.
c) don’t know whether I would take it or not.

101
44.) I find studying English:
a) not interesting at all.
b) no more interesting than most subjects.
c) very interesting.

45.) If the opportunity arose and I knew enough English, I would watch English
T.V. programs
a) sometimes.
b) as often as possible.
c) never

46.) If I had the opportunity to see a English play, I would:
a) go only if I have nothing else to do.
b) definitely go.
c) not go.
47.) If there were English-speaking families in my neighborhood, I would:
a) never speak English to them.
b) speak English with them sometimes.
c) speak English with them as much as possible.

48.) If I had the opportunity and knew enough English, I would read English
magazines and newspapers:
a) as often as I could.
b) never.
c) not very often.

Questions 49 – 64: Use the following scale to answer each statement
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

49. Learning English is really great.
50. I really enjoy learning English.
51. English is an important part of the school program.
52. I plan to learn as much English as possible.
53. I love learning English.
54. I hate English.
55. I would rather spend my time on subjects otherthan English.
56. Learning English is a waste of time.
57. I think that learning English is dull.
58. When I leave school, I shall give up the study of English entirely because I am
not interested in it.

102
Acculturation (AMAS)
Questions 59-79

Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree
5 4 3 2 1

59.) I think of myself as being U.S. American.
60.) I feel good about being U.S. American.
61.) Being U.S. American plays an important part in my life.
62.) I feel that I am part of U.S. American culture.
63.) I have a strong sense of being U.S. American.
64.) I am proud of being U.S. American.

Question 65 – 79: Use the following Scale to answer the following statements

Extremely Pretty A Not at
Well Well little All
4 3 2 1

How well do you speak English:
65). At school or work
66.) With American friends
67.) On the phone
68.) With strangers
69.) In general

How well do you understand English:
70.) On television or in movies
71.) In newspapers and magazines
72.) Words in songs
73.) In general

How well do you know:
74.) American national heroes
75.) Popular American television shows
76.) Popular American newspapers and magazines
77.) Popular American actors and actresses
78.) American history
79.) American political leaders

103
Table 1
Frequency Data for Students’ Age, Grade, and Gender.
Generation 1.5 EL
(N = 76)
First Generation EL
(N = 75)

Age
14 years 24 7
15 years 29 23
16 years 14 26
17 years 5 17
18 years 4 2
Mean (SD) 15.16 (1.11) 15.79 (0.99)
a

Grade

9 42 21
10 27 23
11 0 27
12 7 4
Mean (SD) 9.63 (.89) 10.2 (.91)
a

Gender

Male 46 38
Female 30 37
Note.
a
p< .01.
104
Table 2

Independent T-test, Means, and standard deviation values for the dependent
variables between Newly Arrived Immigrant EL and Generation 1.5 EL Students

First Generation EL Generation 1.5 EL
Variable M
(n = 75)
SD M
(n = 76)
SD t df

Self Efficacy

3.71

0.73

3.77

0.61

-0.533

149

Motivational Intensity (Effort)

25.83
a

3.80

23.32

3.60

4.162

149

Desire to Learn L2

25.43
a

2.30

22.32

2.90

7.177

149

Attitude Toward Learning L2

44.16
a

6.10

39.87

5.50

4.527

149

Motivation to Learn L2

95.41
a

9.50

85.50

9.47

6.416

149

U. S. Cultural Identity

2.81

0.99

3.58
a

0.84

-5.183

149

English Competence

1.91

0.49

3.12
a

0.56

-13.98

149

U. S. Cultural Competence

1.78

0.53

2.50
a

0.67

-7.362

149

Sense of U. S. Acculturation

2.13

0.46

3.07
a

0.50
-
12.119

149

Current GPA

2.05
b

0.89

1.75

0.90

2.044

149

Cumulative GPA

2.04

0.86

1.85

0.77

1.487

149

English GPA

2.29

0.96

2.11

.95

1.184

149

Language Proficiency

294.69

61.24

535.51
a

25.99

-31.21

140

CST ELA

247.03

20.10

269.64
a

30.60

-5.220

143

CST MATH

263.96

36.21

260.09

28.03

.712

139
Note.
a
p < .01.
b
p < .05.

105
Table 3

Results of a Two Way ANOVA (Group x Gender) for Motivation,
Language Learning Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, and Acculturation

