Predictors of success

Material Information

Predictors of success the impact of biliteracy on post secondary education completion
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (95 pages). : ;


Subjects / Keywords:
Bilingualism ( lcsh )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )


This study is designed to investigate and understand how biliteracy, bilingualism and monolingualism impacts post-secondary education achievement. Despite the fact that a large body of research exists on this topic in the elementary and secondary arena, there are very few studies that look at the long-term success of students with diverse linguistic backgrounds past high school. This study is vital in a time where a large number of bilingual and biliterate students are now graduating from high school and entering higher education in a climate where multilingualism is still viewed through a deficient-model lens. The study encompasses both a quantitative design using publicly available, longitudinal data and a qualitative approach, which will triangulate data from surveys, face-to-face interviews and artifacts with participants who are either current or former college students to explore linguistic backgrounds and college completion. The results of the quantitative study show that of the 537 biliterate students, 64% earned a college degree, while 62% of the 609 bilingual students and 63% of the 722 monolingual went on to graduate with a post-secondary education degree. To determine the significance of these frequencies, six backwards logistical regressions were calculated and the results showed that when controlling for socio-economic status, ethnicity and gender, biliterate students were significantly more likely to earn a college certificate or degree than their English-dominant bilingual and English speaking monolingual peers. Results from the qualititative study showed that among various themes, biliterate students were more likely to be stronger in mathematics, were more likely to find a source of purposeful determination to attend higher education from their bilingual teachers and are more likely to have a higher value of education bestowed upon them by their bilingual educators.
Thesis (Ph.D)--University of Colorado Denver.
Includes bibliographic references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Robert Garcia.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
898289447 ( OCLC )


This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS: THE IMPACT OF BILITERACY ON POST SECONDARY EDUCATION COMPLETION by ROBERT GARCIA B.A., University of Colorado, Boulder, 2002 M.A., University of Colorado, Boulder, 2008 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Leadership for Educational Equity 2014


ii This thesis for the Doctor of Education degree by Robert Garcia has been approved for the Leadership for Educational Equity Program by Kara Viesca, Chair Carolyn Haug Lorenso Aragon April 25, 2014


iii Garcia, Robert (EdD, Education) Predictor's of Success: The Impact of Biliteracy on Post Secondary Completion Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Kara Viesca ABSTRACT This study is designed to investigate and understand how biliteracy, bilingualism and monolingual ism impacts post secondary education achievement. Despite the fact that a large body of research exists on this topic in the elementary and secondary arena, there are very few studies that look at the long term success of students with diverse linguistic backgrounds past high school. This study is vital in a time where a large number of bilingual and biliterate students are now graduating from high school and ente ring higher education in a climate where multilingualism is still viewed through a deficient model lens. The study encompasses both a quantitative design using publicly available, longitudinal data and a qualitative approach which will triangulate data f rom surveys, face to face interviews and artifacts with participants who are either current or former college students to explore linguistic backgrounds and college completion. The results of the quantitative study show that of the 537 biliterate students, 64% earned a college degree, while 62% of the 609 bilingual students and 63% of the 722 monolingual went on to graduate with a post secondary education degree. To determine the significance of these frequencies, six backwards logistical regressio ns were calculated and the results showed that when controlling for socio economic status, ethnicity and gender, biliterate students were significantly more likely to earn a college certificate or degree than their English dominant bilingual and English sp eaking monolingual peers. Results from the qualititative study showed that among various themes, biliterate students were more


iv likely to be stronger in mathematics, were more likely to find a source of purposeful determination to attend higher education f rom their bilingual teachers and are more likely to have a higher value of education bestowed upon them by their bilingual educators. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Kara Viesca


v DEDICATION To my boys SaÂœl and Lando. I won't blame you if you chose never to read this. Just know that I spent a great deal of time working on it; time I would have rather spent with you both. However, in some backwards way, I hope you know you were a constant source of inspiration for me to complete it.


vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must first thank my wife Kim. She probably deserves to call herself Dr. Garcia more than I do. I will always remember all that you have done and all that you have sacrificed so I can do this. Next, my family. Even though growing up I idolized rock stars and sports figures, you are my true heroes. I'd gladly replace all the posters on my walls for pictures of you. I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends at the BUENO Center. You have given me the tools, the opportunities and the motivation to see this through. Your work will not on ly be acknowledged among our academic peers and in academic journals but more importantly in the lives of the students that are validated, supported, and encouraged by you every day. This is a better place because of the work you do. Finally, I must tha nk my committee members, Dr. Kara Viesca, Dr. Lorenso Aragon, and Dr. Carolyn Haug. Dr. Haug challenged and pushed me to my limits to comprehend the quantitative work in this document and I could not have done it without her patience, expertise and unendi ng support. Dr. Viesca took me on as an advisee without blinking an eye and believed in what I believed, and that means so much to me. She held my hand through every st ep of this process and I cannot express how grateful I am to have her a s a mentor, coa ch and friend. Lastly I truly owe Dr. Aragon all the credit for getting me through my undergraduate degree, my master's degree program and this doctoral program. The greatest thing I can mention is that as much as he has helped me throughout my life, I am just one in a cr owd of so many that owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. No one else I know works so hard and so selflessly, and has more of a monumental impact on others' lives than Dr. Aragon. MuchÂ’simas gracias Lorenso.


vii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTE R I. INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE . 1 Definition of Terms .1 Statement of the Problem 2 Deficit Model Ideology ...3 Educational Policy ..4 Conclusion ..6 II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... ..8 Classical Assimilation Theory 8 Holistic Bilingual Theory . ..9 Conclusion 13 III. LITERATURE REVIEW .. 1 5 Elementary E ducation ...16 Secondary E ducation 20 Higher E ducation ..23 Co nclusion 30 IV. RESEA RCH DESIGN ... ....31 Research Questions ..31 Methodology 32 Quantitative Approach .. . ..32 Data Analysis of Quantitative Data ... ..33 Qualitative Approach ... .. .......36


viii Data Analysis of Qualitative Data ... 39 V. FINDINGS ... 41 Quantitative Results ..41 Co nclusion 46 Qualitative Results 47 Bilingualis m as a Tool . 47 Personal Motivation .. 50 Math Ability .. 51 Value for Bilingualism .. 5 2 Value for Education .. 54 Purposeful D irection ..... 55 Teacher and Ed ucator Advocacy . 57 Discussion .59 VI. IMPLICATIONS .. ..63 Limitations 6 5 Quant itat ive Study ....65 Qual itati ve Study ......66 APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY . ..68 B: BILITERATE/BILINGUAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .. 70 C: MONOLINGUAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .. 72 D: THESAURUS & INDEX OF CODES/THEMES . .74 E: PSEUDONYMS REFERENCE GUIDE ....77




1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE Technological innovation and globalization ha ve made the world smaller and the need for multilingual communicators greater ( Garcia & Sylan, 2011 ). Y et, despite this fact, a student entering the U.S. public school system with a home language other than Engl ish is still considered to have a deficit. This ideology impacts many facets of the educational landscape from kindergarten to higher education Currently, a large body of research exists examining the educational experience of multilingual learners in U.S. elementary and secondary schools but there is a need for further inquiry in the higher education arena (Almon, 2012; Holmes et al., 2013; Kanno & Harklau, 2012) The purpose of this study is to investigate and better understand how biliteracy and bili ngualism impact post secondary education completion Definition of Terms Throughout this document a variety of terms will be used to categorize students based on their language background. T wo of t he most commonly found terms used to label students whose native language is not English are English Language Learners (ELLs), and Limited English Proficient (LEP) (Escamilla & Hopewell, 2009). These terms are seldom used in this study because they can be interpreted as subtractive l abels that subscribe to a deficit oriented ideology for these students describing them by ability they lack versus an ability they have (Escamilla & Hopewell, 2009; Mitchell, 2012; Portes & Salas, 2010) As a more fitting alternative, the terms emerging b il ingual and multilingual learner will be used in this proposal Emerging bilingual is used to identify student s who speak a language other than English and are in the process of acquiring


2 English as a second language ( Escamilla, 2000 ; Escamilla & Hopewell, 2009; Reyes, 2006) while the term multilingual learner is used to classify the student who has already acquired English as a second language to a degree in which they can be considered bilingual. Because this study reviews literature that conce rns both K 12 and higher education populations, the use of the term emerging bilingual will be typically associated with K 12 students while multilingual learner is more commonly used to identify higher education students. Three terms that should also be dis cerned are monolingual, bilingual and biliterate. For this study, m onolingual is used to describe a student whose native language is English and who has not acquired fluency in a second language. The term bilingual is used to describe someone who is i n possession of two languages (Wei, 2000) while the term biliterate describes a specific type of bilingual. Biliterate, for the purposes of this study is used to identify a bilingual student who is not only in possession of two languages but displays flue ncy in both languages (Pones & Rumbaut, 1996), meaning the ability to read and write to some level of proficiency in both languages. The emphasis on the biliterate student is made to specify a bilingual who has received formal maintenance or education in b oth languages either through schools in the U.S. via bilingual education or with schooling outside the United States. Even though the distinction between the bilingual and biliterate student can be subjective, discerning the two groups is believed to be vi tal for the purposes of this study. Statement of the Problem Despite the fact that the need for bilingualism and biliteracy in the U.S. is greater than ever ( Garcia & Sylan, 2011) the push to support educational programming that


3 supports the development of biliteracy in our public schools does not reflect the need. Therefore, t he rationale for this study will cover two main problems that contribute to this paradox. These problems can be categorized as the deficit model ideology that exists for this population of student s and educational policy issues that directly impact multilingual learners and their teachers. Deficit Model Ideology Cultural deficit theories may have been disproven (Reyes, 2012) but for the United States' 5 million emerging bilinguals, speaking, reading and writing in a language other than English is still considered a detriment to their ed ucational success (Reyes, 2012). Deficit theory can be traced back to colonial and imperial history (Shields, Bishop, & Mazawi, 2005). Those who adhere to this ideology believe that inequality exists among certain groups of people because of intellectual deficiencies and not of systemic biases and inequity (Collins, 1988; Gorski, 2007). A discussion on deficit ideology for students with a home language other than English is becoming more relevant than ever with a steadily increasing number of students entering U.S. schools who are considered simultaneous bilingual students or students who are exposed to two languages be fore they reach the age of five (Baker 2001 ). In fact, t he National Clearinghouse (2012) reported that i n 2008 09, there were 5,346,673 emerging bilingual learners in U.S. K 12 schools. Those who argue against bilingual education a n instruction mode that promotes bilingualism and bilteracy, push for English only initiatives and policies under false assumptions and misinformed suppositions Many English only advocates believe the use of a student's native language as a means to assis t and drive instruction only slows that student's acquisition of English (Rossell & Baker, 1996) Many also argue bilingual


4 education delays students' overall academic advancement (Baker & DeKanter, 1983). Ruiz (198 4 ) has labeled this position as the lan guage as interference or language as a problem paradigm. This opinion has grow n in popularity in recent years especially in the realm of education policy with three states in the U.S. adopting English only mandates despite the fact that there is little academic research that supports this paradigm (Escamilla & Hopewell, 2009). The potential to educate, celebrate and embrace our gro wing bilingual population from elementary to higher education is deterred by a persistent deficit model perspective that views multilingualism as a hindrance rather than an asset despite the large body of evide nce that supports a language as a resource ide ology ( August & Hakuta, 199 7 ; August & Shanahan, 2006; Franquiz & Ortiz, 2012; Genesee et al., 2006; Lutz, 2004; Ramirez et al., 1991; Ruiz, 1984; Thomas & Collier, 1997 ) Educational Policy Historically, the language as interference paradigm has not always been reflected in U.S. education al policy. After historical court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the Lau Remedies (1975), bilingual education programs were encouraged as a path to academic success for non English speaking stud ents entering U.S. schools. Educating these students was viewed by policy makers as equitable and socially justified (Dubetz & de Jong, 2011). The English only standard started ga ining momentum after the passage of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCL B), which all but abolished a national mandate for bilingual education despite decades of research that supported bilingual education approaches (Brisk, 2006 ; Cummins, 2000; GarcÂ’a, Kleifgen, & Flachi, 2008; Genesee, Lindholm Lleary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006). What was once considered equitable practice for the growing


5 emerging bilingual student population has become a deterrent to meeting NCLB's annual yearly progress (AYP) demands. Developing literacy in English at the sacrifice of students' home lan guage development to meet AYP has debilitated bilingual identities and learning potential (Moll & Ruiz, 2002; Portes and Salas, 2010 ; Valenzuela, 2004). In a world where multilingualism is more necessary than ever, students who speak other languages besid es English are still viewed to have a deficit. To further grasp how a deficit model persists one only need s to look at how non English native language students entering U.S. public schools are labeled. As mentioned in the review of definition of terms section of this proposal, t hese students are routinely labeled English Language Learners (ELLs) and Limited English Proficient (LEP). These terms are problematic for several reasons. For instance, the term ELL implies non English languages are problems t o be solved, and that for ELL students, acquiring English is their single most defining characteristic (Escamilla & Hopewell, 2009). These terms only encourage a deficit ideology and contribute to their marginalization suggesting these students are at a d eficit because of their non English proficiency (Mitche l l, 2012). Categorizing students as Limited English Proficient carries the same stigma and further contributes to historically subtractive practices for minority students across the United States ( Por tes and Salas, 2010). These terms are so pervasive that the use of the term ELL is most common, even in schools where bilingual or dual language programs are implemented (Escamilla & Hopewell, 2009). Instead of viewing children who enter U.S. schools speaking a language other than English as assets with the potential to become bilingual and biliterate, pressures from national policy for accountability via high stakes testing coupled with a deficit model


6 ideology or language as a problem perspective (Ru iz, 1984 ) has created a paradigm shift where English acquisition, even at the c ost of home language is favored This ideology persists despite the litany of research that strongly submits that bilingual or dual language approaches are ideal for this growin g population of students entering U.S. schools. Deficit model mentalities have made it no longer feasible for many to accept the concept that an additional language could be taught to a monolithic group that begins school monolingual (Garcia, 2009) There is a growing body of evidence, both theoretical and empirical, that supports the language as a resource perspective ( August & Hakuta, 1997 ; August & Shanahan, 2006; Franquiz & Ortiz, 2012; Genesee et al., 2006; Lutz, 2004; Ramirez et al., 1991; Ruiz, 1984; Thomas & Collier, 1997 ) that many public po licy makers do not acknowledge Conclusion With a strong research foundation supporting the language as a resource paradigm ( August & Hakuta, 199 7 ; August & Shanahan, 2006; Franquiz & Ortiz, 2012; Genesee et al., 2006; Lutz, 2004; Ramirez et al., 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1997 ) and a prevailing educational policy that is negatively impacting the growing number of multilingual learn ers entering U.S. schools, more should be done to promote, develop and celebrate emerging bilingual students' primary language. T here is little research on how bilingualism and biliteracy impact s college success. Inquiry investigating the academic outcomes of multilingual learners has focused on aspects of educational achievement in the form of standardized test scores and course grades (Lutz, 2004) but the question of the long term effect of language on educational attainment, especially for students in higher education remains una nswered. This research study is design to address this gap in the literature. Implementing quantitative and qualitative


7 methods, I investigate d how biliteracy and bilingualism impacts college completion using data collected form current and former colleg e students as well as make use of publicly available data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88)


8 CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This study looking at biliteracy 's impact and implications for college success and teacher effec tiveness is guided by the theoretical perspective of holistic biliteracy while challenging assimilation theory. Holistic bilingualism views bilinguals as an exceptional speaker hear er having a unique linguistic configuration as opposed to the commonly presumed theory that a bilingual is the sum of two monolinguals (Grosjean, 1989). Assimilation theory, in the context of multilingualism in the U.S., champions the concept that prompt competency of Englis h leads to educational success. I n the following sections I will examine these theories and their relevance for my study. Classical Assimilation Theory Early scholars of clas sical assimilation theory argued that assimilation was essential for immigr ant populations working to enter the American middle class (Warner & Srole, 1945). T he assimilation theorist argues that for non native English speakers in U.S. schools, the quicker they acquire English, assimilate to the dominant culture and, by consequence, abandon their native culture, the more likely they are to succeed. Today, many scholars revoke this framework arguing that classical assimilation theory no longer applies to new immigrant groups entering the U.S. since theories of assi milatio n do not represent the experience of current immigrant populations as they once did for early European immigrants (Greenman & Xie, 2007). As immigrant groups shifted from European to Asian and Latin American populations, research findings investigating th is theory have shifted as well, associating assimilation for these groups with worsening educational outcomes (Gans, 1992).


9 Holistic Bilingual Theory The framework supporting this study moves away from the presumptions made by assimilation theorist and instead adopts an alternative perspective for non native English speakers. As gleaned from the previous section of this research proposal, a great deal of research on non native English, emerging bilingual or multilingua l learners exists, but much of this inquiry has relied on the assumption that true bilingualism only exists when an individual can separate one language from another ( Esquinca, 2011). Grosjean (1989) argues for an alternative, holistic view of bilingualis m, proposing that the bilingual is a unified whole that cannot be decomposed into two separate parts. He contends the bilingual has a unique and specific linguistic configuration and is not two separate monolinguals. Escamilla and Hopewell (2009) echo Gr osjean's theory that the bilingual's experience should be o bserved as an integrated whole and not a fractional depiction that evaluates a bilingual as two monolinguals. They argue "t he co existence of two or more languages contributes to a uniquely endowed human being whose experiences and knowledge can never be measured or understood as independently constrained by each language separately" (p. 68). This framew ork is proposed in opposition to the prevailing concepts of parallel monolingualism. Early the orist s of holistic bilingualism, including Grosjean (1989) and ValdÂŽs & Figueroa (1994 ) have proposed this framework in resistance to the fractional view of bilingualism that presumes the bilingual has two isolable language competencies. This monolingual view insists that since bilinguals are essentially two monolinguals in one individual, they can be studied like any other monolingual Unfo rtunately, many researchers and educators have assumed this view and as a result, monolinguals have


10 been used as the models for methods of inquiry, instruction and the development of assessment with little to no adjustment for bilinguals (Grosjean, 1989). Prior to the development of this theory, research on bilingualism is largely conducted in terms of the bilingual's individual and separate languages under the supposition that a bilingual's use, whether thinking, speaking or writing, of their multip le languages should rarely interact or come in to contact. This view has changed with the adoption of holistic bilingual theory. Grosjean (1989) explains that the bilingual has developed competencies in two languages and uses them separately and together He clarifies this stating the bilingual uses a unique speech mode or bilingual speech mode where they choose their second language with their base language and they intermix the two when necessary becoming quite unique speaker hearers. Mentally, the bi lingual will shift from one language to the next when needed by the environment in which they find themselves. This can be in the form of l exical borrowing or code switching, where a bilingual uses bidirectional phonetic, syn t a c tic and rhetorical structur e transfers (Hern‡ndez, 2001; Escamilla and Hopewell, 2009). For the bilingual speaker, after a base language is chosen, the speaker will choose to bring in their second language by switching a word, a phrase, a sentence or by borrowing. It is commonly a ccepted that code switching is a natural linguistic and communicative strategy where bilinguals logically shift from one language to the next in a comprehendible manner (Grosjean, 1989) This strategy exemplifies one way the bilingual is not two separate monolinguals. Implementing a framework based on holistic bilingualism has several implications that should be discussed. For instance, adopting this view should lead to


11 more accurate comparisons of bilingual s and monolinguals that emphasize both the differences and similarities that exist between the two groups. This plays a major role with the instruction of multilingual students and sheds a new light on teacher effectiveness for this population. Brisk (2006), coming from a holistic biling ual standpoint, makes the claim that accepting the bilingual learner as more than just the sum of two monolinguals is important for designing classroom practices. Traditionally, pedagogy and models of second language education for emerging bilingual studen ts developed prior to the turn of the millennium grouped students by language level, treated these students as monolinguals acquiring an additional language in stepwise fashion as an educator would treat a monolingual developing their home language ( Garcia & Sylan, 2011). Gr osjean's holistic bilingualism offers suggestions as to why this approach is flawed. Grosjean (1989) uses the analogy of a track and field athlete to explain how instruction for the bilingual should be approached differently. He explains how a high hurdler, an athlete that must develop skills in sprinting and jumping simultaneously, can b e compared to a bilingual student. The hurdler has to balance two types of competencies and so comparing a hurdler to a sprinter or high jumper can be problematic. The hurdler fails to meet the competency of stand alone sprinter and of a high jumper, but the hurdler is, of course, a competitive athlete with as much potential to succeed in track and field as any other athlete. Grosjean concludes "no expert in track and field would ever compare a high hurdler to a sprinter or to a high jumper, even though the former blends certain characteristics of the latter two" (p. 6 ). This has implications for the instruction and assessment of multilingual learners. A hurdler would want to work


12 with a coach of hurdling and not necessarily two separate sprinting and h igh jump coaches. Using the same rationale, a bilingual student could be better off working with an instructor who is proven effective to teach bilingual students and use methods and strategies specifically designed for the emerging bilingual learner to b ecome strong in both languages This approach toward educating bilingual students is not generally taken in public schools today, even with bilingual programs. Unfortunately, a great deal of b ilingual program ming that exists in many U.S. schools use s the students' base language as a means to acquire English and does not necessarily to develop bilingualism and biliteracy and as a result, teachers emphasize each language separately rather than approaching a strategy that develops dual language competency (B utvilofsky & Sparrow, 201 2 ). Even though implementing bilingual programming in schools for non native English s peakers can be very beneficial if the approach uses monolingual pedagogies that aim solely to develop a student's proficiency in English, the potential for that student to become bilingual and biliterate is reduced. Along with instruction, viewing the bilingual as a unique speaker hearer has bearing on the assessment of emerging bilinguals a s wel l There is little research that can be found on how to assess the proficiencies of emerging bilinguals' both languages in bilingual contexts (Escamilla, 2000; Escamilla & Coady, 2001; August & Shanahan, 2006) Students in bilingual programs have bee n hi storically assessed in one language (Wiley, 2005). When their second language proficiency is assessed, evaluators use instruments that are either translated from English or have been normed for monolingual speakers as if bilingual students were two monoli nguals in one (Grosjean, 1989;


13 Butvilofsky & Sparrow, 2012). Adopting a holistic bilingual framework requires educators to reconsider how bilinguals are traditionally assessed and emphasizes the need to develop new assessment instruments that more accurat ely evaluate the abilities of multilingual learners. The perspective of holistic bilingualism recognizes that multilingual learners pull from both languages to communicate because their linguistic skills and knowledge are shared across both languages and cultures (Soltero Gonz‡lez, Escamilla, & Hopewell 2010). This has many positive impacts for bilingual students from kindergarten to higher education. As mentioned before, the instruction and assessment of multilingual learners has almost always been base d on monolingual standards, so the nee d to take into account the differential needs for bilingual students is vital. It could also shed more light on teacher effectiveness for the growing multilingual learner population in our schools. This could mean app roaching bilingual education programs with an emphasis o n developing bilingual and biliterate students, not just English proficiency. This could force evaluators to use tests that are appropriate for bilingual and biliterate students. Finally, it will en courage educato rs, policy makers and all stake holders of our education system to view the bilingual student, not as a student with a deficit but an asset to our classrooms, public scho ols and on our college campuses Conclusion E mbracing a theoretical perspective that discredits Classical Assimilation Theory and adopts a perspective grounded in Holistic Bilingualism has drive n my approach to every section of this study In order to shift the paradigm from a deficit model mindset, I have thoroughly sought literature that gets at the heart of how language impacts academic


14 achievement from K 12 to higher education setting s I have also developed a methodology that differentiates biliterate students from bilingual and monolingual stu dents to decisively investigate Grosjean's theory in practice. I wanted to see if the bilingual mind truly is more than just the sum of two monolinguals and relate that to higher education success. Purposefully distinguishing biliterate students from Eng lish dominant bilingual students has also given more credit toward rejecting any assimilation theory that champions a mentality that success in our society can only be achieved by adopting mainstream cultural values while compromising native culture and la nguage. I believe this theoretical framework has been justified by the result of this study, through the use of fair, and unbiased approaches.


15 CHAPTER III LITERATURE REVIEW There is a strong body of evidence that proclaims the benefits of native language development for multilingual learners ( August & Hakuta, 1997 ; August & Shanahan, 2006; Franquiz & Ortiz, 2012; Genesee et al., 2006; Lutz, 2004; Ramirez et al., 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1997 ) but there is little research on how this can impact college success. Research on the impact of biliteracy and bilingualism on academic outcomes has focused on aspects of educational achievement in the form of standardized test scores and course grades (Lutz, 2004) but the question of the long term effect of lan guage on educational attainment for students in higher education remains unanswered. This review of literature will cover what research has found about bilingualism and biliteracy 's impact on multilinguals in K 12 and what research exists on multilingual students in post secondary education programs. Even though this study is focused on multilingualism's impact on higher education, a rich foundation of inquiry in the area of K 12 education should not be excluded especially since the majority of research on this topic is focused on this age group. Studies included in this review were published after the turn of the millennium with a focus on the short term and long term effects of bilingualism and biliteracy in academia by comparing the academic performance of bilingual or biliterate students with their monolingual peers. During my investigation of the literature regarding bilingualism and biliteracy in primary, secondary and higher education, an overwhelming amount of studies were found. A search for bilingual and biliteracy academic achievement yields over 47,500 results. Even after the decision to only include research that can be found in


16 peer reviewed journals, a large concentr ation of literature still remained. In fact, there are academic journals that focus solely on multilingual education research including the Bilingual Research Journal, the International Journal of Bilingualism and the TESOL Journal. The decision was made to only include inquiry that has been published after the millennium so that research conducted after this time existed during the No Child Left Behind Era of education but still included seminal pieces of literature that are appropriate for this study. T he resulting literature review contains over 30 studies that cover inquiry focused on the achievement of bilingual and biliterate students in elementary, secondary and post secondary education. Elementary Education A great deal of inquiry concludes there are many benefits of bilingualism and biliteracy for students and for programming that promotes non English native language development in K 12 education ( Atwill et al., 2007; August & Shanahan, 2006; Lopez and Tasha kkori, 2006; Lutz, 2004; Slavin and Cheung, 2003; Thomas and Collier, 2002 ). A good place to begin this literature review is to debunk the concept that, for the long term success of non native English speakers, abandoning all forms a native language instr uction in favor of English immersion is the best approach. Yeung, Marsh and Suliman (2000) developed a study to look into whether native language instruction interfered with English academic achievement for ELLs. Using the publicly available data collecte d from a longitudinal study that tracked students from across the United States from 1988 to 2000, Yeung, Marsh and Suliman's research approach of structural equation modeling yielded only positive results for multilingual learners who showed proficiency i n their native language. The data analysis from their study, which included


17 9775 participants, concluded that native language proficiency did not affect subsequent English test scores, school grades or English proficiency. They determined that the bilingu al students' higher English proficiency did not correlate with lower native language maintenance or first language proficiency. Using this large sample, Yeung, Marsh and Suliman make a strong case debunking the notion that native non English language prof iciency interferes with the academic achievement in English. An overwhelming amount of research shows that a strong foundation in a student's native language at home and in school may be more important for long term academic success in English than an earl y start in English itself ( August & Hakuta, 1998; August & Shanahan, 2006; Franquiz & Ortiz, 2012; Genesee et al., 2006; Lightbown & Spada, 2006; Lutz, 2004; Ramirez et al., 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1997 ). For example, August & Shanahan's (2006) study found that s tudents who have an established proficiency in their non English native language have a greater chance to become proficient readers and writers in that native language, which supports their successful acquisition of English proficiency August and Shanahan's study found that the most successful instructional practices for multilingual students is that which utilizes native language literacy to facilitate second language acquisition. In fact, native language maintenance leads to the transfer of lite racy abilities between both languages, which benefit the student beyond their second language acquisition. Another study that found similar results comes from Atwill et al. (2007). Atwill et al. examined the influence of native vocabulary development on cross language transfer of phonemic awareness. Their inquiry included 68 Spanish speaking U.S. kindergartners learning English in immersion classrooms. The findings show that limited