First Generation EL Generation 1.5 EL

Variable
Male Female Male Female
M SD M SD M SD M SD
(n = 38) (n = 37) (n = 46) (n = 30)

Self Efficacy 3.76 0.74 3.67 0.72 3.81 0.54 3.73 0.70

Motivational Intensity
(Effort) 24.89 4.51 26.78
c
2.61 23.50 3.78 23.03 3.39

Desire to Learn L2 25.13 2.59 25.79 2.06 22.07 2.87 22.70 3.05

Attitude Toward Learning
L2 43.76 6.76 44.57 5.41 39.80 5.20 39.97 6.11

Motivation to Learn L2 93.79 11.31 97.08 6.99 85.37 9.06 85.70 10.22

U. S. Cultural Identity 2.99 1.10 2.62 0.86 3.45 0.86 3.78
b
0.77

English Competence
2.06 0.55 1.77 0.38 3.15 0.59 3.06 0.52

U. S. Cultural Competence
1.95 0.50 1.61 0.50 2.51 0.68 2.50 0.68

Note.
a
p < .01.
b
p < .05.
c
p = .053.

106
Table 3, Continued

Results of a Two Way ANOVA (Group x Gender) for Motivation, Language
Learning Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, and Acculturation

First Generation EL Generation 1.5 EL

Variable
Male Female Male Female
M SD M SD M SD M SD
(n = 38) (n = 37) (n = 46) (n = 30)

U. S. Acculturation 2.29 0.45 1.96 0.41 3.06 0.50 3.10
b
0.51

Current GPA 1.92 0.80 2.25 0.91 1.74 0.88 1.83 0.90

Cumulative GPA 1.93 0.73 2.22 0.91 1.81 0.72 1.96 0.82

English GPA 2.14 0.78 2.45 1.10 2.09 0.90 2.15 1.05

Language Proficiency 292.48 8.29 296.66 7.80 537.44 6.80 532.57 8.42

CST ELA 244.34 18.17 249.71 21.77 271.39 32.64 266.86 30.60

CST Math 265.41 35.50 262.45 37.41 266.41 28.53 249.71 24.25

Note.
a
p < .01.
b
p < .05.
c
p = .053.

107
Table 4
Intercorrelations among Motivation Variables, Self Efficacy, Acculturation Variables,
and Language Learning Beliefs

Note. N = 151.
a
p < .01.
b
p < .05.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. BALLI -
2. Self Efficacy .45
a
-
3. Motivational Intensity .22
a
.27
a
-
4. Desire to Learn L2 .11 .16
a
.54
a
-
5. Attitude to Learning L2 .45
a
.39
a
.36
a
.55
a
-
6. Motivation to Learn L2 37
a
.36
a
.73
a
.80
a
.87
a
-
7. U. S. Cultural Identity .20
a
.17
b
-.03 .03 .06 .03 -
8. English Competence .19
a
.25
a
-.14
b
-.26
a
-.11 -.19
b
.42
a
-
9. U. S. Cultural
Competence
.28
a
.32
a
-.02 -.10 -.03 -.05 .32
a
.68
a
-
10. U. S. Acculturation .26
a
.29
a
-.09 -.14
b
-.03 -.10 .73
a
.89
a
.78
a

11. Current GPA .03 .05 .22
a
.23
a
.22
a
.27
a
-.04 -.17
a
-.11
12. Cumulative GPA -.03 .02 .14
b
.18
b
.20
a
.22
a
-.03 -14
b
-.09
13. Language Proficiency -.12 .05 -.29
a
-.48
a
-.34
a
-.44
a
.42
a
.74
a
.48
a