18 Spanish vocabulary development had a negative impact on cross language transfer of phonemic awareness to English. In fact, the greater the students' proficiency of Spanish, their first language, the more likely they benefited from cross language transfer. There are several other studies tha t compliment Atwill et al. (2007 ) and August and Shanahan's (2006) findings, i n fact, many researchers have found that the students whose second language is English that are most likely to succeed in school are those with strong language skills in English and their native language (Franqui z & Ortiz 2012; Lutz, 2004). Lopez and Tashakkori's (2006) study echoed the argument that students who are exposed to dual language instruction early have a higher success rate in both their native and second languages. Their quantitative study involvin g over 550 students from six bilingual schools concluded that native language instruction accelerated the rate of English acquisition while facilitating the maintenance and development of literacy skills in the student's native language. In what can be the most impactful and surprising evidence for bilingual education and the promotion of biliteracy comes from Slavin and Cheung's (2003) synthesis of effective reading programs for emerging bilinguals In their synthesis they conclude that in no case did pos itive achievement result from an English only setting exceed those from a bilingual education setting. They go on to explain that research studies to the date of their 2003 synthesis favor bilingual approaches that include native language development. An additional and important synthesis of research that should be included in this review comes from Thomas and Collier's (2002) national study of the long term academic achievement of whom they call language minority students. Their five year


19 study covere d a great variety of education services provided for language minority students in U.S. public schools and included qualitative and quantitative research findings from both urban and rural research sites located across the United States. Thomas and Collie r yielded some striking results surrounding the academic achievement of multilingual learners. For English achievement, they concluded that emerging bilingual students who were immersed in English mainstream programs because their parents declined bilingu al/ESL services showed great decreases in reading and math achievement by fifth grade when compared to students who receive bilingual or ESL services. This group of students also had the largest number of dropouts by 11 th grade. For emerging bilingual st udents who were enrolled in two way bilingual education, the researchers discovered these students performed above grade level in English in grades one through five, significantly outperforming their language minority peers. With regard to long term Spani sh achievement, Thomas and Collier found that students who participated in transitional bilingual education classes tested on and oftentimes above grade level in Spanish reading achievement. This group also outperformed their native English speakers when tested in their native language across the curriculum. A general consensus exists across the literature that seeks to understand the long term impact bilingualism and biliteracy have on academic achievement in elementary education. From this research its s afe to make the claim that native language maintenance does not thwart academic achievement for multilingual learners in the U.S. elementary school setting but, in many cases, it contributes to academic success. With this in mind, it is important to revie w what the literature says for multilingual students in secondary schools.


20 Secondary Education Existing research also shows that the benefits of native language development continue beyond English acquisition into secondary success and post secondary enrol lment. In their review of research findings for ELLs in U.S. schools, Genessee et al. (2009) submit that there was no study of secondary education that found bilingually educated students less successful than their monolingual peers. For instance, Yeung, Marsh and Suliman's (2000) study mentioned above using data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) found that native language proficiency also had only positive effects on 12 th grader's performance on standardized English, math an d history tests. Lutz' (2004) study using the same nationally represented longitudinal data found that biliterate students were not only more likely to complete high school, but were also significantly more likely to enroll in higher education in comparison to monolingual English speakers. In her research, she found biliterate students completed high school at the highest rate (86.1%) followed by English monolinguals (85%) and English dominant bilingual students (80%). Lutz also revealed in the data that 41% of biliterate students were enrolling in higher education compared to 39% of English dominant bilingual students and 33% of English monolinguals. Her study adds to the literature that biliteracy offers students an academic advantage stating home language literacy contributes to successful secondary education completion, and transition into post secondary education. While Lutz' (2004) study suggests the benefits of biliteracy, another study by Menken and Kleyn (2009) looks at the disadvantag e multilingual secondary students


21 have because they did not receive native language maintenance in their educational upbringing. Menken and Kleyn (2009) examine a specific group of multilingual secondary students they call long term English language learn ers (LTELLs) in New York City high schools. Findings from their research claim that students' whose prior schooling has been subtractive, meaning schooling that did not allow for the students' native language to be fully developed, has had a negative impa ct on their academic success. Using qualitative methods, Menken and Kleyn's research team interviewed, surveyed and collected triangulated data from 29 LTELLs in grades nine through twelve. From this they found that students whose prior schooling has bee n subtractive posed significant challenges for their academic literacy acquisition. Despite the fact that many of these students were orally fluent bilinguals, their subtractive schooling found them arriving in high school lagging in academic literacy in English. Many of the studies reviewe d focus on the educational experience and academic achievement of immigrant students in U.S. schools, and in their findings they discover that language ability plays an important role in their inquiry. An example of thi s comes from Padilla and Gonzalez' (2001) study on immigrant and Mexican heritage students and the effects of schooling in Mexico on bilingual/English language instruction. By examining the academic performance of 2167 high school students they found that students who received some ESL or bilingual education reported higher grades than students who did not receive second language instruction and this was especially true of students who received schooling in Mexico prior to attending U.S. high schools. Padi lla and Gonzalez (2001) concluded that Mexican born youth with more years of schooling in Mexico received higher grades than students with less schooling in Mexico. Even


22 though there are numerous factors that could contribute to their difference in achie vement, one undeniable factor that separates these two groups is that those who received native language maintenance earned higher grades. Padilla and Gonzalez' (2001) study brings up an interested hypothesis explaining the difference in the immigrant stud ents' motivation from the multigenerational students'. This notion coined by Kao and Tienda (1995) is known as "the immigrant optimism hypothesis ," which can be defined as the inherent conviction in the power of education for social mobility that motivat es immigrant students to achieve at higher levels. One study that compliments this hypothesis comes from St Hilaire's (2002) research project looking at the educational aspirations of Mexican Immigrants. St Hilarie surveyed 728 Mexican origin eighth and n inth grade students in the San Diego school system found that the sample unanimously shared positive values toward formal education, but their length of residence in the U.S. was negatively associated with educational aspirations while fluency in their nat ive language of Spanish was positively associated with educational ambition and expectations. Whether this can be explained by immigrant optimism remains a hypothesis, but it is important to note that stronger native language fluency correlates with academ ic aspiration. A final study in the body of reviewed literature that pertains to the secondary education section of this literature review focuses on the educational experience of Chinese American and Korean American high school students. In their attempt to understand what the significance of language and culture is on aca demic achievement, Lee (2013) developed a study involving 105 Chinese Americans and Korean Americans attending Southern California public schools. Their study found that the students who


23 had superior academic achievement levels among these groups where those who valued the acc ulturation process that allowed for a perseverance of their native language versus those who valued the assimilation process. Those who favored assimilation adopted the values of the mainstream, dominant culture and as a result, lost fluency or never gain ed fluency in their non native English language. Higher Education The remainder of this literature review will focus on studies of post secondary multilingual students. According to Kanno and Harklau (2 012) eleven percent of the U.S. college student pop ulation consists of linguistic minority students who speak a language other than English at home. Despite the voluminous body of research for this population in primary and secondary schools research, there has been little research on the success of multil ingual learners in higher education (Kanno & Harklau, 2012). Literature in the area of higher education achievement has been focused on students who are labeled traditionally underrepresented groups in post secondary education including racial and ethnic minorities, low income students, and first generation students (Deli Amen & Turley, 2007; Bowen, Kurzwell, & Tobin, 2005; Parscarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004) and these studies rarely consider the influence of linguistic minority status (Kanno & Harklau, 2012). This section of the review of literature will discuss the very limited base of research on this select population in higher education. Unfortunately, very few studies specifically analyze the experience of multilingual learners in highe r education, in fact, many of the studies evaluated in this section of the literature review mention this very fact that this line of inquiry is difficult to find. The existing studies that can be found tend to focus on multilingual learners'


24 access to hig her education. For instance, research on college preparation has shown high school curriculum is a key predictor of access to higher education and the attainment of a college degree (Adelman, 200 4 ; Cabrera & La Nasa, 2001). Callahan's (2005) study of a r ural California school revealed that only two percent of multilingual learners completed college track courses. Mosqueda's (2012) study looked more specifically at multilingual learners access to college track mathematics curriculum, which he calls gate k eeping courses to higher education. His quantitative study using data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS: 2002) uses Hierarchial Linear Models to assess the relationship between multilingual students, course taking, and mathematics success The results showed that multilingual learners benefit more from taking advanced mathematics courses by the end of their last year of secondary school in terms of their mathematic achievement. The discussion of these results concludes that greater acces s to higher mathematic courses leads to greater access to college for multilingual learners. This may prove very beneficial for the college preparation of multilingual learners but it also begs for further research on how relates to college success for th is population. A quick scan across this section of the review of literature would reveal that the majority of the studies examined are fairly recent, many of which were published in the last couple of years. Two exceptions to this come from Randsdell, Bar bier & Niit (2006) and Portocarrero, Burright & Donovick (2007) studies on multilingual learners in higher education. In their research focusing on metacognition about language skill and working memory, Randsdell, Barbier & Niit (2006) tested 106 upper di vision university students, 48 of who were bilingual. They found that bilingual and multilingual students have better metalinguistic awareness of their language skills in reading and working memory


2 5 than monolingual students with comparable native language skills. This study shows an advantage multilingual students share over monolingual college students, but Portocarrero, Burright & Donovick 's (2007) study finds a disadvantage for multilingual college students. Their research on vocabulary and verbal fluency of bilingual and monolingual college students included 78 undergraduate college students, half of which were bilingual. The researchers then ad ministered to these students a socio linguistic questionnaire, language rating scale assessments and the Controlled Oral Word Association ( COWA ) exam to measure phonetic and semantic fluency. They found that bilingual students' performance on English was a verage but their receptive and expressive English vocabularies were lower than their monolingual counterparts. Even though both study groups had similar performance on phonetic fluency, the bilingual participants performed significantly lower in semantic fluency. Both of these studies focus on the language abilities of multilingual learners in higher education but neither of them focuses on how these abilities impact their achievement in college. Moving away from studies centered on college access and lan guage ability to higher education achievement requires a look at more recent studies. Holmes et al. (2013) and Shapiro's (2012) studies focus more on the college experience of multilingual learners. Holmes et al.'s (2013) ethnographic case study of cultu rally and linguistically diverse college students in a predominantly White, Midwestern university triangulated data using surveys, interviews and student artifacts. Their findings reveal that despite the fact that their participants greatly valued their b ilingualism and developed a sense of agency or motivation to succeed because of their diverse linguistic backgrounds, these students oftentimes felt alienated and rejected. Shapiro 's (2012) study yielded similar


26 findings. Surveying and interviewing multil ingual students attending Northern Green University, Shapiro also found that multilingual students shared a feeling of isolation in their institution of higher education. This sense of alienation led students to lose confidence in their abilities to succe ed in a university setting, which ultimately impacted their performance in their first year of school. Another source of alienation for Shapiro's (2012) participants came from having to register for developmental or remedial courses prior to enrolling in c ollege level, credit bearing courses. Racial and ethnic minority students attend higher education via community college at a higher rate and even though the number of these who can be considered multilingual learners is unknown, there is evidence that stud ents from immigrant backgrounds are more likely to attend community college (Kanno & Harklau, 2012). Despite the fact that community colleges serve as a critical gateway to higher education for Latino and multilingual learners (Nunez, Sparks, & Hernandez, 2011) these institutions can be limiting in terms of higher education achievement. Many researchers have found that rather than posing as a pipeline to four year universities, community colleges actual divert students, channeling them into vocational cou rses and weakening their academic progress (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Dougherty, 1994; Grubb, 1991). In fact, Adelman's (2005) longitudinal study found that only 37% of students who began at community actually transferred to four year institutions. In one stu dy assessing the performance of multilingual learners at a community college, Almon (2010) found that multilingual learners completion rates were quite low. What is interesting about this study is that Almon (2010) revealed that multilingual learners at t his institution performed well academically with more than 86% of them


27 earning a mean GPA of at least 2.00 and 49% of them earning at least a 3.00. Despite this fact, the 13% graduation rate of multilingual learners was significantly lower than the school 's overall rate of 23%. So despite the fact that this community college proved to be a campus where multilingual learners can perform well academically, the number of these students actually going on to earn a college degree was relatively low. Two additi onal studies that have been designed to investigate the college success of multilingual learners in college are Razfar and Simon's (2011) study and Kanno and Cromley's (2013) study. Both of these studies separate their comparison groups not by their native language abilities, rather by their inabilities. For instance, Razfar and Simon's (2011) uses longitudinal data from two cohorts of Latino ESL students and analyzes the success of the students who were mainstreamed into college level content courses to t hose who enrolled in community colleges at remedial level coursework. This study then compares ESL students to each other based on the classes they enrolled in, which really distinguishes them by their inability to enroll in college level coursework. Raz far and Simon are analyzing the performance of ESL students in remediation versus ESL students in college level classes and the results are especially predictable. Those who were prepared to enroll in college level coursework outperformed those who were no t. What is troubling about this study is that it leads to conclusions about the implications of this inquiry that are misleading. A good example of this can be found in Nœ–ez et al.'s (2013) book reviewing the literature on Latinos in higher education. Nœ–ez et al. (2013) reference Razfar and Simon's (2011) study summarizing the results by stating ESL students "are concentrated in development education and rarely enter


28 mainstream academic classes or take more advanced language classes, let alone complet e degrees or transfer" (Nœ–ez et al., 2013, p. 21 22). This misinterpretation of the study can lead many to assume multilingual learners enter college unprepared and therefore do not perform as well as non ESL students. This is clearly a misinterpretation of the study and misleads the reader to believe Razfar and Simon's (2001) study compared multilingual learners to monolingual learners. Another study that attempts to investigate the comparative performance of bilingual to monolingual college students com es from Kanno and Cromley (2013). Kanno and Cromley also use data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) to investigate ELL's degree of attainment in postsecondary education. Their findings show that ELLs lagged behind English p roficient linguistic minority students and monolingual English speaking students in college attainment. Again, the distinguishing factor for their participants in the study is based on their abilities, or rather, inabilities in English. Even though this study would lead the reader to believe multilingual learners are less likely to graduate from college than monolingual learners, a more accurate summary of the data would state that students who are better at English do better at college than students who are not as strong in English. Conclusion T he literature review on higher education access and success reveals some important information about how multilingual students perform in elementary, secondary and post secondary education. The literature focusing on the achievement of elementary and secondary students overwhelmingly shows the benefits of native language proficiency for students' performance in their second language of English. Despite the


29 large plethora of inquiry on this topic in the K 12 arena, very little research has been performed in higher education. This becomes abundantly clear when examining the literature review of the few studies that do exist. The majorit y of the studies included in the higher education section of this review make the claim that very few studies exist and more inquiry in this field is needed. It should also be mentioned that of the studies reviewed in the higher education section, none o f these studies distinguish the experience of bilingual student s from bilterate student s who show academic/literacy based proficiency in both their native language and their second language. This difference could show a distinction in academic performance for these higher education students, which holds new implications. Both Razfar and Simon (2001) and Kanno and Cromley's (2013) studies focus on the achievement of multilingual students in college but neither take into consideration what prior research ha s concluded about biliterate students. One aspect of this review of literature that is worth mentioning is how many pieces make use of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) dataset. Yeung, Marsh and Suliman (2000), Kanno and Cromle y (2013), and Lutz' (2004) research projects all make use of this database to investigate the academic performance of multilingual learners. It is noteworthy to point out that all three of these research studies separate the data differently using the sam e data set but comparing student performance with different variables. As mentioned before, Kanno and Cromley (2013) distinguish their comparison groups by English proficiency, whereas Yeung, Marsh and Suliman (2000) and Lutz (2004) focus on native languag e proficiency to differentiate their groups. Lutz takes this step a bit further by separating her groups into


30 three variables, monolingual, bilingual and biliterate. These distinctions between these three studies could explain why varying results were ac hieved concerning multilingual students' academic performance. The body of evidence highlighted in this review clearly shows biliterate students share an academic advantage over their bilingual peers who are not as proficient at their non English native la nguage for the most part. Future researchers investigating this line of inquiry should consider this distinction


31 CHAPTER IV RESEARCH DESIGN As mentioned earlier, a litany of research exists on how bilingualism and biliteracy impacts the educational experience of multilingual learners in elementary and secondary education, but there is very little research on how multilingualism impacts post secondary education achievement. T he following research questions on educational success and higher education for multilingual learners are the focus of this study Research Questions 1. What is the difference in college completion between biliterate, bilingual and monolingual students? 2. Is there a relationship between level of bilingualism and college completio n in higher education? 3. In what ways do biliterate and bilingual students describe how their language skills impacted their college academic experience? 4. What are the implications from these findings for K 12 and higher education policy and practice ?


32 Methodology This dissertation study employ ed a mixed methods approach. A quantitative analysis utilize d data from the N ational Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) A qualitative analysis i nclude d a surveys and interviews with current and former college students who identify as monolingual, bilingual or biliterate. These methods were applied to conduct a comparative study that i nvestigates the four research questions Because this is an area of i nquiry that has not been greatly studied, I felt it wa s important to utilize a methodology that employs both quantitative methods from a large sample of college students located across the nation as well as have a more in depth investigation of similar stu dents experience through qualitative methods of research. Quantitative Approach The quantitative study rel ied on data available from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) These public data are available through the U.S. Departme nt of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) website. According to IES' website (2013) the data represented in this study are a nationally representative sample of over 25,000 eighth grade students who were originally surveyed in 1988. The sur vey included questions covering ethnicity, home experience, educational resources, household income, and, more vital to this study, home language, level of proficiency of native, non English language with multiple indicators of proficiency Follow up surv eys for a sample of these students took place in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 2000. Along with this information, data collected from surveys of the students' teachers, parents and school administrators are available as well The follow up surveys after the original 1988 data were collected to provide insight on the longitudinal progress of the randomly selected students. The first follow


33 up provided information on the students' progress including information on those who have dropped out of high school and the achievement of those who continued in secondary education. The next follow up surveyed the group as they entered the second half of their senior year. The third follow up in 1994 took place when most of the sample had completed high school. This inc luded information on their high school success, their transition out of high school and information on those who chose to attend post secondary education. Finally, the fourth follow up took place in the year 2000, twelve years after the initial survey too k place. Despite the fact that this unique dataset is over ten years old, it is valuable and appropriate for this study because it is longitudinal data, representing over 25,000 students, many of which can be identified and varied as monolingual, bilingu al and biliterate. This information is vital to the proposed study because the information will now provide data on the students eight years after their expected high school completion. Many of these students will have completed postsecondary education an d started careers. This information will be used to answer research questions one and two of this study. Data Analysis of the Quantitative Data. The approach to analyze the data from the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) was to re plicate Lutz' (2004) study that used this information to investigate the difference between biliterate, bilingual and monolingual students on secondary education and college enrollment. Lutz' study concluded that high school completion for the sampled stu dents was actually highest for biliterate students, followed by the monolingual, English speaking students, then the English dominant, bilingual students. She also found that biliterates were more likely to enroll in post secondary education in a bachelor 's degree program. At the time


34 when Lutz' research took place, the final 2000 follow up survey data were not available and so her study could not investigate how multilingualism impacted higher education completion. This study utilize d data from the 2000 survey to explore the post secondary success of these students. The dependent variable or college completion category includes students who have reported they have finished high school or the equivalent and have gone on to earn a post secondary education certificate, A.A. degree, B.A. degree, M.A degree, Ph.D. or equivalent or Professional Degree which includes an M.D. or law degree. My independent variables monolingual, bilingual and biliterate were categorized based on students' responses to questions, "how well do you read in your home language" and "how well do you write in your home language," with home language referring to the respondents non English, first language. To e stablish these variables, only those respondents who speak English well wer e included in the dataset. Students were then placed into one of the three categories, monolingual, bilingual and biliterate, based on their responses regarding their abilities of their non English, second language. Those students who responded to read an d write "very well" or "pretty well" in their home language were categorized as biliterate. Those bilingual respondents who replied they read and write "well" or "not very well" in their home language were categorized as bilingual and those who responded "not at all" were categorized as monolingual. Categorization in this manner was determined based on the Pones and Rumbaut's (1996) definition of biliterate, a bilingual student who is not only in possession of two languages but displays fluency in both la nguages, meaning the ability to read and write to some level of proficiency in both languages. The bilingual


35 category then contains students who did have some proficiency in their home language but not enough to be considered biliterate. Finally, the mon olingual label was given to students who were in possession of proficiency in English only. Table 1 displays the number of participants for each variable considered in the study. Table 1 Numbers of Participants (N=1903) by Biliterate, Bilingual, Monolingual, Race and Gender N Missing/Not reported Language ability 1868 35 Biliterate 537 Bilingual 609 Monolingual 722 Gender 1868 35 Male 817 35 Female 1051 35 Race 1890 13 White 522 Ethnic minority* 1368 SES** 1610 293 Bottom 25% 339 145 26% 50% 377 92 51% 74% 407 50 Top 25% 487 6 Ethnic minority is determined to include all students who reported a non White race or ethnicity including American Indian, Asian Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic ** SES is a composite variable calculated by the National Center for Education Statistics that is made up five separate variable: both parents' education levels, both parents' occupations and family income, the bottom 25% represented those with the lowest family income, occupat ions and education levels and the top 25% with the highest family income, occupations and education levels. The control variables included race/ethnic background, gender, and socio economic status. Data on the respondents' ethnicity was recorded and categ orized into six different groups, Asian Pacific Islander, Hispanic, Black, White, American Indian and Multiple Response. For the purposes of this study, this variable was made dichotomous


36 by distinguishing the respondents into one of two groups, White/non Hispanic or ethnically diverse. Gender is dichotomous between males and females, while socio economic status (SES) was developed as a composite or derived variable by NELS:88. According to the National Center for Education Statistics' User Manual (2002), SES is a composite variable made up of five separate variables representing both parents' education levels, both parents' occupations, and family income. The User Manual's recommends researchers use these composite variables because they are "considered to be more accurate measures of the underlying concept than the individual variables that were used to create them" (p. 192). Qualitative Approach Research question three asks, how is the college a cademic experience impacted by biliterate and bilingual st udents' language skills. Research question four seeks greater understanding of the implication of this research studies' findings for K 12 policy and practice. To answer these questions, the data garnered from the quantitative study were used to support a qualitative study involving students who are currently enrolled in college, and college students who have either dropped out or completed a college degree. The source of these participants came from the Career Ladder program, a scholarship program for st udents who are in pursuit of a college degree and education licensure so they can teach K 12 education. This program enrolls a variety of students from different linguistic and ethnic backgrounds and serves as an efficient source to develop a purposeful o r purposive sample. Meriam (2009) argues that purposeful sampling allows for insight, understanding and discovery on the research topic and can yield information rich cases that are of central importance to the purpose of inquiry.


37 To select a sample of students, I collaborated with Dr. Espinosa, the Director of the Career Ladder program to make initial contact with over 125 students. First I recruited as a presenter at a face to face meeting with 30 current Career Ladder students to inform them about my study. Next, these students and the remainder of the 125 students from former cohorts were sent an email from Dr. Espinosa, informing them about my study and encouraging them take a demographic survey that was linked to the message. This demographic surv ey was used to form a purposive sample that yielded information rich data for the study (Gliner, Morgan, & Leech, 2009). The survey can be found in Appendix A of this document. From the demographic survey I was able to identify nine students to participate in a face to face interview. The nine students fell into one of three categories: currently enrolled college students, college graduate and college dropouts. Within these three categories, at least one member was picked who identified as mono lingual, one who is bilingual and one who ide ntifies as biliterate. Table 2 displays the breakdown of the students selected for the interviews and their corresponding categories. Table 2 Breakdown of Students Selected to Participate in Face to Face Int erviews, Their Current College Status and Language Ability ! Monolingual Bilingual Biliterate Current Miguel Sol Teresa Dropout Jesse Lina* Maria* Graduate Carol Debbie Juana Current college status and language ability categories were determined from the demographic survey where students self identified their status. ** All participant names, including Dr. Espinosa, are pseudonyms given to maintain anonymity


38 After categorizing students into their respective groups, I met with Dr. Espinosa to confirm whether he agreed with the sample being appropriate for the study based on their categories. Our mutual decision to move forward with this group also took into account the other various factors that were found to be significant in the quantitative study including SES, gender and race. By coincidence, every student selected for the qualitative study fe ll under the lower SES. Table 3 shows a breakdown of the students by g ender and ethnicity. With Dr. Espinosa's approval of the participants, the nine students were contacted by email or phone and asked to schedule a future date to meet with me for a face to face interview. Table 3 Breakdown of Students Selected to Partic ipate in Face to Face Interviews, Their Gender and Race/Ethnic Background ! ! During the months of January and February, the nine students participated in face to face interviews with me to discuss their college experience. The interview was semi structured with open ended questions that were followed up with probes to provoke more thoughtful responses (Merriam, 2009). Audio from the interview was recorded using an unobtrusive digital recorder (Merriam, 2009), which was used for transcription at a later date. Questions included queries about their educational background from elementa ry Gender Race/Ethnicity Maria Female Latina Sol Female Latina Lina Female Latina Debbie Female Latina Juana Female Latina Teresa Female Latina Miguel Male Latino Jesse Male White Carol Female White


39 education to post secondary education. The interview questions and discussion was influenced by the results of the quantitative study. The students were informed of the results of the quantitative study half way through the interview to provoke their r esponses based on the results. The interviews also looked deeper into the student's experiences and thoughts of their teachers and their academic programs throughout their educational career. The open ended interview protocol can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C Finally, data collection included artifact collection in the form of school transcripts to increase the credibility of the findings and strengthen the correspondence between research and tru th (Merrium, 2009; Wolcott, 2001 ). It is suggested t hat qualitative research include data from multiple sources to organize information into categories or themes that triangulate or cut across these sources of data (Cresswell, 2013). Therefore, artifacts were collected with the students' permission and rece ived directly from the students. These artifacts will included academic transcripts and course grade point averages. Data Analysis of Qualitative Data The initial step in data analysis was to review information from the surveys and interviews to begin open coding of what could be possible evidence that informs the study. The next step was to transcribe the data into an organized, line numbered digital d ocument to allow for coding (Merriam, 2009). Coding, the process of assigning codes to the levels or values of the data set's variables (Gliner, Morgan & Leech, 2009) helped to construct categories. The process of open coding to construct categories allow s for researchers to discover themes, patterns or significant findings in the data to answer a research question (Merriam, 2009). A running list of codes and their groupings were kept throughout the coding process of the review of


40 all the surveys and inter views. Once a tentative scheme of categories was developed, the evidence was sorted into specific categories that served as findings. These categories were then named based on terms commonly used by either the interviewee or the interviewer throughout the process of data collection. The process of categorizing themes from codes allowed me to make sense of the data and formulate findings and conclusions using specific quotes and reference instances from the interviews to support the findings as evidence (M erriam, 2009). This helped inform responses to research questions three and four on the students' perceptions of their dual language proficiency and their academic success as well as for the implications for teacher effectiveness. The information was used to further evaluate the findings from the quantitative data ascertained to answer research questions one and two.


41 CHAPTER V FINDINGS The findings in this section are split into the two different research methodologies conducted in this study. First, the results of the quantitative study are shared and then the findings for the qualitative study are revealed. Quantitative Results To assess if language ability, ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status significantly predicted post secondary education completion a logistic regression was conducted. First, the assumptions of logistical regression were checked. In this dataset there is independence of observations and the relationship of the independent variables to the dependent variable appears linear. An Omnibus Test of Model or chi squared test shows that with all variables considered together, the model is statistically significant with biliteracy, monolingualism, gender and SES significantly predicting whether or not the respondent earned a post sec ondary degree, 2 = 130.51, df = 6, N = 1569, p < .001. Under this model, race and bilingualism fail to significantly predict degree attainment. It may be surprising to find that race is not significant under this model but it may be because of how this variable was made dichotomous for this study. Further research using this variable without making it dichotomous and instead revealing how each race or ethnicity impacts college graduation may show results with highe r levels of confidence. Table 4 shows t he odds ratios that display the odds of earning a post secondary degree.


42 Table 4 Logistic Regression Predicting Who Will Earn a Post Secondary Degree with Biliterate, Bilingual, Monolingual, Race, Gender, and SES Variables Variable B SE Odds ratio p SES .6 8 .07 1.9 7 <.001 Gender 39 .11 1. 48 <.001 Race .22 .13 .8 1 .0 9 Biliterate .9 0 .40 2.47 .02 Bilingual .77 .40 2.15 .06 Monolingual .8 3 40 2.28 .04 Constant .33 .40 .721 .42 The backwards logistic regression results show that of the 1903 students included in the dataset, 987 students have earned a college degree while 582 have reported to have not obtained a degree. The remaining 334 students were labeled as missing cases. Ex p(B) value, or odds ratio is a measure of effect size that, in this case, indicates that biliterate students were shown to be highest and most likely to predict college degree attainment while monolingual students were nearly as likely to predict degree at tainment, when other variables are held constant. Because bilingualism and race failed to show significance in this model, it can be assumed with all these variables taken into account, there is not strong evidence that supports the claim that these factor s impact college degree attainment at a 95% level of confidence. It should be noted that bilingualism is just one percentage point shy at reaching a level of significance (p = .06). Table 5 shows the number and percentages of students who have earned a de gree to those who have not based on the variables in the regression.


43 Table 5 Number and Percentages of Student Post Secondary Degree Attainment by Biliteracy, Bilingualism, Monolingua lism, Race, and Gender (N=1569) Variable #Earned Degree % # Did Not Earn Degree % #Missing Biliterate 292 64% 163 36% 82 Bilingual 328 62% 202 38% 79 Monolingual 377 63% 218 37% 127 Male 404 59% 292 41% 131 Female 586 66% 306 34% 159 White 317 70% 134 30% 71 Ethnic Minority 692 60% 458 40% 218 SES Bottom 25% 154 47% 180 53% 145 SES 26% 50% 216 57% 161 43% 92 SES 51% 74% 247 61% 106 39% 50 SES Top 25% 390 80% 97 20% 6 Since biliteracy, monolingualism, gender and socioeconomic status were found to be significant predictors an additional regression was computed that included only these covariates. The odd s ratios can be seen in Table 6 These results show that with this model only SES and gender predict post secondary degree attainment 2 = 125.48, df = 4, N = 1578, p < .001 With this combination of variables, SES and gender have the highest odds ratio suggesting socioeconomic status and gender are the strongest variable to consider for predicting college graduation, with a chi squared test yielding a p value <.001. Table 6 Logistic Regression Predicting Who Will Earn a Post Secondary Degree with Biliterate, Monolingual, Gender, and SES Variables Variable B SE Odds ratio p SES .6 9 .07 2.00 <.001 Gender .38 .11 1 .46 .001 Biliterate .19 .14 1.21 .17 Monolingual .10 .13 1.11 .43 Constant .28 .11 1.32 .01


44 A third logistic regression was done to see if other combinations of variables proved significant. This regression only includes the covariates that dealt directly with language ability. Table 7 displays the odds ratios for biliterate, bilingual and monolingual students earning a post secondary degree. The chi square test reveals that this combination of variables was not significant, 2 = 2.67, df = 3, N = 1610, p = .45. This backwards logisti c regression suggests that these three language variables together are not significant predictors of college degree attainment without consideration of the other variables like socioeconomic status and gender. Biliteracy did prove to be the most significa nt (p = .12) with an odds ratio of 1.79, followed by monolingual with an odds ratio of 1.73 and finally bilingualism being the least significant (p = 2.0) with an odds ratio of 1.62. Table 7 Logistic Regression Predicting Who Will Earn a Post Secondary D egree with Biliterate, Bilingual, and Monolingual Variable B SE Odds ratio p Biliterate .58 .38 1.79 .12 Bilingual .49 .38 1.62 20 Monolingual 55 .38 1.73 14 Constant .33 .40 .721 .42 ! To look closer at how the individual language fields predict college graduation, three additional backwards logistic regression models were run with the other control variables. The first was to look at biliteracy, and the control variables SES, gender an d race. Next a regression was run with bilingualism and the other control variables and finally, monolingualism was run with the other covariates. T he odds ratios found in Table 8 shows that a backwards logistic regression with covariates biliteracy, SES race and gender is statistically significant, 2 = 126.26, df = 4, N = 1569, p < .001. What


45 should be noted in this model is that all the variables but biliteracy and race yielded statistically significant data. This would mean that without the other l anguage fields, biliteracy is not a strong predictor of college degree attainment even with control variables are considered. This is also found to be true of bilingualism and monolingualism when backwards regressions are run with these variables. Table 8 Logistic Regression Predicting Who Will Earn a Post Secondary Degree with Biliterate, Race, SES, and Gender Variable B SE Odds ratio p Biliterate .13 .12 1.13 .31 SES .67 .07 1.95 < 001 Race .21 .18 .81 10 Gender .38 .11 1.46 .001 Constant .49 13 1.64 < 001 ! Table 9 Logistic Regression Predicting Who Will Earn a Post Secondary Degree with Bilingual, Race, SES, and Gender Variable B SE Odds ratio p Bilingual .07 .12 .93 .55 SES .66 .07 1.94 < 001 Race .21 .13 .81 09 Gender .38 .11 1.47 < 001 Constant .55 13 1.73 < 001 Table 10 Logistic Regression Predicting Who Will Earn a Post Secondary Degree with Monolingual, Race, SES, and Gender Variable B SE Odds ratio p Monolingual .02 .11 1.02 .84 SES .66 .07 1.94 < 001 Race .22 .13 .81 09 Gender .39 .11 1.47 < 001 Constant .52 13 1.68 < 001


46 Tables 9 and 10 show that even though this combination of variables yield statistically significant data, 2 = 125.56, df = 4, N = 1569, p < .001 and 2 = 125.25, df = 4, N = 1569, p < .001 respectively, neither monolingualism or bilingualism were strong predictors of higher education graduation. Conclusion To answer research question 1, w hat is the difference in college completion between biliterate, bil ingual and monolingual students, descriptive statistics suggests a slight difference exists among these three language groups. As seen in Table 5 of the 537 biliterate students, 64% earned a college degree, while 62% of the 609 bilingual students and 63% of the 722 monolingual went on to graduate with a post secondary education degree. Research question 2 asks if a relationship exists between level of bilingualism and college completion in higher education and so six backwards logistical regressions were run to answer this question as well as to inform research question 1. Among the six different regression models, the model that included all the language variables and control variables was the only one to find statistical significance for the language fields as seen in Table 4 One additional outcome that should be noted from these models is the drastic change in odds ratio from the first model to the remaining models Notice the change from Table 4 to the Tables 5 through 10 the odds ratio for biliteracy, monolingual and bilingual variables drop significantly, almost in half in some cases. This noticeable drop may just show how important all the other variables in the mode are for predicting post secondary education completion for these three language fields. Once one of these extraneous variables is taken out, the odds ratio is significantly reduced.


47 In summation, the information from this dataset compliments what existing research surrounding this topic states for students who are academically proficient in more than one language. Students who are biliterate are more likely to complete post secondary education compared to their monolingual and bilingual counterpa rts when the control variables SES, gender and race are held constant. Only when SES, gender and race are considered is the level of bilingualism related to college completion and this is proven to be true only for bilinguals who are considered biliterate and not for English dominant bilinguals who are not proficient readers in writers in both languages. In fact, monolingual students are more likely to complete a college program than English dominant bilingual students. Qualitative Results After initial t ranscriptions and coding of the interviews took place, over 45 codes were developed. After categorizing these codes and grouping them based on bigger themes, the data was narrowed to 24 codes. A list of the codes and the reference to their corresponding interview transcripts can be found in Appendix D Even though rich data can be found analyzing each of the 24 codes, I believe seven major themes from these codes yielded the strongest and most vital data for this study, especially when comparing the respo nses of the biliterate students to the bilingual and the monolingual students. These major themes include bilingualism as a tool, personal motivation, math ability, having a strong value for education, having a strong value for bilingualism, having purpo seful direction and finally, teacher or educator advocacy. Bilingualism as a T ool. One strong theme that came up in the majority of the interviews was the concept that bilingualism served as a tool for college students. For


48 Teresa, a biliterate, current college student, being biliterate was a tool that she used as a source of direction and motivation. Even though she struggled in English only classes in the U.S., she gained determination to become an educator because she could read and write in Spanish. She stated, "I knew I wanted to go to college to become a teacher. I knew something. I knew Spanish. I just needed to learn English but I had Spanish. I had a tool." After spending more time learning English she gained new motivation to begin college. She explained, Knowing two languages can add struggle to the process. It can be confusing and you never end up learning both perfectly. It takes time. In the end I think it's worth it. There's nothing else that I think is better than being bilingual. I have more tools. In the end it will be worth the struggle and the experiences. I will be able to help kids who struggled like I did. Even for kids who want to learn Spanish. I know it's frustrating so that will make me a better teacher and a better person. The right person to help them. For Teresa, the tools she had as biliterate student gave her direction and motivation in college. Some of the most profound statements surrounding the theme of bilingualism as a tool came from the monolingual students who have spent many semesters working side by side with bilingual and biliterate students in college. Jesse, a monolingual, college non completer based his thoughts on his experience in a college cohort with many students who are biliterate and bilingual. He believes that the student who knows more than one language had an added set of skills that he did not as a college student. He sta tes "I believe the people who are bilingual, they kind of have more advantageI


49 would say they have more tools, more of arsenal supplies that are available for them." Miguel, a current college student and monolingual speaker echoed Jesse's sentiment stati ng, "There is a lot of talent that bilinguals have that I feel I don't have... I just think that the way they think, to me, seems different than the way I think." When I asked him to explain what he meant by talent, Miguel went on to explain that bilingua l students gained important tools being bilingual that assist them as college students. He explains, They seem to be very motivated toward getting toward their goal. I think they want to ask for help, something I could never dobut they seem to want to r each out and try to get more information. They just work harder. I think they work hard. They have to put more time in. They have to search for resources and try to get help from other people and other students. I think because they put more work into it, it enables them to do better. Miguel believes that the tools bilingual and biliterate students have that he, as a monolingual student did not have, are the willingness to ask for help, to search for resources for that assistance and the drive to put fo rth more time and effort. Miguel's belief that bilingual and biliterate students have the tools of work ethnic may be explained by biliterate students Lina and Teresa's comments. Although Lina thought having English as her second language made work as a college student more difficult for her, she demonstrated her ability to work harder and put forth more time into her writing in college. She explained to me that composing college essays took more effort. She states, "I remember writing drafts over and o ver again and it was time consuming just because it was really hard for me. How to respell, and spell checkI remember going online and trying to figure out what things mean and if I didn't


50 understand something I would have to look it up online." Teresa s hared this experience with Lina when writing college papers. She said, "It takes me longer than a monolingual, because I have to go over my paper twice or maybe three times. Sometimes my thoughts, because I have to think in Spanish, then translate it, it takes more time but I am getting better and better." Based on Miguel's belief and Lina and Teresa's experience, bilingual and biliterate students may put forth more time and effort to do well because English is their second language. The correlation bet ween putting forth greater time and effort and academic success is not new. Rau and Durand (2000) found that a strong correlation exists between academic work ethic and GPA. For these Career Ladder students, being biliterate or bilingual has given them m ore skills to find resources for assistance and also forced them to have stronger devotion to their schoolwork. For Teresa, this only gave her more motivation to do well. Teresa summarized this notion stating, Sometimes when things are easy you don't have the same motivation pushing you. Knowing English, the one language, it's easier and you get comfortable and you don't put forth that effort. You think, oh I have to go to college' but for me its I want to go to college.' So it's a different motivatio n. Personal M otivation. Teresa, a current biliterate college student believes that she has gained a different motivation because she is biliterate. In fact, the theme of personal motivation was widely discussed by all the participants in this study. O ne common sentiment shared among the three bilingual participants and the three biliterate students is that their bilingual abilities were a source of motivation for them to go to college and do well in higher education. For instance, Maria, a bilingual c ollege non


51 completer, felt motivated to go to college because she knew, as a bilingual, she could contribute to ESL programming in schools as a teacher. Debbie, a bilingual college graduate, also had motivation to become a teacher based on her bilingual s kills. See saw bilingualism as an ability that will enable her to help future students. Another important source of motivation for Sol and Lina came from growing up with a lower socio economic background. Sol recognized that her mother did not have the opportunity to go to college and because of this, she had a stronger motivation to succeed. Lina felt just as motivated by the fact that her mother only had a sixth grade education. In fact, her mother would remind her regularly why Lina should go to col lege saying, "[My mother] didn't clean our toilets, she cleaned different people's toilets. I remember she would always tell us, I don't want you to be cleaning toilets.' I grew up knowing I don't want to clean toilets, I want to be more than that." In general, the topic of personal motivation was much more prominent for the bilingual and biliterate students than for the monolingual students. Miguel, Jessie and Carol spoke very little about how their personal motivation impacted their aspiration to go to college or their performance while in college. The source of the biliterate and bilingual students' motivation was rooted in their bilingual abilities or their parent's educational limitations. Math A bility. One glaring difference gleaned from the int erviews was how the biliterate students felt about math and their math abilities, compared the to bilingual and monolingual students. The three biliterate students all felt like they excelled in mathematics and their transcripts confirmed their sentiments Lina explained that she was disappointed that she had to take remediation classes when she started high school,


52 but her confidence was boosted by the fact that she tested into college level math. Teresa explained that she struggled in some social scien ce classes, especially Political Science, but she did very well in college mathematics. Juana also gained motivation from her strength in math and felt like she excelled in the subject since she started school in the United States as a high school student. She recalled being enrolled in ESL classes but that math was her first mainstream class she took that was taught strictly in English. She remembers doing homework and only being able to complete the math work since she did not have the English skills an y other academic work. For the bilingual and monolingual students, math was a weakness. Even though a look at their transcripts showed they performed well in math classes, all the monolingual students had to start in some form of remediation in math. Car ol explained that she felt discouraged because she had to take the lowest level of developmental math. She explains that throughout her entire college career the only class she struggled with was math. Miguel also described math as his weakness saying, My Achilles heel is mathematics. Numbers don't come easy for me, so I really have to study for math and prepare and do the homework." Debbie and Maria agreed with the other students who were not biliterate. Both expressed their love for school and colle ge education but greatly disliked math. Maria described math as the beginning of her downfall before she eventually dropped out of college. Value for B ilingualism. One theme that all nine students felt the same about was a strong value for bilingualism. For the monolingual students, there was a desire to be bilingual and an appreciation for multilingualism. Carol, a monolingual college graduate states, "I think that if I would have had a second language it probably would have been


53 beneficial. I just ad mire people who can speak different languages." Monolingual college student Miguel, whose parents' first language was Spanish, expressed similar feelings. He believed bilingualism would have been a definite advantage, especially in the education field. H e wished he had pursued learning Spanish on his own since he went to grade school at a time where a strict "English only" policy was enforced and Spanish was forbidden. His thoughts were not just grounded in personal experience. He explained to me that h e recently completed a class in English Language Acquisition and he learned that the bilingual brain is unique. Learning this, he contended that being a bilingual college student would have its advantages. For Jesse, a monolingual college dropout, his va lue for bilingualism came from feeling that being monolingual was limiting. He felt being monolingual put up some walls for him and believed if he were bilingual, he would be more of an out of the box thinker. He concluded this sentiment by stating his a spirations to pursue learning a second language. For the bilingual and biliterate students, having two languages was always deemed valuable. The three bilingual students, Maria, Sol and Debbie, never felt they were at a disadvantage because they knew tw o languages. Debbie always appreciated having the ability to translate for others. Sol knows she can be a better educator because she is bilingual. Maria recalled feeling more confident in college classes because she was bilingual. She expressed with g reat passion that she "absolutely, never felt being bilingual was a hindrance or hurt anyone's ability to do well in college." Finally, the biliterate students all stated that being able to read and write in two languages gave them motivation to go to coll ege. Juana knew she had the potential to


54 help students beyond the classroom and is considering becoming a bilingual counselor for students. Teresa explained that she chose to take English classes while in school in Mexico because she was fascinated by th e idea of moving to the United States and going to college. Lina's experience was similar when she tested high enough on the Spanish Advanced Placement test to earn college credit while in high school. She became excited in her potential to go to college Value for E ducation. While the nine students shared a strong value for bilingualism, they differed in their value for education growing up. One major distinction between the monolingual and the bilingual and biliterate students was their value of educat ion that was bestowed upon them in their formative years. Monolingual students Carol, Jesse and Miguel all expressed their lack of appreciation for education when younger, explaining school felt more like an obligation than an opportunity. Miguel stated, "I just didn't see the value of educationit was kind of a thing like well, I'm going to school because I have to until I'm 16. It kind of felt like it was something I had to do." Carol agreed explaining her opinion of education came from her parent's lac k of value for it saying "Education to them was not important. They didn't go to conferences or school functions. [Because of this] I just never thought about higher education." Carol's parents did not enforce a value for education, which led to her to not even consider attending post secondary education. This is completely contradictory to the experience of the three bilingual students and three biliterate students. Maria expressed a "hunger" for education, which originated from her parents. She recal led her parents always expressing an importance that Maria attend school saying Maria, necesitas que


55 ir a la escuela" meaning, "Maria, you have to go to school." Both Debbie and Lina remembered their parent's enforced strict, no playtime until they finish their homework, policies at home. Another thing that resonated with Lina was the fact that her dad would take her to see her ESL teacher on evenings and weekends so she could learn English. Debbie also recalled her parents going above and beyond to supp ort her education despite the fact that they moved around to work seasonal agriculture. She stated, "Despite fact that we were a migrant family, my parents always kept us in school no matter where we were and when they were traveling." Juana had a strong b elief that her parent's esteem for education ultimately gave her a value for education. She affirmed, My family has always been strong on education. I had to go to college. There's no question about itThey were always pushing education. I think that if t hat is something you get early on in your life it doesn't and after high school. You're going to go to college. As a current teacher she sees this in her students as well. She explained, "If [my student's] parents value education, then they will value edu cation. Everything is by example." Juana felt very strong about this concept and makes it a point as a teacher to work with her students' parents to reinforce a value for education at home. Purposeful D irection. Career direction played an important role for all the Career Ladder students interviewed in this study regardless of language background; however, the source of direction was different for the biliterate students. By nature of the of the sample source, al l the students in this study were studying to become teachers, but this was not always the case for everyone. Miguel, a monolingual student, began college


56 immediately after completing high school but dropped out after a year because, as he explained, he d id not have direction in college. He believed he left college because he did not know what he wanted to study. He eventually returned to college many years later after working in a school and getting inspired to work with students. This experience was v ery similar for all the bilingual and monolingual students. Many did not begin college or gain the direction needed to do well in college until after they started working in schools in various roles and became inspired to become classroom teachers. Howev er, for the three biliterate students, their source of direction was different. One commonality among the three biliterate students was that they all decided they wanted to become teachers under the influence of their bilingual, English language teachers. For Juana, a biliterate college graduate, it was not her monolingual ESL teacher that influenced her, but his paraprofessional, who was fully bilingual. She recalled being inspired by her paraprofessional's encouragement and desire to become a teacher. This gave her direction to become an educator for other emerging bilingual students. Teresa admired her ESL teachers and felt, because of them, that she could be a teacher for Spanish speaking students as well. Lina, a biliterate non completer, also was inspired by a bilingual teacher she had who always encouraged her to go to college. She credits him for wanting to be an educator early on in her college career. One difference between Lina's experience from Teresa and Juana's, that is important to poin t out, is that Lina's career direction had changed after deciding to no longer pursue a degree to teach and she eventually withdrew having only completed general education courses. Lina's experience exemplifies the hypothesis that having a clear, purposefu l career direction in college supports college success. For her, and the other biliterate


57 students, their bilingual, language educators that they worked with in secondary school inspired this purposeful direction. This leads to the next and final theme g leaned fro m these i nterviews, teacher or educator advocacy. Teacher and Educator A dvocacy. All nine participants credited their root cause to go to college to having an advocate encouraging their pursuit of higher education. Just like with purposeful di rection, the biliterate students source of advocacy came from their bilingual teachers, whereas, for the six bilingual and monolingual students, their advocacy came from sources that were not traditional classroom teachers. For example, Maria and Carol d id not consider attending college until meeting Dr. Espinosa, the Director of the Career Ladder program. They both explained that their teachers failed to inspire them to pursue higher education and it was not until years of working after high school that they consider ed college under Dr. Espinosa's leadership. Carol felt that Dr. Espinosa's Career Ladder program design and his passion for education convinced her to enroll. She also explained that even after completing an undergraduate degree, she had rese rvations pursuing a graduate degree program but once she saw Dr. Espinosa was organizing a Master's degree cohort, she felt confident enrolling. Maria entrusted the same confidence in Dr. Espinosa, explaining to me in her interview that even though she wa s a non completer, hearing from Dr. Espinosa in regards to this study gave her the "ganas" to re enroll in college courses under his advocacy. Sol, Miguel and Jesse also found advocacy to go to college outside the classroom. Sol explained that her Latin A merican student club advisor was motivating for her to go to college and she, to this day, appreciates her motherly qualities that gave her confidence and motivation. Jesse explained that he had a lot of disagreements with his teachers,


58 which ultimately l ead him to decide to leave high school and earn a GED. Despite his poor sentiments toward his teachers, he believes his advocacy to go beyond high school with his education came from his speech therapist. Growing up with a severe stutter hindered his abi lity to do well in school, but Jesse explained his speech therapist was patient where his teachers were not and that meant a lot to him. Miguel also did not have strong relationships with his teachers but found advocacy with his coaches. As an athlete, h e gained poise and self assurance from his coaches instead of his teachers. As explained with purposeful direction, the biliterate students' source for advocacy came directly from their bilingual, English language teachers. Lina recalled feeling appreciati ve of her ESL teacher for her willingness to work after hours and on weekends to help her learn English. She also greatly valued her bilingual secondary teacher's advocacy for students from Latino communities. His daily reinforcement of the need to be ed ucated still resonated with her today. She stated, "He would always talk about going to college, how important it wasHe always tells us the Hispanic community needs to do this, and that, so he was a big influence." Juana and Teresa also credited their ESL teachers for their influence motivating them to go to college. For Juana, it was her ESL teacher's paraprofessional, who always expressed that she wanted Juana to do more and because of this she stated, "from then, I always said when I graduate from high school I will go to college." Teresa had similar comments of her ESL instructor's explaining, They showed me how important it is to be educated in this country. They would talk to us about how it was important to learn English. They were expecting us to go college. Just interacting with them made me admire them and I knew then I


59 wanted to become a teacher too. I just felt so good in their classes and I wanted to do the same for kids that were struggling like I was. All nine participants attributed a lot of their motivation to go to college from having advocates, but the source of that advocacy was different for the biliterate students. The bilingual and monolingual students gained motivation from educators tha t were non classroom teachers. The biliterate students, however, accredited their ESL teacher's for their advocacy to see them go beyond high school and pursue a post secondary degree education. Discussion The results of this study compliment what the ma jority of the existing research says about the academic success of biliterate students. As mentioned in the literature review, a strong body of evidence asserts the benefits of native language development for multilingual learners ( August & Hakuta, 1997; August & Shanahan, 2006; Franquiz & Ortiz, 2012; Genesee et al., 2006; Lutz, 2004; Ramirez et al., 1991; Thomas & Collier, 1997 ). From August & Shanahan's (2006) study that found that students who have an established proficiency in their non English nativ e language have a greater chance to become proficient readers and writers, to Lutz' (2004) study that concludes that biliterate students are more likely to graduate from high school and are more likely enroll in higher education when compared to their mono lingual and English dominant bilingual peers. The results of this study build on this research and takes the literature a step further suggesting biliterate students are more likely to graduate from college when SES, ethnicity and gender are taken into ac count.


60 Another major takeaway from the results of the quantitative study is the emphasis on distinguishing biliterate students from bilingual students when investigating this line of inquiry. Almon (2010), Razfar and Simon (2011) and Kanno and Cromely (20 13) all investigate the college success of multilingual learners in college and all found dismal results for multilingual college students. All three of these studies also failed to distinguish the multilingual student as either biliterate or English domi nant bilingual, which, according to the results of this study, has proven to be a significant distinction. Taking the results of the quantitative study a step further, the qualitative study yielded some interesting findings that may explain why the distin ction between biliterate and English dominant bilingual is important. For instance, one major theme that separated the biliterate students from their monolingual and bilingual counterparts is Math proficiency. All three biliterate students felt math was a n academic strength while the remaining participants agreed that math was an academic limitation. This corresponds with the findings of Mosqueda's (2012) study that looked more specifically at multilingual learners access to college track mathematics curr iculum. The results Mosqueda found showed that multilingual learners benefit more from taking advanced mathematics courses and conclude that greater access to higher mathematic courses leads to greater access to college for multilingual learners. This was also true of the experience of the biliterate students who participated in this study. Just as important as Math proficiency is the concept that knowing more than one language served as a tool for college students, rather than a hindrance. Even though the biliterate students agreed that their language abilities made it more difficult for th em to compose college essays, they all exhibited a stronger work ethic and motivation to


61 improve on their writing skills because they struggled in this area. The monolingual and bilingual students all agreed that having more proficiency in a second languag e other than English was not a limitation, rather a talent that only abetted college success. In fact, one student proclaimed that bilingual students think differently than he does as a monolingual English speaker. These findings directly exemplify the t heoretical framework that is at the foundation of this study. First is an opposition to Classical Assimilation Theory, which proposes that foreign populations entering American middle class must assimilate and acquire English quickly, while abandoning the ir native culture. Both the results of the quantitative and qualitative studies negate this theory. Finally, Grosjean's (1989) theory of holistic bilingualism is exemplified in the findings of this study. Grosjean argues that bilinguals are exceptional s peaker hearers having a unique linguistic configuration as opposed to the commonly presumed theory that a bilingual is the sum of two monolinguals. Many of the participants either demonstrated or revealed this to be true, especially for the biliterate par ticipants across both studies. A noteworthy finding that should also be discussed is the concept of purposeful direction. This is vital because it not only points out another distinction between the biliterate students and the other participants but also has implications for K 12 practice and policy. One possible reason explaining the success of the participants in the study is their possession of purposeful direction in college. This is argued in several studies that attest one of the most common reaso ns for college student dropout is not having direction or a clear pathway toward a career track (Bergeron & Romano, 1994; Groccia & Harrity, 1991; Noel, Levtiz, & Saluri, 1985). The monolingual and bilingual participants in the qualitative study revealed that they did not leave high school with a sense of purposeful


62 direction gained from their educators, rather they found direction from working in educational settings or from outside advocates. However, the biliterate students all gave credit toward their purposeful direction to their bilingual teachers. It was during their time in U.S. schools when bilingual teachers educated them that they realized they could go to college and then gained their career direction as a direct result of their teacher's influ ence. This is an important distinction because it compliments what the literature says about having purposeful direction and offers some implications for teacher's roles in the lives of emerging bilingual students in K 12 public education.


63 CHAPTER VI IMPLICATIONS Research question four of this study asks, what are the implications from these findings for K 12 policy and practice. This is an important question to ask because the results of this study may offer some suggestions for K 12 education. Muc h of the literature suggests students who are proficient in their native language are more likely to have academic success in their second language. The results of this study suggest these students are also more likely to achieve success in higher educati on as well. As more inquiry argues the benefits of native language proficiency for emerging bilinguals, more educational policy and practice should aim to develop emerging bilingual's native language academic abilities. This could mean a move away from E nglish as a Second Language (ESL) instruction that separates non native English speakers from their mainstream classrooms to focus on gaining English proficiency and a move to Developmental Bilingual Education (Echevarria & Graves, 2010). This approach ai ms for emerging bilingual students to become biliterate by teaching them in two languages for multiples years. It could also mean a push for two way immersion programs where both English learners and native English speaking students are taught together in two languages (Echevarria & Graves, 2010). The benefits of biliteracy should not be limited to students to enter American public school speaking a language other than English. The results from this study advocate for a stronger move away from a deficit ideology that exists for multilingual students. In the K 12 setting, this could mean changing the labels of multilingual students from deficit oriented terms like Limited English Proficient or English Language Learner to emerging bilingual and biliterate


64 students. This term not only takes away from the subtractive nature of labeling students based on their inabilities but also dignifies them for their potential to be bilingual and biliterate. Acknowledging the benefits of bilingualism and biliteracy in p ublic school settings directly combats the language as a problem paradigm and replaces it was a language as a resource ideology. Since the focus of this study is the impact biliteracy has in post secondary education, implications for higher education prac tice should be mentioned. One arena that should be considered is with college admissions practices. Many major universities and college still use standardized college entrance exams such as the SAT and ACT as a consideration of merit for college admissio ns. This practice takes place despite the research that argues these tests are invalid for predicting college completion (Adelman, 2004; Atkinson and Geiser, 2009; Rooney and Shaeffer, 1998) and are controversial because of their possible bias toward mino rities (Espenshade and Chung, 2010; FairTest, 2006; Micceri, 2007; 2010). An alternative consideration would be to suggest biliteracy as a source of merit for considering student admission. This could validate the practice of including a Seal of Bilitera cy on high school graduate transcripts, as done in California and New York (Seal of Biliteracy, 2013). Rather than relying on practices that do not offer predictive validity of college success, this study could be a step toward a new admissions considerat ion that does show predictive validity for higher education completion.


65 Limitations When taking on a study of this nature, several limitations must be considered, especially since this study mixed quantitative and qualitative methods using different data sources for both methods. Quantitative S tudy. There are some limitations that should be mentioned when using the NELS:88 database for this study. The first concerns the language variables. To distinguish samples for the biliteracy, bilingual and mo nolingual variables, I relied on responses by the participants regarding their literacy in their home language. Because these language variables are self identified they are somewhat subjective to each respondent. Future studies that aim to compare colle ge completion rates among these populations should consider a more formal process of assigning language abilities based on an assessment of languages or educational history to leave these variable less subjective. Another limitation in this study has to do with how the control variables were assigned. As the results show, ethnicity is an important consideration when evaluating language ability and college success. For the purposes of this study, ethnicity was made dichotomous, splitting those participants who were of an ethnically diverse background from those who were labeled White. More accurate data regarding ethnicity and college completion should evaluate how the different ethnically diverse groups compared to each other. This should also be a consi deration for future inquiry. A final limitation that should be mentioned is the date of this dataset. The NELS:88 longitudinal study completed its final follow up survey in the year 2000. This means that the population represented in this sample particip ated in educational systems


66 prior to the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Future studies on this topic may choose to use a more recent dataset with a sample who have participated in schools under NCLB. Qualitative S tudy An adequate sample size for most qualitative studies depends on several different factors. One common suggestion is to sample until a point of saturation is reached (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The nature of this study required that at least all language variables were r epresented in the data and that the sample include current, graduate and non completing college students. The size of this purposeful sampling was not met because a point of saturation was reached, rather, it was met when a participant was found that met all the different criteria. This approach may be a limitation to this study. Another limitation, which also exists for the quantitative study, is the fact that the language variables for each participant were self selected. This can be subjective, but b efore finalizing the participant list, I met with Dr. Espinosa, the Director of the Career Ladder program from which the participants were found, and we discussed whether or not the self selected language designations were appropriate. After this meeting with Dr. Espinosa and completing the individual interviews, I felt like the nine participants were appropriately categorized. Future studies of this nature would benefit with a more formalized process for distinguishing the language variables for each par ticipant. A final limitation that should be mentioned is the source of the sample. All nine of the participants were enrolled in the Career Ladder scholarship program, which is implemented at a community college. This program is highly selective in choos ing its participants and because of this, the members of the sample are exceptional students who


67 wish to pursue a bachelor's degree and eventually teach. Because of this, the sample may not necessarily represent the general, college going population. In a sense, this also serves as a means of controlling for certain variables like SES, since the participants have shown financial need by applying to participate in the program. This can also be viewed as a limitation since it overlooks the voice of students who may not be accepted into a scholarship program. !


68 APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY INTRODUCTION : Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. The purpose of this survey is to understand your educational background to determine if you would be a candidate to further participate in a research study on college achievement Please take as much time as you need. There are no right or wrong or desirable or undesirable answers. The information obtained from this survey will be used to determine who will be asked to participate in the interview portion of the research study The data you provide in this survey will not impact your status as a participant in the Career Ladder Program. Your information will be kept private and your identity will be protected. Name : ____________________________ Which of the following best describes your current h igher education status (please choose only one): o Current college student o College graduate o Former college student (non graduate not currently attending college classes) W hich of the following best describes your progress in higher education (please choose only one) : o I am an u nderclassmen (have completed 59 credits or less) o I am an u pperclassmen (have completed 60 credits or more) o I am not a current college student Which of the following best describes your elementary education background (please choose o nly one): o I attended elementary school in the United States o I attended elementary school outside of the United States o I attended elementary school both in the United States and outside the United States Which of the following best describes your middle s chool education background (please choose only one): o I attended middle school in the United States o I attended middle school outside of the United States o I attended middle school both in the United States and outside the United States


69 Which of the following best describes your secondary education background (please choose only one): o I attended high school school in the United States o I attended high school school outside of the United States o I attended high school both in the United States and outside the United Which of the following best describes your language status (please choose only one): o Monolingual speaker o Bilingual speaker (English dominant) o Bilingual speaker (non English dominant) o Biliterate (I can read, write and speak in two languages) o Multilingual speaker o Multiliterate (I can read, write and speak in more than two languages) What was the primary language spoken in your home (please choose only one): o English o Spanish o Other:___________________ __ Which of the following best describes how interested you are in participating in this study? o Very interested o Somewhat interested o Not interested Would you be willing to participate in a face to face interview to discuss your academic experience from elementary school through college? o Yes o No thanks Would you be willing to share with the interviewer college documents including school transcripts? o Yes o No thanks


70 APPENDIX B BILINGUAL/BILITERATE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Introduction: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. I am going to ask you some questions that inform me about your background and your academic history Let me remind you that the information you share will remain on a secure computer system and any information t hat is used for this study will be attached to a pseudonym to assure that your identity remains anonymous. 1. Tell me about your college experience Probes: Where did you go and why did you choose to attend this school? What did you study? Why did you want to study this subject? Are you still a college student ? What are your future goals in education? 2 Lets talk about how you performed academically in higher education. Probes: How was your transition from secondary education to college ? How did you feel you did in classes? What areas did you excel at? What areas did you feel you could have done better? 3 Let's jump back to your early educational experience. Tell me about elementary education Probes: Where did you attend elementary school? At what point did you start attending school in the United States? (for students who may have attend ed school outside the United States) What was your primary language when you entered elementary school? What was your parent's primary language? Would you say your parents are monolingual speakers? Bilingual? Biliterate? If you did not speak English when you started school in the United States, what type of language program did you participate in? (English immersion, ESL, bilingual, dual language program, etc.) Did you receive assistance from anyone in your native language? 4 Do you recall how you were formally educated in your native language? Probes: How long did you receive instruction in your native language? What subjects did you receive this type of instruction? How did you perform academically when taught in your home language? 5 Let's talk about your transition into learning English? Probes:


71 What do you recall about your early instruction in English? How old/what grade were you in when you st arted receiving instruction in English? What was your exposure to English at this point? How did you feel about learning another language? Positve/negative? Explain? Was it difficult? What kind of support did you have at home during this transition? 6 L ets talk about your language instruction teachers ? Probes: What do you remember about these teachers? Language abilities? Cultural identities? How did these teachers impact your education? What was it about these teachers that played an important role i n your education? Did these teachers impact your decision to attend higher education? 7 Referencing your survey I see you consider yourself to be biliterate/bilingual, do you feel like this has affected your academic career? Probes: Why do you feel t his way? How has being biliterate/bilingual helped you in school? How has being biliterate/bilingual hindered your education? Did you ever find yourself to have an advantage or disadvantage since you are biliterate/bilingual? 8 As you may know, this research study is looking at biliteracy/bilingualism and higher education achievement. With that in mind, do you agree with the idea that the experience of biliterate/bilingual individuals' participation in higher education is differe nt in some ways compared to their monolingual peers'? Probes: Do you have siblings/family members who share similar academic experiences as you? Is there anything else you would like to add?


72 APPENDIX C MONOLINGUAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL Introduction: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. I am going to ask you some questions that inform me about your background. Let me remind you that the information you share will remain on a secure computer system and any information that is used f or this study will be attached to a pseudonym to assure that your identity remains anonymous. 1. Tell me about your college experience? Probes: Where did you go and why did you choose to attend this school? What did you study? Why did you want to study this subject? Are you still a college student ? What are your future goals in education? 2 Lets talk about how you performed academically in higher education ? Probes: How was your transition from secondary education to college ? Did you feel you did well in classes? What areas did you excel at? What areas did you feel you could have done better? 3 Let's jump back to your early educational experience. Tell me about elementary education? Probes: Where did you attend elementary school? At what poi nt did you start attending school in the United States? (for students who may have attending school outside the United States) What was your primary language when you entered elementary school? What was your parent's primary language? Would you say your pa rents are monolingual speakers? Bilingual? Biliterate? 4 Lets talk about your language instruction classrooms and teachers ? Probes: You are a monolingual English speaker but did you have exposure to language instruction in elementary school beyond foreign language classes? What do you remember about these teachers? Language abilities? Cultural identities? How did these teachers impact your education? What was it about these teachers that played an important role in your education? Did these teachers impact your decision to attend higher education? 5 In your survey you consider yourself to be monolingual, do you feel like this has affected your academic career?


73 Probes: Why do you feel this way? How has monolingual helped you in school? How has being non biliterate/bilingual hindered your education? Did you ever find yourself to have an advantage or disadvantage since you are a monolingual, English dominant student? Do you wish you had more exposure to language instruction that was not your prima ry language when you were younger? Why do you feel this way? 6 As you may know, this research study is looking at biliteracy/bilingualism and higher education achievement. With that in mind, do you agree with the idea that the experience of biliterate/ bilingual individuals' participation in higher education is different in some ways compared to their monolingual peers'? Probes: Do you have siblings/family members who share similar academic experiences as you? Is there anything else you would like to add?


74 APPENDIX D THESAURUS AND INDEX OF CODES/THEMES Code Definition Adv Reference to having an advocate or influential role model Tea+ Reference to teachers "positive" Tea Reference to teachers "negative" Mot References to motivation or sources of motivation BiEd Reference to English language program or primary language academic history SES HE Reference to finances for higher education SES Pa Reference to parent's finances or family financial background SES Oc Reference to parent's occupations or occupational history Gnd F Reference to female gender Gnd M Reference to male gender Gen Reference to higher education generation Tool Reference to language as a tool, or tool gained as result of bilingualism Dir Reference to personal direction or academic career path Par e Reference to parent's educational background / experience Val bi Reference to student's value of multilingualism HdWk Reference to hard work / work ethic / effort Shm Reference to feelings of shame / embarrassment ELA Reference to English acquisition / language learning Mat Reference to mathematics Wtg Reference to writing Sib Reference to siblings Trans Reference to translation


75 "#$%& ! Code Document, Line# Adv 1:3, 1:31, 1:75, 1:83, 1:229, 2:169, 2:180, 2:335 342, 3:95, 3:135, 3:205, 3:223, 3:256, 3:259, 3:285, 5:46, 5:229, 6:226, 6:245, 7:12, 7:163, 7:177, 8:8, 8:117, 8:121, 8:129, 9:17, 9:27, 9:125, 9:188 BiEd 1:15, 1:150, 2:26, 2:97, 2:111, 3:95, 3:121, 3:155, 3:224, 3:308, 3:313, 3:354, 4:150, 4:173, 5:112, 5:118, 5:124, 6:39, 6:78, 6:108, 6:121, 6:131, 6:184 Dir 2:44, 2:352, 3:15, 4:9, 4:23, 4:301, 5:25, 5:242, 6:16, 6:47, 6:238, 6:338, 7:6, 7:28, 7:38, 7 :67 73, 9:71 ELA 1:146, 1:173, 1:187, 3:75, 3:127, 3:165, 3:172, 3:181, 3:194, 3:200, 4:142, 4:184, 4:207, 5:97, 5:113, 5:137, 6:39, 6:50, 6:126, 8:106, Ethn 1:35, 1:107, 1:198, 1:216, 1:346, 1:363, 2:23, 2:175, 2:284, 2:329, 2:351, 2:363, 3:76, 3:144, 3:148, 3:259, 3:267, 3:286, 3:334, 3:346, 3:435, 3:436, 3:444, 4:256, 4:376, 5:146, 5:189, 6:215, 6:221, 6:290, 7:156, 7:174, 7:254, 8:350, 9:170 Gen 2:306, 3:7, 3:293, 3:432, Gnd F 1:333, 1:339, 1:346, 1:355, 2:254, 3:424, 3:477, 4:345, 5:259, 5:265, 6:265 279, 6:312, 7:243, 8:324, 9:144 Gnd M 7:236, 7:248, 8:304, HdWk 3:36, 3:367, 3:377, 4:95, 4:231, 4:347, 5:77, 6:59, 6:177, 6:186, 6:203, 6:258, 6:309, 6:315, 6:335, 7:81, 7:88, 7:350 Lim 3:298, 3:468, 4:27, 4:68, 4:242, 4:311, 4:325, 5:139, 7:139, 7:201, 7:345 Mat 1:98, 2:52, 4:25, 4:77, 4:295, 5:83, 5:140, 6:59, 7:99, 8:55, 9:42, 9:60 Mot 1:180, 1:207, 1:219, 1:250, 1:384, 1:405, 2:300, 2:352, 3:414, 3:445, 4:238, 4:333, 4:345, 4:377, 5:83, 5:199, 5:202, 5:243, 6:308, 6:315, 6:338, 7:305,


76 Par e 2:294, 2:306, 6:290, 7:272, 8:355, 8:380, 8:394, 9:157 Pshn 1:31, 1:92, 1:164, 1:306, 2:11, 4:37, 5:78, 5:210, 6:18, 6:93, 6:142, 6:236, 7:57, 8:27, 9:15 SES HE 1:51, 1:92, 1:316, 1:318, 1:353, 1:363, 1:376, 3:445, 4:10, 4:60, 4:363, 4:367, 5:274, 5:282, 6:8, 6:268, 6:299, 6:310, 8:368, 8:411, 8:425, SES Oc 1:324, 3:444, 4:108, 4:124, 4:355, 7:267, 7:284, 7:290, 8:78, 8:416, 8:492, 9:166 SES Pa 2:265, 6:82, 6:158, 6:166, 6:208, 7:264, 9:158 Shm 1:109, 1:191, 2:79, 2:350, 3:194, 3:364, 6:30, 6:34, 6:186, 7:141, Sib 1:414, 2:141 149, 2:271, 3:294,2:323, 4:381, 5:170, 6:324, 7:321, 8:430, 9:180 Tea+ 2:180, 2:185, 2:191, 2:363, 3:95, 3:117, 3:263, 3:278, 3:286, 4:251, 4:273, 4:281, 4:335, 5:180, 5:204, 5:217, 6:164, 6:167, 6:213, 6:226, 8:129, 8:144 173, 9:109, Tea 1:206, 2:120, 3:321, 3:332, 4:251, 5:180, 5:189, 5:199, 7:161, 7:174, 8:25, 9:125 Tool 1:258, 1:283, 2:223, 2:228, 2:319, 3:367, 3:370, 6:238, 6:336, 7:227, 7:306, 7:313, 7:352, 8:223, 8:253, 9:133 138 Trans 1:282, 2:162, 2:223, 4:262, 4:315, 5:33, 5:239, 6:136, 6:259, 7:340, Val bi 1:256, 1:265, 1:270, 2:26,2:217, 3:209, 3:307, 4:46, 4:288, 4:301, 4:403, 5:237, 5:253, 6:17, 6:191 199, 6:238, 6:333, 6:333 335, 7:207, 7:217, 7:226, 8:229 241, 8:259, 9:79 84, 9:135 Val edu 1:167, 3:411, 4:46, 4:357, 4:396, 5:91, 5:162, 7:278, Wtg 2:55, 2:202, 4:316, 4:324, 5:77, 5:141, 5:247, 6:245, 7:94,


77 APPENDIX E PSEUDONYM REFERENCE GUIDE Term in Final Report in Field Notes & Transcripts M Miguel (L) M = Monolingual/Current J Jesse (A) J = Monolingual/Dropout C Carol (R) C = Monolingual/Graduate S Sol (I) S = Bilingual/Current L Lina (N) L = Bilingual/Dropout D Debbie (L) D = Bilingual/Graduate T Teresa (S) T = Biliterate/Current Ma Maria (J) Ma = Biliterate/Dropout Ju Juana (N) Ju = Biliterate/Graduate


78 REFERENCES Adelman, C. (2004) Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor's Degree Attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Adelman, C. (2005). The toolbox revisited Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Almon, P. C. (2010). English language learner engagement and retention in a community college setting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Almon, C. (2012). Retention of English language learner students at a community college. New York: Routledge. Atkinson & Geiser (2009, April). Reflections on a century of college admissions tests. Center for Studies in Higher Education Research & Occasional Paper Series, CSHE.4.09. Atwill, K., Blanchard, J., Gorin, J.S. & Burstein, K. (2007). Receptive vocabulary and cross language transfer of phonemic awareness in kindergarten children. Journal of Educat ional Research 100 (6), 336 345. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (1997). Improving schooling for language minority students: A research agenda. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on language minority children and youth Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism 3rd ed. Clevedon:


79 Multilingual Matters. Baker, K., & de Kanter, A. (1983). Bilingual education: A reappraisal of federal policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Bergeron, L. M., & Romano, J. L. (1994). The relationships among career decision making self efficacy, educational indecision, vocational indecision, and gender. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 19 24. Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community col leges and the promise of educa tional opportunity in America, 1900 1985 New York: Oxford University Press. Brisk, M. E. (2006). Bilingual education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Butvilofsky, S.A., & Sparrow, W.L. (2012). Training teachers to evaluate emerging bilingual students' biliterate writing. Language and Education, 26 ( 5 ) 383 403. C alifornians Together (2013). Seal of Biliteracy Retrieved from Collins, J. (1988). Language and class in minority education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 19 (4), 299 326. Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches 4 th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Dougherty, K. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college Albany: State University of New York Press.


80 Dubetz, N.E. & de Jong E.J. (2011). Teacher advocacy in bilingual programs Bilingual Research Journals, 34: 248 262. Echevarria, J. a nd Grav es, A. (2010). Chapter 1 Teaching English learners with diverse abilities In Sheltered content instruction: Teaching English language learners with diverse abi lities (pp. 1 26 ). Fourth Edition. NJ: Pearson. Escamilla, K. ( 2000 ) Bilingual means two: A ssessment issues, early literacy and Spanish speaking children. Reading research symposium for second language learners, 1 16. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. E scamilla, K., & Coady M ( 2001 ) Assessing the writing of Spani sh speaking students: Issues and suggestions. In Handbook for literacy assessment for bilingual learners ed. J.V. Tinajero and S.H. Hurley, 43 63. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Escamilla, K., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Transitions to biliteracy: Creating positive academic trajectories for emerging bilinguals in the United States. In J. Petrovic (Ed.), International perspectives on bilingual education: Policy, practice, and controversy. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Series. Espenshade, T.J. & Chung, C.Y. (2010, January). Standardized admissions tests, college performance, and campus diversity Unpublished manuscript. Princeton University, Office of Population Research, Princeton, NJ. Es quinca, A. (2011). Bilingual college writers' collaborative writing of word problems. Linguistics and Education 22 150 167. FairTest (2006). Gender bias in college admissions tests The National Center for Fair and Open Testing. Cambridge, MA. Fr‡nquiz, M.E. & Ortiz, A.A. (2012). Coeditors' Introduction: Home, School, and


81 Program Influences on Bilingualism and Biliteracy. Bilingual Research Journal, 35 : 253 257. Gans, H.J., ( 1992 ) Second generation decline: scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures of the post 1965 American immigrants. Ethnic and Racial Studies 15 173 192. GarcÂ’a, O., Kleifgen, J. A., & Falchi, L. (2008). From English language learner to emergent bilinguals. Equity Matters: Research Review No.1. New York, NY: Teachers College, Colu mbia University, Campaign for Educational Equity. Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21 st century: A global perspective. Oxford, England, UK: Wiley Blackwell. GarcÂ’a, O., & Sylvan, C.E. (2011). Pedagogies and practices in multilingual classrooms : Singularities in pluralities. The Modern Language Journal, 95 385 400, Genesee, F., Lindholm Leary, K. J., Saunders, B., & Christian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners: A synthesis of research evidence New York, NY: Cambridge University Pr ess. Gorski, P. (2007). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonizing intercultural education." September 13, 2007. Gliner, J. A., Morgan, G. A., & Leech, N. L. (2009). Research methods in applied settings: An integrated approach to design and analysis. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. Greene, J.P. ( 1997 ) A meta analysis of the Rossell & Baker review of bilingual education research. Bilingual Research Jour nal, 21 103 122.


82 Greenman, E. & Xie, Y. (2007). Is assimilation theory dead? The effect of assimilation on adolescent well being. Social Science Research, 37, 109 137. Groccia, J. E., & Harrity, M. B. (1991). The major selection program: A proactive reten tion and enrichment program for undecided freshmen. Jour nal of College Student Development, 32, 178 179. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36 3 15. Grubb, W. N. (1991). The decline of community col lege transfer rates: Evidence from National Longitudinal Surveys. Journal of Higher Education 62 (2), 194 222. Hern‡ndez, A. (2001). The expected and unexpected literacy outcomes of bilingual students. Bilingual Research Jou rnal 25 251 276. Kanno, Y., and Cromley, J.G. (2013, March) English language learner's access to and attainment in postsecondary education. TESOL Quarterly 47, 89 121. Kanno, Y., and Harklau, L. (2012). Linguistic Minority students go to college: Preparation, access, and persistence (pp. vii ix). New York: Routledge. Kao, Grace, and Marta Tienda. (1995). Optimism and achievement: The educational performance of immigrant youth." Social Science Quarterly 76 1 21. Kindler, A. (2002). Survey of the states' limited English proficient students and available educational programs and services: 2000 2001 summary report Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Retrieved August 18, 2008, from Leech, Barrett and Morgan (2008). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (3 rd ed.). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.


83 Lee S. K. (2013 ) The Significance of language and cultural education on s econdary a chievement: A Survey of Chines e American and Korean American students. Bilingual Research Journal, 26 ( 2 ) 327 338 Menken, K., & Kleyn T ( 2010 ) The long term impact of subtractive schooling in the educational experiences of secondary English language learners. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 13 (4), 399 418. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lope z, M.G. and Tashakkori A. (2006). Differential outcomes of two bilingual education programs on English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30, p. 132. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publicati ons, Inc. Lutz, A. (2004). Dual language proficiencies and the educational attainment of Latinos." Migraciones Internacionales 2 95 122. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Micceri, T. (2007). How we justify and maintain the white, male academic status quo through the use of biased college admissions requirements Retrieved February 25, 2012, from Micceri, T. (20 10). Assessing the usefulness of SAT and ACT tests in minority admissions. Retrieved March 9, 2012, from Mitchell, K. (2012). English is not all that matters in the education of secondary multilingual learners and their teachers. Int ernational Journal of Multicultural


84 Education, 14 1. Moll, L. C., & Ruiz, R. (2002). The schooling of Latino children. In M. M. Su‡rez Orozco & M. P‡ez (Eds.), Latinos: Remaking America Berkley, CA: University of California. National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs. (2012). FAQ. Retrieved from Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (Eds.). (1985). Increasing student retention: New challenges and potential San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Padilla, A. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2001). Academic performance of immigrant and U.S. born Mexican heritage students: Effects of schooling in Mexico and bilingual/English language instruction. American Educational Research Journa l, 38 727 742. Portes, P.R. & Salas, S. (2010). In the shadow of Stone Mountain: Identity development, structured inequality, and the education of Spanish speaking children. Bilingual Research Journal, 33 241 248. Ram’rez, D., Pasta, D. Yuen, S., & Ramey D. (1991). Final report. Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy early exit and late exit transitional bilingual education programs for language minority children San Mateo: CA: Aguirre International. Rau, W., & Durand, A. (2000). T he academic ethic and college grades: Does hard work help students to "make the grade"? Sociology of Education, 73, 19 38. Reyes, I. (2006). Exploring connections between emergent biliteracy and bilingualism.


85 Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6, 267 292. Reyes, M. (2012). Spontaneous Biliteracy : Examining Lati no Students' Untapped Potential. Theory Into Practice, 51 ( 4 ) 248 255. Rooney, C., & Shaeffer, B., (1998, September). Test scores do not equal merit: Enhancing equity & excellence in college admissions by deemphasizing SAT and ACT results. National Center for Fair and Open Testing (FairTest), Cambridge, MA. Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in languages planning. NABE Journal 8 (2), 15 34. Shields, C.M., Bishop, R., & Mazawi, A.E. (2005) Patholo gizing practices: The impact of deficit thinking on education. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Slavin, R., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language learners: A best evidence synthesis. Washington DC: Center for Research on the Educati on of Students Place at Risk (CRESPAR). Soltero Gonz‡lez, L., Hopewell, S., & Escamilla, K. (2010). A bilingual perspective on writing assessment: Implications for teachers of emerging bilingual writers. In G. Li and P. A. Edwards (Eds.), Best practices in ELL instruction New York: The Guilford Press. St Hilaire, A. (2003). The Social adaptation of children of Mexican i mmigrants: Educational a spirat ions beyond junior high school. Social Science Quarterly 83 1026 43. Su‡rez Orozco, C., Pimentel, A., & Martin, M. (2009). The significance of relationships: Academic engagement and achievement among newcomer immigrant youth. Teachers College Record 111 (3), 712 749.


86 Thomas, W., & Collier, V. (1997). School effectiveness for language minority students Washi ngton DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. U.S. Department of Education (2002). National Education Longitude Study of 1988. Institute of Education Sciences. Overview: Purpose. Retrieved from Valencia, R. R. (2002). Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Valenzuela, A. (2004). Leaving children behind: Why Texas style accountability fails Latino youth Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Warner, W.L., Srole, L., (1945). The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Wiley, T. 2005. Second language literacy and biliteracy. In Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning ed. E. Hi nkel, 529 44. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wong, K.K. (2013). Politics and governance: Evolving Systems of School Accountability. Educational Policy 27 : 410. Wolcott, H. (2001). Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yeung, A. E., Marsh, H.W., & Suliman, R. (2000). Ca n two tongues live in harmony?: Analysis of the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS88) longitudinal data on the maintenance of home language. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (4), 1001 1026.