14. English GPA .08 .07 .24
a
.17
b
.18
b
.24
a
.02 -.06 -.06
15. CST English Language
Arts
.04 .09 -.08 -.16 -.11 -.14 .17
b
.28
a
.23
a

16. CST Math .05 .06 .15 .02 -.01 .06 .17
b
-.05 -.03
17. Years of ELD Instruction -.10 .06 -.33
a
-.50
a
-.33
a
-.46
a
.39
a
.75
a
.50
a

18. Age -.04 -.11 .13 .29
a
.11 .19
b
-.02 -.24
a
-.08

108

Table 4, Continued
Intercorrelations among Motivation Variables, Self Efficacy, Acculturation Variables,
and Language Learning Belief

Variable 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
1. BALLI
2. Self Efficacy
3. Motivational Intensity
4. Desire to Learn L2
5. Attitude to Learning L2
6. Motivation to Learn L2
7. U. S. Cultural Identity
8. English Competence
9. U. S. Cultural
Competence

10. U. S. Acculturation -
11. Current GPA -.14
b
-
12. Cumulative GPA -.11 .91
a
-
13. Language Proficiency .69
a
.22
a
-.17
a
-
14. English GPA -.04 .84
a
.82
a
.15 -
15. CST English Language
Arts
.29
a
.08 .10 .40
a
.07 -
16. CST Math -.10 .28
a
.33
b
-.03 .26
a
.128 -
17. Years of ELD Instruction .70
a
-.19
b
-.13 .90
a
-.13 .34
a
-.04 -
18. Age -.15 .15 .17
b
-.28
a
.08 -.29
a
-.07 -.26
a
-
Note. N = 151.
a
p < .01.
b
p < .05.

109
Table 5

Stepwise Multiple Regression of Motivation to Learn English
and English Competence on Students’ Current GPA

Variables

B

β

t

sr
2
(unique)

Motivation to Learn English

.021

.251
a

3.138

.061

English Competence

-.136

-.120

1.503

Intercept = .321 R
2
= .089
Adjusted R
2
= .076

R = .298
b

Note.
a
p = .002.
b
p =.001.

110
Table 6.
Stepwise Multiple Regression for Motivation Language Proficiency, Grade
Level, and Current GPA on CST English Language Arts Achievement

Model/Variables

B

β

t

sr
2
(unique)

1. Language Proficiency

.089

.018

5.03

.158

Intercept = 221.47

2. Language Proficiency .075 .018 4.12 .102
Grade Level -7.07 2.61 -2.71 .043

Intercept = 297.25

3. Language Proficiency .086 .018 4.73 .127

Grade Level

-7.81

2.56

-3.05

.053

Current GPA

6.74

2.45

2.75

.043

Intercept = 286.72

R
2
= .245.
Adjusted R
2
= .228

R = .495
a

Note.
a
p < .001.

111
Table 7

Stepwise Multiple Regression for Motivation to Learn English,
English Competence, and U. S. Cultural Identity on Language Proficiency

Model/Variables

B

β

t

sr
2
(unique)

1. Motivation to Learn English

-5.033

-.430
a

-5.821

.19

Intercept = 878.69

2. Motivation to Learn English -3.586 -.307
a
-5.794 .09

English Competence

102.34

.656
a

12.392

.41

Intercept = 489.97

3. Motivation to Learn English -3.832 -.328
a
-6.333 .10

English Competence

89.941

.576
a

10.115

.26

U. S. Cultural Identity

22.614

.180
a

3.212

.026

Intercept = 471.24

R
2
= .600
Adjusted R
2
= .595

R = .775
a

Note.
a
p < .001.

112
Figure 1. Socio-Educational Model (Gardner, 2001).

LINGUISTIC
External
Influences
INDIVIDUAL
Differences
Language Acquisition
Contexts
Outcome
Formal

INFORMAL

NON-
LINGUISTIC
History

Motivator

MO
T

ALS

INT

APT
Other
MOT
Factors
Other
Non-Mot
Factors
INTEGRATIVE

113
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Generation 1.5 First Generation
Generation Status
Motivational Intensity (Effort)
Male
Female
Figure 2. Group x Gender Interaction for Motivational Intensity

114
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
Generation 1.5 First Generation
Generation Status
U. S. Cultural Identity
Male
Female

Figure 3. Group x Gender Interaction for U.S. Cultural Identity

115

1.5
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
3.5
Generation 1.5 First Generation
Generation Status
U. S. Acculturation
Male
Female

Figure 4. Group x Gender Interaction for U.S. Acculturation

Abstract (if available)

Abstract English Learners (EL) are often viewed as a homogenous group of students, when in fact they are a diverse group with distinct generational differences among them. Common methods employing generation status fail to address the differences in a subgroup of EL students, namely, Generation 1.5. These students' experiences, characteristics and educational needs fall within those of recently arrived first generation immigrants and the U.S. born second generation children of immigrants (Roberge, 2002). Relying on first generation and second generation categories does not grasp the varied experiences of immigrant and U.S. born EL students (Oropesa & Landale, 1997). The purpose of this study was to investigate motivational variables related to language learning for secondary English Learner students based on generational status (recent immigrant ELs or first generation), and long term ELs (Generation 1.5). Participants' (N = 151) motivation, beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns related to learning English were examined. Quantitative methods were used to assess the differences among the groups, and to determine the predictability of these variables on achievement and language proficiency outcomes. Results indicate that first generation ELs reported higher levels of effort, desire, attitudes, and motivation to learn English, while generation 1.5 ELs reported higher levels of U. S. acculturation and identity, and more competence with English. The predictability of motivational variables did not capture a large variance of EL students' academic achievement and language proficiency outcomes among this sample. Implications for language teaching and learning are also discussed.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The relationship of gratitude and subjective well-being to self-efficacy and control of learning beliefs among college students

PDF

A comparative study of motivational orientation of elementary school English learners in a dual language immersion program and a transitional bilingual education program

PDF

Self-determination among adult Chinese English language learners: the relationship among perceived autonomy support, intrinsic motivation, and engagement

PDF

Teacher beliefs on bilingual education for English learners post proposition 227

PDF

The relationship of students' self-regulation and self-efficacy in an online learning environment

PDF

The influence of parental involvement, self-efficacy, locus of control, and acculturation on academic achievement among Latino high school students

PDF

Preparing English language learners to be college and career ready for the 21st century: the leadership role of secondary school principals in the support of English language learners

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement

PDF

Effective coaching of teachers to support learning for English language learners

PDF

Examining the achievement gap of seventh grade English language learners: A gap analysis

PDF

Algebra for all and its relationship to English learner's opportunity-to-learn and algebra I success rates

PDF

Math achievement and self-efficacy of linguistically and ethnically diverse high school students: their relationships with English reading and native language proficiency

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

A capstone gap analysis project of English learners' achievement at a suburban high school: a focus on teaching strategies and placement options

PDF

The effects of open enrollment, curriculum alignment, and data-driven instruction on the test performance of English language learners (ELLS) and re-designated fluent English proficient students ...

PDF

Leadership strategies employed by K–12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

The effect of traditional method of training on learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and performance orientation in comparison to evidence-based training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Garcia Huerta, Maria del Carmen (author)

Core Title Motivation, language learning beliefs, self-efficacy, and acculturation patterns among two groups of English learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership),Education (Psychology)

Degree Conferral Date 2007-12

Publication Date 12/18/2007

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag English learners,OAI-PMH Harvest

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Advisor Rueda, Robert S. (committee chair), Dembo, Myron H. (committee member), Winters, Lynn (committee member)

Creator Email dracarmengarcia@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m987

Unique identifier UC1501408

Identifier etd-GarciaHuerta-20071218 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-595015 (legacy record id),usctheses-m987 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarciaHuerta-20071218.pdf

Dmrecord 595015

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Garcia Huerta, Maria del Carmen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu