Citation
Empowering bilingual experiences of heritage language learners

Material Information

Title:
Empowering bilingual experiences of heritage language learners
Creator:
De Long, Shauna P. A. ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (64 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Native language -- Study and teaching ( lcsh )
Linguistic minorities ( lcsh )
Education, Bilingual ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Increasing language diversity in the United States has raised new questions regarding the experiences of emergent bilinguals and the maintenance of their heritage language. This study examines how proficiency in a heritage language is connected to heritage language learners’ sense of ethnic identity, experiences of empowerment in the family and school contexts. This study also considers how time spent in a formal bilingual school might be connected to heritage language users’ experiences of empowerment, as well as whether or not bilingualism in a non-heritage language has any connection to empowerment. In order to investigate these questions, this study employed a questionnaire to collect data on the experiences of 160 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in classes at the University of Colorado Denver. This questionnaire utilized items from multiple instruments, including the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q), the learner empowerment scale, and the Multi-Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM). Results show that while proficiency in a HL was connected to a sense of ethnic identity, it was not connected to experiences of empowerment in either the family or the school context, nor was participants’ time spent in bilingual school. Participants’ perceptions of their peers’ value for their HLs, however, was connected to their sense of empowerment in the family context. More research is needed to understand why this might be the case.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of Colorado Denver
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Shauna P. A. De Long.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
on10071 ( NOTIS )
1007154188 ( OCLC )
on1007154188

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
EMPOWERING BILINGUAL EXPERIENCES OF HERITAGE LANGUAGE LEARNERS
by
SHAUNA P. A. DE LONG B.A., International Christian University, 2013
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts
Education and Human Development Program
2017


ii
This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Shauna P. A. de Long has been approved for the Education and Human Development Program by
Jung-In Kim, Chair Nancy Commins, Co-chair Alan Davis
Date: May 13, 2017


Ill
de Long, Shauna P. A. (M.A., Education and Human Development Program)
Empowering Bilingual Experiences of Heritage Language Learners Thesis directed by Professor Jung-In Kim and Professor Nancy Commins
ABSTRACT
Increasing language diversity in the United States has raised new questions regarding the experiences of emergent bilinguals and the maintenance of their heritage language. This study examines how proficiency in a heritage language is connected to heritage language learners sense of ethnic identity, experiences of empowerment in the family and school contexts. This study also considers how time spent in a formal bilingual school might be connected to heritage language users experiences of empowerment, as well as whether or not bilingualism in a non-heritage language has any connection to empowerment.
In order to investigate these questions, this study employed a questionnaire to collect data on the experiences of 160 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in classes at the University of Colorado Denver. This questionnaire utilized items from multiple instruments, including the Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q), the learner empowerment scale, and the Multi-Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM). Results show that while proficiency in a HL was connected to a sense of ethnic identity, it was not connected to experiences of empowerment in either the family or the school context, nor was participants time spent in bilingual school. Participants perceptions of their peers value for their HLs, however, was connected to their sense of empowerment in the family context. More research is needed to understand why this might be the case.
This form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Jung-In Kim and Nancy Commins


I dedicate this thesis to everyone who speaks, understands, or has studied a second language.


V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Kim, thank you so much for all your support and guidance over the long course of my thesis work and studies at UC Denver. Your kindness and advice is what made this research possible. Im so grateful for all the extra time and effort you put in to sending me revised drafts and having meetings with me, sometimes multiple times in a week. Youre an inspiration.
Dr. Commins and Dr. Davis, it was so kind of you to join my committee even though I never had the chance to take any of your classes. Dr. Commins, thank you for picking over my lit review word by word, and providing me with additional readings and articles to support my theoretical basis, which I was struggling to build. Dr. Davis, thank you for helping me to develop, understand, and run my analyses. This thesis couldnt have come together without the support from both of you.
Dr. Ruben, thank you for always looking out for my interests, providing me with opportunities, and leaving your door open for questions and concerns on any topic, even though you werent on my committee.
Mari and Larissa, having a cohort during this process made all the difference. Working on our theses together, and knowing that I wasnt alone in my tears and my frustration over deadlines made this whole project seem less impossible. Thank you!
To my family andfriends, thank you for supporting me mentally and emotionally through the process of writing my thesis. You were always able to keep my spirits up and encourage me to keep on going.
^ Ltc0 if 5 bhy 5 lx i


VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION....................................................1
Overview.....................................................1
Purpose of the Study.........................................2
Guiding Research Questions:..................................2
Significance of the Study....................................3
Definitions and Terms........................................3
Personal Identification of the Topic.........................4
II. LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................6
Introduction.................................................6
Heritage Languages: Definitions and Common Experiences.......6
Language as a Tool of Power..................................9
Empowerment.................................................11
The Current Study...........................................15
III. METHODS........................................................19
Research Design.............................................19
Participants................................................19
Instrumentation.............................................20
Hypotheses..................................................23
IV. RESULTS........................................................30
Validity and Reliability Tests
30


vii
Data Analysis................................................34
V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH...........................41
Discussion...................................................41
Interpretation of Results....................................41
Limitations of this Study....................................44
Strengths of this Study......................................44
Future Research..............................................45
Implications and Conclusion..................................46
REFERENCES............................................................47
APPENDIX
A: University of Colorado Denver Colorado Multi Institutional Review Board
(COMIRB) Approval...............................................50
B: Survey Questionnaire..............................................52
C: Questionnaire Consent
57


1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Overview
Across the United States, the immigrant population is growing, and with it, language diversity is also on the rise (Capps et al., 2005). This increased diversity has raised the question of how best to handle the instruction of emergent bilinguals. Some states have responded by enforcing English-only policies (e.g. Proposition 203 in Arizona) in an effort to encourage English proficiency (Crawford, 2001). However, another approach has been an attempt to promote bilingualism (e.g. NABE, the National Association for Bilingual Education) as the case has been made that a strong background in ones first language is beneficial toward learning a second language (e.g. Hickey, 2014).
The choice of whether to promote complete immersion (i.e. English-only) or encourage the continued study of a first language is important outside of the issue of which is the most efficient method of acquiring proficiency in English. Research has shown that the loss of a heritage language may have negative effects within the family and cultural community (Oh & Fuligni, 2010; Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005); on the other hand, proficiency in a first language or heritage language can be a way to experience and maintain cultural identity (Oh & Fuligni, 2010; Rydenvald, 2015). More specifically, Oh and Fuligni (2010) performed a quantitative study which analyzed the relationship between heritage language use and proficiency, family relationships, and ethnic identity. They found that heritage language proficiency was a predictor of both the quality of family relations (i.e., relationships between adolescents and their parents) and ethnic identity (Oh & Fuligni, 2010).


2
Purpose of the Study
The current research expands on Oh and Fulignis (2010) study by incorporating a new construct: empowerment. As prior research has also suggested a connection between the maintenance of a heritage language and power (e.g. Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005; Gao, 2009), the current study seeks to demonstrate that proficiency in a heritage language can have an empowering effect on heritage language users and their ethnic identity. Whereas Oh and Fuligni (2010) reported that feelings of closeness could be affected by proficiency heritage languages, the current research seeks to study how the experiences of empowerment may be associated with proficiency in a heritage language in the family context, and whether these experiences of empowerment extend to the school context. This study defines empowerment in alignment with the field of psychology, wherein empowerment is a construct based on intrinsic motivation and can be considered in terms of meaningfulness, competence, impact, and choice (Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996).
Guiding Research Questions:
This thesis proposes the following research questions:
1. What is the relationship between proficiency in a heritage language and ethnic identity?
2. Is proficiency in a heritage language correlated to experiences of empowerment among family members? Is the same true for experiences of empowerment at school or among friends?
3. Does time spent in a formal bilingual education program correlate with later experiences of empowerment among ones family? How does it affect later experiences of empowerment at school or among ones friends?


and a shared cultural heritage (Holcomb-McCoy, 2005). Ethnic identity refers to how strongly an individual identities with their ethnic group (Oh & Fuligni, 2010).
4
Heritage language: Also referred to as "HL," this is a language through which an individual feels a sense of cultural connection. The term heritage language is frequently used to refer to the languages of immigrant families before they moved to their new country; these languages may or may not have been maintained (Valdes, 2001).
Personal Identification of the Topic
My identification with this topic is two-fold: firstly, my experience as a person unable to speak my heritage language as a child, and secondly, as a person who was immersed in another language as an adult.
My heritage language is a distant relative of German, which is spoken by one branch of my family as their first language. I never learned to communicate in this language beyond a few simple words and phrases, and as a consequence, I found myself largely isolated during large family gatherings, unable to communicate with my younger cousins, who had not yet learned English, and denied access to many conversations between my adult aunts and uncles, who slipped seamlessly between their first language and English as a matter of course. I find it difficult to understand many aspects of my extended familys ideals and values, and I do not identify as a member of their cultural group. I consider my experience to be an example of how lack of proficiency in a heritage language can contribute to a sense of disconnect with ones heritage culture.
As an adult, I lived in Japan for four and a half years, during which I studied at a Japanese university and later taught English. Although I have a great love for the Japanese language, I found my initial immersion in Japanese to be a great struggle, and I turned with


6
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The current research intends to study the relationship between proficiency in a heritage language and experiences of empowerment in the family and school context. For the purpose of examining this relationship, this chapter will firstly define heritage language and discuss some common experiences among heritage language users, secondly demonstrate the connection between language and power relations, thirdly extend the discussion of power by considering the concept of empowerment as it is defined across disciplines, before lastly discussing the current study and how it contributes to the body of existing research.
Heritage Languages: Definitions and Common Experiences
Heritage language is a broad term which encompasses many definitions and circumstances across academic disciplines (e.g. Valdes, 2001). At its most basic, it is a language with which individuals have a personal connection, (Valdes, 2001, pp. 37-38). It is the connection individuals feel toward a language, not their proficiency in the language, which is what defines it as a heritage language (Valdes, 2001). In the United States, the term heritage language is frequently used to refer to non-English languages spoken; more specifically, a heritage language user is often identified as a student who comes from a home in which a non-English language is spoken (e.g. Valdes, 2001; Oh & Fuligni, 2010), and who is to some degree bilingual in that language and in English, (Valdes, 2001, p. 38).
Patowski (2014) broadens that definition to include individuals who have a strong cultural connection to a particular ethnolinguistic group and have a heritage motivation, but who do not speak or understand the language at all, (p. 405). Patowski (2014) notes that


7
some authors distinguish the latter group from the former by using the term heritage learner as opposed to heritage speaker. Patowski (2014) further distinguishes heritage language users from native speakers and second-language learners; an individual who immigrated to a country where they were immersed in a new dominant language after the age of 12 would be considered a native speaker due to their adult-level of proficiency (e.g. a Spanish-speaker moving to the United States who is immersed in an English-speaking environment).
Likewise, as a heritage language learner (or speaker) would have been exposed to their heritage language in the home from birth, a second-language learner is someone who was not exposed to the target language in the home environment (Patowski, 2014).
In the United States, the population of individuals identified as heritage language users is rising (e.g. Capps et al., 2005), making the circumstances of heritage language users increasingly prevalent. However, although the overall instances of heritage language users are rising in the United States, heritage languages are usually lost by the second or third generation of immigrants, (Oh & Fuligni, 2010, p. 203). Shannon (1995) went so far as to categorize the loss of heritage language in immigrant populations as a type of language death (p. 181), akin to the loss of indigenous languages in America due to its implication of total assimilation and cultural loss. Lily Wong Fillmore (2000) described how social pressures at school can discourage children from being willing to continue learning their first language; their declining ability to speak their home language can complicate parents abilities to exert authority or know exactly what their children spend their time doing outside of the home. Losing a heritage language can have a negative affect on an individuals sense of wellbeing, including disturbances in family relations (Tseng & Fuligni, 2000) and isolation from a cultural community (Imbens-Bailey, 1996). There has been social pressure pushing


8
immigrant populations to sacrifice their childrens educationinformal or formalin their heritage language to forward their skills in English (Oh & Fuligni, 2010), as opponents of bilingual education push for maximum exposure to English in order to raise achievement in English (Cummins, 1986). Parents then feel forced to choose between their heritage languages and the language of power (i.e. English in the American context).
Despite this, research has shown that although proficiency in English is clearly important for success in the USA, it does not necessarily have to come at the loss of the HL, (Oh & Fuligni, 2010, p. 203). Studies show that children do not experience language loss of their first language when they participate in bilingual programs that are truly equal in their presentation of both languages (Winsler, Diaz, Espinosa, & Rodriguez, 1999). Indeed, the maintenance of a HL can lead to closer relations in both the family dimension (Oh & Fuligni, 2010) and the wider cultural community (Cummins, 1986; Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005; Oh & Fuligni, 2010). Oh and Fuligni (2010) found that the maintenance of a heritage language helped families to be more cohesive with fewer arguments resulting from linguistic or cultural miscommunication. Likewise, Tuafuti and McCaffery (2005) found that maintaining a heritage language allowed immigrant families to continue to have access to their cultural communities and take part in cultural events. Oh and Fuligni (2010) also identify language as being important in the development of ethnic identity; their study found that language use and especially language proficiency in a heritage language were strong predictors of how strongly their participants identified with their ethnicity. This demonstrates the cultural and personal importance of maintaining ones heritage language.
The above section discusses how heritage languages are defined, as well as how skill in a heritage language is related to how heritage language users experience and interact in


different contexts. However, the way different individuals experience and use their heritage languages is also connected to the experience of power, as is discussed below.
9
Language as a Tool of Power
In addition to its connection to personal and cultural well-being, family relations, and a sense of ethnic identity, language is also well-established as a means to wield power. Gao (2009) wrote about the power dynamics between the language of hegemony and non-hegemonic languages:
The decision of which language(s) to act as the official or dominant language is dependent upon the power of dominant group(s), more or less at the expense of the rights of the dominated groups. The devaluing of other languages reflects the real power of language which clearly lies in the dominant or official languages, (p. 525) This describes the inextricable relationship between language and power in a bilingual context. A language that holds hegemony, usually a dominant language, is a means of establishing and maintaining the power of the dominant group by controlling the institutions and reward systems within society, (Cummins, 1986, p. 22).
Studies in Namibia (Smit, 2012) and Canada (Mady, 2012) demonstrated different ways in which mastery over a hegemonic language is viewed as a means of capital. Smit (2012) discussed in her study that in Namibia there has been a dramatic shift towards English as a language of general communication, (p. 92). English ability is considered a status symbol in Namibia, one which facilitates a rise in socioeconomic class (Smit, 2012); skill in the dominant language can therefore be considered a kind of social capital in Namibia. Knowledge of particular languages is also often viewed as a kind of economic capital (Heller, 2001); however, studies in Canada have shown that the ability to speak other


10
languages in addition to the official languages served as a deterrent to hiring and increased income, (Pendakur & Pendakur, as cited by Mady, 2012, p. 83). This stresses that while skill in the hegemonic language can be considered a form of capital, fluency in non-official languages may not be viewed as an asset in some countries and may even be treated as a deficit. Both in Namibia and Canada, the drive to learn the dominant languages shows both how powerful languages can be in society and how skill in the dominant languages are viewed as a means to obtain power.
Power and heritage languages. There has been some evidence in previous research that skill in heritage languages in particular may be connected to individuals abilities to attain and maintain power and status in society. Gao (2009) studied how bilingualism in their heritage language of Korean and the dominant language of Chinese affected the power dynamics among a Korean community in China. As globalization and market economy grow in China, Korean is increasingly viewed as a language which wields economic power in China (Gao, 2009). Likewise, for young Korean-Chinese students, the Korean language has become a language of political power, and therefore a language that one is motivated to learn, (Gao, 2009, p. 526). These students believed that knowing their heritage language of Korean as well as Chinesethe language of hegemonygave them greater opportunities in terms of future institutions of study and work, as their bilingualism would allow them to apply in either country, or even occupy a liaison position between the two (Gao, 2009). Students also generally viewed their identity of half Chinese and half Korean as a potential means for upward social mobility, (Gao, 2009, p. 529), which encouraged them to develop strong skills in both the Chinese and Korean languages (Gao, 2009).


11
However, Gao (2009) also found that using a non-hegemonic language (e.g. a heritage language) could become a part of the disempowerment process, (p. 531). Gao (2009) was referring to the switch from a first language to the dominant language in formal education, which occurs due to a number of disadvantages of attending Korean schools, including a lack of funding and a lack of qualified teachers who can instruct in Korean. This switch can delay a students learning and literacy development, thereby negatively affecting a students sense of personal empowerment (Gao, 2009). Despite these difficulties, Tuafuti and McCaffery (2005) argue that research has shown a clear connection between quality bilingual education and experiences of empowerment for both students and their cultural communities.
Therefore, in order to prevent the maintenance of a heritage language from being disempowering, it is important for bilingual schools to have the resources necessary to facilitate strong education in both languages.
The studies discussed in the section above make the link between power and language clear. Languages can be used both as a means of suppressing social power in dominated cultures as well as a means for dominated cultures to experience impressions of personal power and status by increasing their feelings of belongingness in both the dominant culture and their heritage culture. Next, the current study will move the discussion from the concept of power to the concept of empowerment.
Empowerment
While the above studies largely discussed the nature of power as it relates to language, the current study is interested more specifically in the concept of empowerment, which is introduced below. Power is something that can be wielded by an individual; empowerment, on the other hand, is a state of being experienced by an individual. The current study will use


12
the construct of empowerment to understand how a heritage language users language proficiency is connected to that individuals state of empowerment.
First, this section will discuss the meaning of empowerment. Empowerment is a broadly used term with many definitions. Conger and Kanungo (1988) cite the Oxford English dictionary as defining empowerment as to enable, (p. 493). Short and Rinehart (1992) later performed a factor analysis using a wide range of definitions and found among them six empowerment subscales: decision making, professional growth, status, self-efficacy, autonomy, and impact. Beyond these general definitions, specific disciplines also have their own definitions of empowerment which vary greatly. This section will discuss how the concept of empowerment has been defined, investigated, and understood across three disciplines that host empowerment studies: bilingual education, structural and organizational studies, and psychology.
Empowerment in Bilingual Education. Definitions of empowerment in the field of bilingual education are fairly varied. Frye (1999) defined empowerment as the means by which or the extent to which one is in control of ones own existence, or ones ability to make decisions and carry out actions independent of the coercion of others, (p. 510). Frye (1999) felt that empowerment, thusly defined, was an inextricable part of languagewithout the ability to communicate effectively, an individual does not have the power to act.
In their studies of Pasifika students in New Zealand, Tuafuti and McCaffery (2005) defined empowerment as having both life chances and life choices (p. 488). They defined life chances as the ability to succeed academically in the dominant culture and life choices as the ability to remain a full member of ones own cultural community if one chooses to do so, as well as the ability to pass on ones culture and language to ones children


13
to maintain intergenerational connections (Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005). According to Tuafuti and McCaffery (2005), an individual is therefore empowered (i.e. successful in exercising both life chances and life choices) when they are bilingual, bicultural and [are] able to move freely and easily, (p. 488) between both ones own culture and language and the dominant culture and language.
Cummins (1986) defined empowerment in terms of the dominant and dominated groups. The dominant group is the one which has control over the institution and reward systems within society, (Cummins, 1986, p. 22), whereas the dominated group is considered to be inherently inferior and is denied access to high-status positions within the institutional structure of the society, (Cummins, 1986, p. 22). Minority groups known to struggle in academic settings tend to be dominated groups (Cummins, 1986). Given this, student empowerment is to Cummins something which increases student success and is also an outcome of success (Cummins, 1986).
Cummins also defines power in terms of coercive and collaborative relations (2000). Coercive relations involve power dynamics between the dominant group and the dominated groups, with the assumption being that the more power one group has, the less there is available for another (Cummins, 2000). However, collaborative relations of power assume that power is not a fixed quantity but instead can be created through collaboration; collaborative power is therefore additive rather than subtractive, (Cummins, 2000, p.l). Tuafuti and McCaffery further support this definition by stating that empowerment is generated through positive empowering interactions with others, (2005, p. 488).
As can be seen in the definitions above, empowerment in the field of bilingual education is defined largely around broad social structures and group dynamics. This is a


14
very different perspective on empowerment than that which is presented in the field of structural and organizational studies, wherein the focus is on how the individual navigates specific social interactions.
Structural and Organizational Empowerment. Structural or organizational empowerment is another commonly used definition of empowerment. The discipline of structural and organizational studies views power in terms of the dependence or interdependence of individuals; in this definition, power is related to the control an individual has over others (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Empowerment from this perspective can be considered to be the process by which a leader or manager shares his or her power with subordinates, (Conger & Kanungo, 1988, p. 473). Conger and Kanungo (1988) therefore define empowerment as:
A process of enhancing feelings of self-efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and through their removal by both form and organizational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information, (p. 474)
This definition is focused largely on the condition of the leader or manager and what practices and environment they create to interact with their employees to increase their experiences of empowerment. This focus is in strong contrast to psychological empowerment.
Psychological empowerment. In the field of psychology, empowerment is defined as, the psychologically empowered state is a cognitive state characterized by a sense of perceived control, competence, and goal internalization (Menon, 1999, pp. 161-162). Psychological empowerment is based on a construct of intrinsic motivation (Spreitzer, 1995;


15
Conger & Kanungo, 1988). In this definition, the concept of power is strongly connected to self-determination and self-efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988).
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) later developed a cognitive interpretation of empowerment which was based around four components: impact, competency, meaningfulness, and choice. Spreitzer (1995) further refined this model and suggested those four components must be present in individuals for empowerment interventions by management to be effective. Frymier, Shulman, and Houser (1996) used these four components as the basis for the scale which they developed to quantitatively measure empowerment among learners.
Psychological empowerment is distinct from the definitions found in the other two disciplines discussed above. Both structural and organizational empowerment as well as empowerment in bilingual education focus on surrounding power structures both broad (as between social groups in bilingual education) and narrow (as in the interaction between an employer and employee in structural and organizational empowerment). Psychological empowerment, on the other hand, focuses on the individuals perception as to whether or not they are empowered (Matthews, Diaz, & Cole, 2002).
The Current Study
The above sections review the concept of heritage language and how its maintenance can change the experiences of its users, particularly in terms of their ability to gain power and status. The discussion was then extended to explore interdisciplinary definitions of empowerment and how empowerment could be measured for heritage language users. As is discussed above, prior research has demonstrated the connections between language and power (e.g. Cummins, 1986), heritage languages in particular and power (e.g. Tuafuti &


16
McCaffery, 2005; Gao, 2009), and heritage language proficiency and the strength of ethnic identity (e.g. Oh & Fuligni, 2010). The current study seeks to add to the body of research by expanding on Oh and Fulignis (2010) study, which examined the effect of proficiency in a heritage language on the strength of HL users ethnic identity, as well as its effect on the quality of HL users family relations. The current study will consider instead how proficiency in a heritage language and ethnic identity connect to a new construct: empowerment.
Empowerment in the current study. The literature above demonstrated the strong relationship between languages and power, in particular among heritage languages (e.g. Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005; Gao, 2009). It follows, then, that language must also have a connection to individuals experiences of empowerment. It is therefore important to understand in detail how languages, especially heritage languages, are connected to empowerment in order to be successful in producing empowering environments for individuals to learn and interact. However, this still leaves the question open of which definition of empowerment would be the most appropriate as a means of investigating heritage language users experiences.
Having reviewed the above interdisciplinary literature on differing definitions of empowerment, psychological empowerment was found to be the most suitable for this study. Unlike the definitions of empowerment found in structural and organizational studies of empowerment, psychological empowerment also focuses on the individuals personal experiences rather than the empowering practices found in the individuals workplace. As this study is interested in the individuals sense of empowerment, not on how a person in a position of power can share the power with those that person oversees, psychological


17
empowerment is more appropriate for this study. Scales measuring structural and organizational empowerment also tend to be very situation specific, having been crafted for workplace environments. Scales measuring psychological empowerment, however, have already been introduced and applied in the field of education (e.g. Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996). Therefore, the current study will employ the construct of psychological empowerment to examine individuals sense of empowerment as its connected to language proficiency.
Likewise, psychological empowerment was chosen over constructs from bilingual education as a means of measuring empowerment. As is the case in the structural and organizational measures of empowerment, empowerment in bilingual education tends to focus on structures and group practices rather than individual experiences. Definitions of empowerment found in the field of bilingual education also tend to relate to the broader dimensions of power dynamics (e.g. Cummins, 1986; 2000 and his studies on the constructs of dominant vs. dominated and coercive vs. collaborative) of a group. Psychological empowerment, on the other hand, was developed using the motivational constructs of self-determination, which contain specific, quantifiable elements that are already frequently applied in the field of education. In this study, the research will not ignore the broader dimensions of empowerment as they are discussed in the field of bilingual education, but it will focus on the constructs present in the psychological definition of empowerment.
Oh and Fulignis (2010) study examined heritage language and family relations; in alignment with their research, the current study considered the concept of empowerment in the family context as well as in the school context. In order to achieve this, participants in this study were asked to respond to two sets of empowerment questions, each contextualized


18
for either the home (family) setting or the school (classroom) setting. In doing so, the current study hopes to provide a clear theoretical bridge between past and current research.
Goals of the current study. By considering how proficiency in a HL and the strength of ethnic identity play into individuals experiences of empowerment in different contexts, the current study seeks to expand existing research on how bilingualism, in particular among heritage language users, can be an empowering experience for students.


19
CHAPTER III METHODS
Research Design
This study used a quantitative questionnaire method which included open-ended qualitative questions to provide supporting data as well as an opportunity for students to respond to inquiries without the boundaries of the Likert-scale items. The questionnaires were distributed in paper-format during undergraduate and graduate-level classes; students were made aware that participation was wholly voluntary.
Participants
The current research surveyed undergraduate and graduate-level students enrolled in classes at the University of Colorado Denver. Although there were 160 total participants, 8 participants were removed from the analyses due to significant amounts of missing data. Of the 152 remaining participants, 23 identified as male, and 129 identified as female. Participants ranged in age from 18 years old to 64 years old (M= 24.90, SD = 7.96). 71 participants self-identified as White / Euro-American; 41 participants self-identified as Latino/a, Mexican, Mexican American; 12 participants self-identified as Asian, Asian American; 5 participants self-identified as Black, African American; 1 participant self-identified as American Indian, Native American; and 12 participants self-identified as Mixed or Other.
Based on participants responses to the LEAP-Q and the demographics questions, the researcher identified 67 participants as having a heritage language, 51 participants as being bilingual in a non-HL, and 33 participants as being monolingual. 17 participants identified as being first generation, 44 as being second generation, 20 as being third generation, and 73 as


20
being fourth generation. Generations were defined for participants in alignment with Fuligni (1997), with the specifications of I and my mother were born in another country for first generation, I was born in the US, and my mother was born in another country for second generation, I and my mother were born in the US, and my grandparents were born in another country for third generation, and I and my mother were born in the US. And, as far as I know, my grandparents were born in the US for fourth generation.
Instrumentation
The current research was conducted as a survey and was distributed as a paper questionnaire during class. The questionnaire contained a modified Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q), the Multi Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM), and the learner empowerment scale, as well as a detailed demographics section. Questions were also asked regarding participants experiences in formal bilingual schools and the level to which they felt their peers valued their languages. The learner empowerment scale was modified for use in the family context as well as the school context by changing some of the item's keywords (e.g. "teacher" to "family"; "classroom" to "home").
Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q). This questionnaire was developed by Marian, Blumenfeld, and Kaushanskaya (2007). Items 1 (Please list all the languages you know in order of dominance), 2 (.Please list all the languages you know in order of acquisition), 3 (Please list what percentage of the time you are currently and on average exposed to each language), and 5 (When choose a language to speak with a person who is equally fluent in all your languages, what percentage of time would you choose to speak each language?) from the first page. The second page of the questionnaire inquired as to participants use and proficiency of Language X, a language of


21
the participants choice. From the second page, items 3 {On a scale of zero to ten, please select your level of proficiency in speaking, understanding, and reading Language X from the scroll-down menus) and 5 {Please rate to what extent you are currently exposed to Language X in the following contexts) were judged to be relevant to the purpose of the current study and were selected from the LEAP-Q and reformatted to allow for paper distribution (e.g. checkboxes and tables replaced drop-down menus). Furthermore, the wording on certain items were adjusted for both clarity and to align with the context of the study (e.g. the term use replaced the term exposed to for item 3 on page 1 and item 5 on page 2; language tapes / self-introduction and listening to radio / music were removed as options for item 5). The above items were incorporated into the demographics section of the questionnaire used in the current study as items 7-10 on the first page and items 1-3 on the second page.
The current studys questionnaire can be viewed in Appendix B.
Formal bilingual education. As the study was interested in the participants experiences of formal bilingual education, a self-report measure was placed after the LEAP-Q. This measure consisted of a simple table in which participants were asked to indicate with a check mark in which grade levels, if any, they received formal education during Afterschool/Weekend lessons or in Regular (Monday-Friday) school. The grade level options consisted of Kindergarten/Pre-K, Elementary School, Middle School, High School, or University/Vocational School.
Learner empowerment scale. Frymier, Shulman, and Houser (1996) developed a learner empowerment instrument using a frequency 5-point Likert scale (from Never to Very Often). This scale contains four subscales based on major components of psychological empowerment: meaningfulness, competence, impact, and choice.


22
School context. Certain items were removed from the Learner empowerment scale as they were judged to not be relevant to the purpose of this study; some items were removed because they were not directly translatable into the family context. The wording on certain items was also adjusted to aid in reading clarity. The items that were removed were: Item 30: I am able to perform the necessary activities to succeed in my class (from the Competence subscale), Item 21: My success in this class is under my control (from the Impact subscale), Item 28: The tasks required by my class are valued by potential employers (from the Impact subscale), Item 25:1find my class to be interesting (from the Meaningfulness subscale), and Item 24:1 have a high level of autonomy in accomplishing my work (from the Choice subscale). Following the removal of these items, the total number of items in each context of the learner empowerment scale was reduced from 30 to 25.
Family context. In order to better align with the current literature, this study considered empowering experiences from the family context as well; in order to determine whether or not empowering experiences in the family context align with the state of family relations discussed in other studies (e.g. Oh & Fuligni, 2010), this study also collected data empowerment among the participants families. To do this, this study adapted the learner empowerment scale (Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996) into the family context; terms such as instructor were changed to parents, and terms such as class were changed to family.
Multi-Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM). In order to understand how language use may be tied to feelings of ethnic identity, the Multi-Ethnic Identity Measure (Roberts, et al., 1999) was incorporated into this study in accordance with Oh and Fulignis (2010) research. The MEIM consists of twelve items measured on a four-point Likert scale ranging from


23
Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. An additional item was appended to this measure to further connect it to language experiences: 13. Part of my ethnic identity is the language I speak.
Perceived Value of Heritage Language scale. A simple self-report value scale was incorporated into this questionnaire. This scale was intended to discern the level participants felt their languages were valued by their peers. The scale was four items, with each item asking about the level of value for a different period in the participants education (elementary school, middle school, high school, and university/college). The items read: When I was in [elementary/middle/high/university] school, I felt that all my languages were valued by my peers. Like the MEIM, this was measured on a four-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.
Hypotheses
This study aims to better understand HL users experiences of empowerment in the family and school contexts by exploring how language proficiency in an HL might be connected to HL users sense of ethnic identity and empowerment.
Research Question 1. What is the relationship between proficiency in a heritage language and ethnic identity?
Hypothesis 1. It was hypothesized that proficiency in a heritage language would be a significant predictor of the participants sense of ethnic identity.
Rationale. Oh and Fuligni (2010) identify a language as a key influence on ethnic identity, (p. 204). Their research demonstrated that ethnic identity can be predicted by proficiency in an HL (Oh & Fuligni, 2010).


24
Method of analysis. In order to examine the varying influences on ethnic identity,
Oh and Fuligni (2010) used a hierarchical regression analysis. Likewise, the current study used a hierarchical linear regression analysis, examining the correlation between the predictor variables of language proficiency (in a HL), and the dependent variable ethnic identity; the current study also controlled for gender, generation, language use, and perceived value of HL. Participants proficiency in an HL was determined using the a combination of the demographics section and the modified LEAP-Q, the former of which was used to determine whether the participant was a heritage language user, and the latter of which was used to determine the participants level of proficiency in their HL; the level of proficiency was divided into the dummy variables of high = 1 and low = 0. The participants experiences of ethnic identity were determined using the MEIM.
Research Question 2. Is proficiency in a heritage language correlated to experiences of empowerment among family members? Is the same true for experiences of empowerment at school or among friends?
Hypothesis 2(a). It was hypothesized that proficiency in a heritage language was positively correlated to experiences of empowerment among family members, but may not be correlated to experiences of empowerment at school or among friends.
Rationale. Oh and Fuligni (2010) found that proficiency in a heritage language affects the quality of familial relations, not empowerment within the family; however, the definition of empowerment used by the current research is based on the concept of self-determination and intrinsic motivation, in which the concept of relatedness is one of three basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Although relatedness is not one of the four components explicitly included in the learner empowerment scale (Frymier, Shulman, &


25
Houser, 1996) used in this study, it is nevertheless conceptually connected to the scale overall and to the impact component in particular, as positive relations are required for a positive sense of impact to be possible. Therefore, on the basis that proficiency in a heritage language predicts the closeness of family relations, and that close family relationships are necessary to experience empowerment among family members, the current research proposes that proficiency in a heritage language will likewise act as a predictor for experiences of empowerment among ones family.
Method of analysis. This study used a hierarchical linear regression analysis to analyze the relationship between the predictor variable of proficiency in a heritage language and the dependent variable family empowerment. Family empowerment was measured using the learner empowerment scale adjusted for the family context.
Hypothesis 2(b). It was hypothesized that proficiency in a heritage language will be positively correlated to experiences of empowerment at school or among friends if the participants perceive their HL to be valued by their peers, and negatively or not significantly correlated to experiences of empowerment at school or among friends if the participants perceive their HL to not be valued by their peers.
Rationale. Although not a topic frequently studied in quantitative research, the current research also explored the question of whether or not the potential for proficiency in a heritage language to predict empowerment among family members extended into the school environment as well. There is some evidence that quality bilingual programs that demonstrate value for both languages (not only for the dominant language in that society) can become empowering experiences for students who are HL users (Cummins, 1986; Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005; Gao, 2009). This suggests that how much their peers value the


26
participants HL affects how proficiency in a HL might predict experiences of empowerment at school. Wong-Fillmore (2000) also demonstrated that when a HL is devalued by their peers, students may view proficiency in a HL as a deficit; in this case, proficiency in their HL would be negatively correlated with participants experiences of empowerment in the classroom.
Method of analysis. This study used a linear regression analysis to analyze the relationship between the predictor variable of proficiency in a heritage language and the dependent variable school empowerment, with perceived value of HL as the moderating variable. School empowerment was measured using a modified version of the learner empowerment scale.
Research Question 3. Does time spent in a formal bilingual education program correlate with later experiences of empowerment among ones family? How does it affect later experiences of empowerment at school or among ones friends?
Hypothesis 3(a). It was hypothesized that time spent in a formal bilingual education program would be positively correlated with later experiences of empowerment among ones family.
Rationale. The opportunity to study ones HL in an academic setting has been linked to greater levels of proficiency in the HL (Smit, 2012; Gao, 2009). Likewise, proficiency in an HL has been linked to closer familial relations (Oh & Fuligni, 2010) and experiences of empowerment in their cultural community (Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005). Therefore, the current study proposes that there is also a connection between education in a bilingual program and experiences of empowerment among ones family.


27
Method of analysis. This study used a hierarchical linear regression analyses to analyze the relationship between the predictor variable of time spent in a bilingual school and the dependent variable of family empowerment. Family empowerment was measured using the learner empowerment scale adjusted for the family context.
Hypothesis 3(b). It was hypothesized that time spent in a formal bilingual education program would be positively correlated with later experiences of empowerment at school or among ones friends.
Rationale. Cummins (1986) states that language minority students instructed through the minority language (for example, Spanish) for all or part of the school day perform as well in English academic skills as comparable to students instructed totally through English, (p. 20). Likewise, Tuafuti & McCaffery (2005) and Gao (2009) point out that quality bilingual programs can be empowering experiences for students who are HL users.
Method of analysis. This study used a hierarchical linear regression analyses to analyze the relationship between the predictor variable of time spent in a bilingual school and the dependent variable of school empowerment. School empowerment was measured using a modified version of the learner empowerment scale.
Research Question 4. Do individuals who are not heritage language users experience higher levels of empowerment when they speak a second language?
Hypothesis 4(a). It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference between individuals who speak a second, non-heritage language and individuals who only speak the dominant language (in this case, English) with regard to their experiences of empowerment among their family members.


28
Rationale. The hypothesized connection between proficiency in an HL and empowerment within ones family was based on the connection between HL proficiency and the closeness of familial relations and strength of shared ethnic identity (Oh & Fuligni, 2010; Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005). For individuals who learn a second language which is not a HL, the binding aspect of a shared home language is absent; the current study therefore proposes that language proficiency in a non-heritage language does not affect empowerment experiences among ones family.
Method of analysis. In order to measure the differences between monolingual participants and bilingual (in a non-HL) participants on empowerment among ones family, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used, with Language Type (monolingual participants or bilingual participants) being the independent variable and Empowerment in the Family Context being the dependent variable. Bilingual ability in a second, non-HL was identified using a combination of the LEAP-Q and the demographics section of the questionnaire, as was monolingualism. Family empowerment was measured using the learner empowerment scale adjusted for the family context.
Hypothesis 4(b). It was hypothesized that individuals who speak a second, nonheritage language experience statistically significantly higher levels of empowerment in the school environment than individuals who only speak the dominant language (in this case, English).
Rationale. Existing research into experiences of empowerment among native speakers of the dominant language (in this case, English) as they connect to proficiency in a second, non-HL are limited at best. The current study therefore explored this relatively new question by expanding its primary question of the relationship between empowerment and


29
language proficiency among HL users to include all bilingual individuals. As language can be considered a form of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Lan, 2011), its successful employment may also contribute to experiences of empowerment in the social (e.g. school) context. Lan (2011) noted in her study that individuals with a privileged social status (referring in her study specifically to Western migrants in Taiwan) were able to convert their English language capital into economic capital, social capital and status privilege, (p. 4). If privileged individuals can employ their native English language ability as social capital in countries where English is not the dominant language, perhaps the ability to speak a non-English language in English-dominant America would likewise be experienced as a form of cultural capital and empowerment for these individuals. It was therefore tentatively hypothesized that proficiency in a second, non-heritage language may contribute to higher levels of empowerment in the school context than might be experienced by monolingual individuals.
Method of analysis. In order to measure the differences between monolingual participants and bilingual (in a non-HL) participants on empowerment at ones school, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used, with Language Type (monolingual participants or bilingual participants) being the independent variable and Empowerment in the Family Context being the dependent variable. Bilingual ability in a second, non-HL was identified using a combination of the LEAP-Q and the demographics section of the questionnaire, as was monolingualism. School empowerment was measured using the learner empowerment
scale.


30
CHAPTER IV RESULTS
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected in the questionnaire. However, the open-ended qualitative questions were not frequently responded to by participants, and the responses that were received did not shed any additional understanding on the quantitative findings. Therefore, this study focused instead on the results of the quantitative measures, which are reported below. All tests and analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24 software.
Validity and Reliability Tests
Empowerment measures. As a test of the validity of the empowerment measures, the author first performed an exploratory factor analysis using a principal components analysis with a varimax rotation; the software was set to extract a fixed number of 4 factors. Although this test showed support for the overall subscale groupings in both measures, some items loaded higher on a different subscale. Items 7 and 17 loaded with a low value in all factors in the school empowerment scale. The results exploratory factor analyses can be seen below in Tables 1.1 (family context) and 1.2 (school context).


31
Table 1.1
Factor loadings based on a principal components analysis with varimax rotation for 25 items from an adjusted Learner Empowerment Scale in the family context (N = 147)
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Competence
1 I feel confident that I can adequately perform my duties. 0.55
5 My parents make me feel inadequate. (Reverse scored) 0.61
8 I am overwhelmed by all the work my femily requires. (Reverse scored) 0.68
13 I feel intimidated by what is required of me in my class. (Reverse scored) 0.76
20 I possess the necessary skills to perform tasks successfiilly in femily. 0.53
22 I find my femily activities to be exciting and energizing. 0.75
Impact
2 I have the power to make a difference in how things are done in my femily. 0.43 0.68
4 My participation is important to the success of the femily. 0.60 0.41
6 I actively participate in all the tasks required of my femily. 0.78
14 I can make an impact on the way things are mn in my femily. 0.49 0.67
16 I look forward to going home to my femily. 0.40 0.65
Meaningtiilness
3 What happens with my femily is consistent with my own values. 0.52 0.40
9 I work hard for femily because I want to, not because I have to. 0.53 0.41
11 The tasks required in my femily are personally meaningful. 0.64
12 I like to talk with my friends about what Im doing with my femily. 0.76
19 I agree with the standards I must meet in my femily. 0.67
24 The tasks required by my femily are valuable to me. 0.62 0.55
25 I agree with the meaning my parents have for what good performance on chores and work is. 0.51
Choice
7 I typically do more work than is required by my femily. 0.72
10 I have a choice in the methods I can use to perform my work. 0.77
15 My parents allow flexibility in the way I perform my tasks. 0.68
17 My parents believe that they must control how I do my work. (Reverse scored) 0.66 0.47
18 Expressing my own attitudes and ideas is rewarded in my femily. 0.41 0.57
21 My parents think they are always right. (Reverse scored) 0.66
23 I can be creative in the way I perform the tasks required in my femily. 0.61 0.50
Note. Factor loadings < .4 are suppressed.
As can be seen in Table 1.1, many factors loaded in multiple subscales, even when factor loadings below 0.4 were suppressed. There was a great deal of overlap between the subscales in the family context, particularly between Meaningfulness and Impact and between Meaningfulness and Choice. The Choice grouping was not strongly supported by this factor analysis.


32
Below are the results of the exploratory factor analysis of the empowerment scale in the school context.
Table 1.2
Factor loadings based on a principal components analysis with varimax rotation for 25 items from an adjusted Learner Empowerment Scale (N = 147)
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
Competence
1 I feel confident that I can adequately perform my duties. 0.64
5 My instructors make me feel inadequate. (Reverse scored) 0.46
8 I am overwhelmed by all the work my class requires. (Reverse scored) 0.73
13 I feel intimidated by what is required of me in my class. (Reverse scored) 0.81
20 I possess the necessary skills to perform successfiilly in class. 0.60
22 I find my class to be exciting and energizing. 0.78
Impact
2 I have the power to make a difference in how things are done in my class. 0.75
4 My participation is important to the success of the class. 0.66
6 I actively participate in all the tasks required of my class. 0.68
14 I can make an impact on the way things are mn in my class. 0.69
16 I look forward to going to my class. 0.72
Meaningtiilness
3 What happens in my class is consistent with my own values. 0.51
9 I work hard for class because I want to, not because I have to. 0.49
11 The tasks required in my class are personally meaningful. 0.72
12 I like to talk about what Im doing in my class with friends or classmates. 0.58
19 I agree with the standards I must meet in my class. 0.54
24 The tasks required by my class are valuable to me. 0.82
25 I agree with the meaning my instructors have for what good performance on class work is. 0.68
Choice
7 I typically do more work than is required by the syllabus.
10 I have a choice in the methods I can use to perform my work. 0.55
15 My instructors allow flexibility in the way I perform my tasks. 0.41 0.61
17 My instructors believe that they must control how I do my work. (Reverse scored)
18 Expressing my own attitudes and ideas is rewarded in my class. 0.46 0.45
21 My instructors think they are always right. (Reverse scored) 0.42
23 I can be creative in the way I perform the tasks required in my class. 0.56
Note. Factor loadings < .4 are suppressed.
As can be seen in Table 1.2, several factors loaded across subscales, even when small factor loadings (i.e. those less than 0.4) are not displayed. There also appears to be some overlap between the Choice subscale and the Impact subscale; neither the Choice subscale nor the Impact subscale groupings were supported by this factor analysis. However, the


33
Meaningfulness sub scale was strongly supported, with six out of the seven Meaningfulness items loading within that subscale. Items 7 and 17 loaded with values too low to be displayed in this table.
Following the exploratory factor analyses, the author performed reliability tests on the subscales for both empowerment measures using Cronbachs Alpha. The results are presented in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3
Cronbach's Alpha reliability tests within factors for the adjusted learner empowerment scales fN = 147)_______________________________________
Meaningf Choice ulness Impact Compete nee
School context 0.795 0.682* 0.739 0.600
Family context 0.868 0.842* 0.841 0.686
* Value when Item 7 has been excluded.
As can be seen in Table 1.3, all four subscales show acceptable levels of reliability in both the family and the school contexts. In the school context, the lowest reliability was for Competence in the school context (a = 0.600), while the highest was for Meaningfulness (a = 0.795). In the family context, the lowest reliability was also for Competence (a = 0.686); likewise, the highest reliability was Meaningfulness (a = 0.868). With the exception of within the Choice subscale, all items within the subscales were supported by the reliability tests. The Choice subscale for both the school and the family contexts showed that the removal of item 7 would raise the overall reliability of the subscale, raising it from a = 0.633 to a = 0.682 (in the school context) and from a = 0.815 to a = 0.842 (in the family context). The reliability tests therefore supported the subscale groupings.


34
Other measures. The author also ran reliability tests on the Multi-Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) and the Perceived Value of HL scale. The results are displayed below in Table 1.4.
Table 1.4
Cronbach's Alpha reliability tests for the MEIM and Perceived Value ofHL scale fN = 147)
_____________________________________________a___
MEIM 0.918
Perceived Value of HL scale 0.822
As can be seen in Table 1.4, both the MEIM (a = 0.918) and the Perceived Value of HL scale (a = 0.822) show high levels of internal consistency; however, the MEIM is above 0.90, which suggests there may be some redundancy among the items.
Data Analysis
In order to test the various hypothesis, multiple regression analyses were performed (Hypotheses 1-3), as well an ANOVA (Hypothesis 4). The results of these analyses are reported in the following sections.
Table 2.1 shows the intercorrelations among the discussed variables.
Table 2.1
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for Gender, Language Use, Language Proficiency, Bilingual Schooling, Empowerment in the School Context, Empowerment in the Family Context, Ethnic Identity, Perceived Value ofHL, Generation (N = 67)_____________________________________________________
Variable M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Gender 0.838 0.371 0.111 0.093 -0.014 -0.206 0.080 0.109 0.112 .321**
2. Language Use 0.824 0.384 .546** 0.182 -0.036 0.009 0.236 0.120 .380**
3. Language Proficiency 0.647 0.481 - .352** 0.019 -0.017 .346** 0.237 606***
4. Bilingual School 0.529 0.503 - -0.051 -0.038 0.194 .265* 0.172
5. Empowerment in the School Context 3.708 0.445 - .262* -0.193 0.137 -0.125
6. Empowerment in the Family Context 3.875 0.673 - -0.016 .249* -0.004
7. Ethnic Identity 3.284 0.558 - 0.073 .239*
8. Perceived Value ofHL 2.914 0.805 -0.125
9. Generation 0.765 0.427 -
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
As can be seen in Table 2.1, there were a number of statistically significant
correlations between the variables. Gender was found to be statistically significantly correlated with Generation (r = 0.321 ,P< o .01), but not with Language Use, Language


35
Proficiency, Bilingual Schooling, Empowerment in the School Context, Empowerment in the Family Context, Ethnic Identity, or Perceived Value of HL. Language Use was found to be significantly correlated with Language Proficiency (r = 0,546, p < 0.01) and Generation (r = 0.380,/) < 0.01). Language Proficiency was also found to be significantly correlated with Bilingual Schooling (r = 0.352,p < 0.01), Ethnic Identity (r = 0.346,/) < 0.01), and Generation (r = 0.606, p < 0.001). Empowerment in the School Context was found to be significantly correlated with Empowerment in the Family Context (r = 0.265, p < 0.05), while Empowerment in the Family Context was also found to be significantly correlated with Perceived Value of HL (r = 0.262, p < 0.05). Finally, Perceived Value of HL was found to be significantly correlated with Generation (r = 0.239, p < 0.05).
However, there was no significant correlation between Language Proficiency and empowerment in either the school or family context.
Hypothesis 1: Heritage language and ethnic identity. In order to test the connection between heritage language proficiency and ethnic identity, the author performed a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The results are displayed below in Table 3.1.


36
Table 3.1
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting Ethnic Identity from Language Proficiency Language Use, Gender, Perceived Value of HL, and Generation (N = 67)____________________________________________________________________________________
Variable B SEB fi R2 A R2
Step 1 Language Proficiency 0.360 0.133 0.317* 0.101 0.101
Constant 3.066 0.108
Step 2 Language Proficiency 0.283 0.162 0.250 0.111 0.010
Language Use 0.168 0.200 0.120
Constant 2.979 0.150
Step 3 Language Proficiency 0.294 0.208 0.259 0.111 0.00019
Language Use 0.167 0.207 0.119
Gender 0.021 0.198 0.014
Perceived Value of HL -0.004 0.091 -0.006
Generation -0.018 0.221 -0.014
Constant 2.980 0.320
*p < .001
As can be seen in Table 3.1, when considered alone, Language Proficiency among HL users was a statistically significant predictor of Ethnic Identity (fi = 0.317, p < 0.001). However, Language Proficiency ceased to be a significant predictor of Ethnic Identity when considered together with Language Use, and no other variables were significant predictors of Ethnic Identity.
Hypothesis 2(a): Heritage language and empowerment in the family context. In
order to test the connection between Language Proficiency among HL users and Empowerment in the Family Context, a hierarchical multiple regression was performed. The results of this analysis can be seen in Table 4.1.


37
Table 4.1
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting Empowerment in the Family Context from Language Proficiency and Perceived Value ofHL (N = 67)____________________________________
Variable B SEB P R2 A R2
Step 1 Language Proficiency -0.010 0.176 -0.007 0.000 0.000
Constant 3.877 0.142
Step 2 Language Proficiency -0.099 0.176 -0.070 0.067 0.067
Perceived Value of HL 0.223 0.104 0.266*
Constant 3.285 0.310
*p < .05
As can be seen in Table 4.1, the multiple regression analysis showed Perceived Value of HL to be a statistically significant predictor of Empowerment in the Family Context (ft = 0.266, p < 0.05); however, Language Proficiency was not a significant predictor of Empowerment in the Family Context.
Hypothesis 2(b): Heritage language and empowerment in the school context. In order to test how Language Proficiency was connected to Empowerment in the School context when considering Perceived Value of HL, the author performed a multiple regression analysis with Perceived Value of HL as the moderating variable. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Multiple regression analysis summary for Empowerment in the School Context predicted by Language Proficiency and moderated by Perceived Value ofEIL (N = 67)
Variable B SEB P R2 A R2
Step 1 Language Proficiency 0.003 0.119 0.003 0.019 0.019
Perceived Value of HL 0.075 0.071 0.136
Constant 3.481 0.209
Step 2 Language Proficiency -0.017 0.123 -0.018 0.026 0.007
Perceived Value of HL 0.138 0.115 0.249
Proficiency x Value -0.101 0.146 -0.139
Constant 3.315 0.319
Note. All values n.s.


38
As can be seen in Table 4.2, the moderated multiple regression analysis showed Language Proficiency to have no significant effect on Empowerment in the School Context when moderated by Perceived Value of HL, nor was the interaction effect between Language Proficiency and Perceived Value of HL found to be a significant predictor of Empowerment in the School Context.
Hypothesis 3(a): Bilingual schooling and empowerment in the family context. In
order to test the connection between Bilingual Schooling and Empowerment in the Family Context, a hierarchical multiple regression was performed. The results can be seen in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting Empowerment in the Family Context from Bilingual School, Gender and Generation (N = 67)___________________________________________________
Variable B SEB P R2 A R2
Step 1 Bilingual Schooling -0.051 0.165 -0.038 0.001 0.001
Constant 3.902 0.120
Step 2 Bilingual Schooling -0.044 0.170 -0.033 0.008 0.007
Gender -0.043 0.211 -0.027
Generation 0.161 0.239 0.089
Constant 3.796 0.239
Note. All values n.s.
As can be seen in Table 5.1, the hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that Bilingual Schooling, Gender, and Generation were not significant predictors of Empowerment in the Family Context.
Hypothesis 3(b): Bilingual schooling and empowerment in the school context. In
order to test the connection between Bilingual Schooling and Empowerment in the School Context, a hierarchical multiple regression was performed. The results can be seen in Table
5.2.


39
Table 5.2
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis summary predicting Empowerment in the School Context from Bilingual School, Gender and Generation (N = 67)___________________________________________________
Variable B SEB P R2 A R2
Step 1 Bilingual Schooling -0.045 0.109 -0.051 0.003 0.003
Constant 3.732 0.079
Step 2 Bilingual Schooling -0.039 0.110 -0.044 0.048 0.046
Gender -0.226 0.155 -0.189
Generation -0.060 0.136 -0.057
Constant 3.963 0.155
Note. All values n.s.
As can be seen in Table 5.2, the hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that
Bilingual Schooling, Gender, and Generation were not significant predictors of
Empowerment in the School Context.
Hypothesis 4: Non-heritage language bilingualism and empowerment in the family and school contexts. This study was also interested in how Language Proficiency was connected to empowerment among individuals who were bilingual in a non-HL. The intercorrelations between variables among non-HL bilingual individuals and monolingual
individuals are displayed in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1
Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for Gender, Language Use, Language Proficiency, Bilingual Schooling, Empowerment in the School Context, Empowerment in the Family Context, Ethnic Identity, Perceived Value ofHL, Generation, and Language Type (N = 84)______________________________________________________________________________________
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Gender 0.860 0.350 -0.010 0.060 -0.120 0.040 -0.110 0.030 -0.120 0.030 0.260*
2. Language Use 0.320 0.470 - 0.490*** 0.530*** 0.050 0.010 0.100 -0.040 0.340** -0.450
3. Language Proficiency 0.130 0.340 - 0.180 0.150 0.060 0.190 -0.180 0.440 -0.240*
4. Bilingual School 0.050 0.090 - 0.140 0.010 -0.020 -0.060 0.070 -0.340***
5. Empowerment in the School Context 3.780 0.480 - 0.410*** 0.230* 0.110 0.060 0.010
6. Empowerment in the Family Context 4.090 0.610 - 0.190 0.040 -0.060 -0.040
7. Ethnic Identity 2.710 0.670 - 0.140 0.310** -0.060
8. Perceived Value of HL 3.060 0.770 - -0.070 0.160
9. Generation 0.110 0.310 - -0.200
10. Language Type (Bilingual or Monolingual) 0.390 0.490 -
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p <.001
As can be seen in Table 6.1, there were a number of statistically significant
correlations between variables. However, the correlations of particular interest in this question were between the empowerment variables and Language Type, between which there was no statistically significant correlation.


40
The author also performed an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the difference between Bilingual participants (in a non-HL) and Monolingual participants in their experiences of empowerment in the family and school contexts. The results of this analysis is displayed in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2
Non-HL bilingual and monolingual means and variability for Empowerment in the Family and School Contexts________
Family Context School Context
N M SD M SD
Bilingual 51 4.067 0.579 3.790 0.476
Monolingual 33 4.112 0.639 3.780 0.488
As can be seen in Table 6.2, Bilingual participants showed slightly lower levels of Empowerment in the Family context (M= 4.067, SD = 0.579) than did Monolingual participants (M= 4.112, SD = 0.639). In the school context, Bilingual participants showed slightly higher levels of empowerment (M= 3.790, SD = 0.476) than did Monolingual participants (M= 3.780, SD = 0.488). However, these differences were not statistically significant in either the family context (F(l, 82) = 0.110, n.s.) or the school context (F(l,82) = 0.009, n.s.).


41
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH
Discussion
The current study was a quantitative survey method which employed a questionnaire. The purpose was to assess how proficiency in a heritage language was connected to university students experiences of empowerment across family and school contexts. Proficiency in a heritage language was not found to be a significant predictor of empowerment in either the family or the school context. However, there were significant correlations between other variables, most notably between how strongly participants perceived their peers to value their heritage language and their experiences of empowerment in the family context.
Interpretation of Results
Research Question 1: Heritage language and ethnic identity. As was
hypothesized, Language Proficiency in a HL was found to be a predictor of Ethnic Identity, when Language Proficiency was entered as the sole predictor in the regression model. This is in alignment with the findings of prior research (e.g. Oh & Fuligni, 2010), and adds support to the claim that the ability to wield ones heritage language is related to a stronger feeling of connectedness with ones ethnic identity. Immigration generation was also found to be correlated with the strength of participants ethnic identity, but it was not shown to be a significant predictor of ethnic identity in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. This may be due to the small sample size.
Research Question 2: Heritage language and empowerment in the family and school contexts. Although Language Proficiency was hypothesized to be a predictor of


42
Empowerment in the Family Context, it did not show any statistically significant predictive value, nor did it have a significant correlation with Empowerment in the Family Context. However, Perceived Value of HL was found to be a predictor of Empowerment in the Family Context. As proficiency in a HL was a significant predictor of family relations in prior studies (e.g. Oh & Fuligni, 2010), this suggests that empowerment in the family context is a different enough construct from family relations to have a completely different set of predictors; it is also possible that the age range between participants caused some participants to consider family in terms of different contexts (e.g. their children as opposed to their parents). While prior research found that proficiency in a HL may strengthen feelings of connectedness within a family, the results of the current research suggest that it is the value a HL user perceives their HL to hold in society, not their proficiency in their HL, which predicts their experiences of empowerment. The importance of valuing HLs has been demonstrated in studies on bilingual education, which have found that for bilingual programs to be successful, instructors must demonstrate equal value for both languages (e.g. Shannon, 1995); likewise, Tuafuti and McCaffery (2005) made the point that quality bilingual programs can be empowering experiences for students. Considering the combined perspectives of these studies, it is not surprising that the current research found a connection between Perceived Value of HL and empowerment.
However, neither Language Proficiency nor Perceived Value of HL were found to be statistically significant predictors of Empowerment in the School Context; the interaction effect between Language Proficiency and Perceived Value of HL was likewise found to have no predictive value on Empowerment in the School Context. This may be due to the rarity of opportunities in the school contextwhere English is often the dominant language in terms


43
of not only instruction but also peer relationsfor ones HL to be acknowledged or considered relevant.
Research Question 3: Bilingual school and empowerment in the family and school contexts. Past experience in bilingual schools was not a significant predictor of empowerment in either the school or the family contexts, nor were there any significant correlations between time spent in bilingual school and empowerment in either context. However, Bilingual Schooling was significantly positively correlated with Language Proficiency, suggesting that time spent in bilingual school may be a contributing factor in HL users abilities to develop strong proficiency in their HL. Bilingual Schooling was also significantly positively correlated to Perceived Value of HL. This may be due to bilingual schools being environments where the students HL is recognized as an academic language, which embeds a sense of value into the HL which may not be as achievable when the HL is associated only with domestic, non-academic and non-occupational activities.
Research Question 4: Non-heritage language bilingualism and empowerment in the family and school contexts. There was no statistically significant difference between how individuals who were bilingual in a non-HL and individuals who were monolingual experienced empowerment in either the family context or the school context. This lack of group difference in the family context is aligned with the hypothesis, as skill in a second, non-heritage language would not have the same implications regarding family relations as have been seen in past studies on heritage languages and relation relations (e.g. Oh & Fuligni, 2010). The lack of difference in experiences of empowerment in the school context between non-HL bilinguals and monolinguals may be due to the few opportunities for bilingual abilities to be demonstrated in the school setting, which is a largely English-only


44
environment; without the opportunities to use the second language in a school setting, the second language may not be able to take on the role of a form of social capital.
Limitations of this Study
There were a number of limitations to this study. Firstly, there were several limitations in the sample. The sample collected had a relatively small number of participants belonging to the target population (HL users), and the group sizes in the between-participants ANOVA (between non-HL bilingual participants and monolingual participants) were likewise fairly small. These small sample sizes make it difficult to see significant results in the analyses, and also limit results ability to be generalized across the population. The sample was also limited to primarily university students at the University of Colorado Denver; it is possible the results would have changed significantly if the sample had been pulled from a broader representative of the overall population in terms of age and personal experiences.
The research design was also a limiting factor in this study. The survey method allows for limited versatility and control over environmental factors. The format of the questionnaire (primarily consisting of Likert-scale items) also constrained participants abilities to respond to items with complete accuracy to their person experiences and interpretations of the items. Therefore, it is possible that a different method of data collection (e.g. experimental, interview) may have been able to produce more comprehensive results.
Strengths of this Study
A major strength of this study is its interdisciplinary nature. By considering theoretical lenses from the field of bilingualism as well as from the field of psychology, this study embraces and combines multiple perspectives on empowerment and language use. This


45
study also extended the focus of the current body of bilingual research past the scope of heritage language users to briefly explore whether proficiency in a second, non-heritage language has similar implications to proficiency in a heritage language.
Future Research
This study raises a number of unanswered questions which could be addressed in future research. There were a number of statistically significant correlations between variables which were not directly related to the authors research questions, such as correlations between generation of immigration and participants sense of ethnic identity, participants proficiency in their HL, and participants frequency of using their HL. Future studies are needed to consider the relationship between these variables in more detail.
Another interesting correlation which did not directly relate to the authors research questions was between participants experiences in bilingual schooling and whether or not they perceived their peers as valuing their HL. As time spent in bilingual schooling was correlated to participants perceived value of their HL, and perceived value of their HL was connected to their experiences of empowerment in the family context, it is interesting that participants bilingual schooling was not directly correlated to their experiences of empowerment in the family context. More research is needed to understand why this might be the case.
Future research can also work to consider these questions with a larger overall sample size in order to allow for larger groups of language types (i.e. HL users, non-HL bilinguals, and monolinguals), and to also include populations with broader range of ages and personal backgrounds.


46
Implications and Conclusion
This study has wide implications across the field of bilingual education, where the question of how to empower students of varying language backgrounds remains prevalent and only partially answered. While the main questions of whether or not language proficiency predicts empowerment were not supported by this study, there were some other startling results. Firstly, while proficiency in a HL was not found to predict empowerment in either the family or the school context, participants perceived value of their HL was a predictor for empowerment in the family context. This supports the findings of past research on value and non-dominant languages, which suggests that the societal value ascribed to dominated languages is connected to the levels of empowerment experienced by the speakers of those dominated languages (e.g. Cummins, 1986). Secondly, participants time spent in bilingual schools was found to be connected to how participants perceived their peers valued their HL, which is aligned with prior research connecting languages status as the academic language and those languages levels of societal value (e.g. Smit, 2012). Both of these findings have implications on the way languages are taught and addressed in schools. It is clear that the value ascribed to languages is connected to individuals experiences of empowerment in some contexts; therefore, it might be important that educators make direct and intentional efforts to ascribe equal value to all languages spoken and discussed in their classrooms. Likewise, the connection between bilingual schooling and how individuals perceive the societal value of languages supports the practice of bilingual education as a means of encouraging positive feelings toward heritage languages.


47
REFERENCES
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (241-258). New York: Green Wood Press.
Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new demography of Americas schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute.
Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 73(3), 471-482.
Crawford, J. (2001). Proposition 203: Anti-bilingual initiative in Arizona. Language Policy Web Site & Emporium. Retrieved from http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/az-unz.htm
Cummins, J. (2000). Biliteracy, empowerment, and transformative pedagogy. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241492125_Biliteracy_Empowerment_and_Tr ansformativePedagogy
Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), 18-35.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological wellbeing across lifes domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23.
Frye, D. (1999). Participatory education as a critical framework for an immigrant womens ESL class. TeSOL Quarterly, 33(3), 501-513.
Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181-200.
Fuligni, A. J. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: The roles of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development, 68, 261-273.
Gao, F. (2009). Language and power: Korean-Chinese students language attitude and practice. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30(6), 526-534.
Garcia, O. (2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: Whats in a name? TESOL Quarterly,
43, 322-326.
Heller, M. (2001). Globalization and the commodification of bilingualism in Canada. In D.
Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 47-67).
London: Routledge.


48
Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2005). Ethnic identity development in early adolescence: Implications and recommendations for middle school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 9(2), 120-127.
Imbens-Bailey, A. L. (1996). Ancestral language acquisition: Implications for aspects of ethnic identity among Armenian American children and adolescents. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 422-443.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a
multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 127-142.
Lan, P. C. (2011). White privilege, language capital, and cultural ghettolization: Western high-skilled migrants in Taiwan. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 57(10), 1669-1693.
Oh, J. S. & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). The role of heritage language development in the ethnic identity and family relations of adolescents from immigrant backgrounds. Social Development, 79(1), 202-220.
Mady, C. (2012). Official language bilingualism to the exclusion of multi-lingualism: Immigrant student perspectives on French as a second official language in "English dominant" Canada. Language andIntercultural Communication, 72(1), 74-89.
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficiency questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940-967.
Matthews, R. A., Diaz, W. M., & Steve G. Cole. (2002). The organizational empowerment scale. Personnel Review, 32(3), 297-318.
Menon, S. T. (1999). Psychological empowerment: Definition, measurement, and validation. Canadian Journal of Behaviour Science, 37(3), 161-164.
Potowski, K. (2013). Heritage learners of Spanish. In K. Geeslin (Ed.), Handbook of Second language Spanish (404-422). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
Roberts, R. E., Phinney, J. S., Masse, L. C., Chen, Y. R., Roberts, C. R., Romero, A. (1999). The structure of ethnic identity of young adolescents from diverse ethnocultural groups. Journal of Early Adolescence, 79(3), 301-322.
Rydenvald, M. Elite bilingualism? Language use among multilingual teenagers of Swedish background in European Schools and international schools in Europe. Journal of Research in International Education, 14(3), 213-227.


49
Shannon, S. M. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of one bilingual classroom as a site of resistance. Linguistics and Education, 7, 175-200.
Short, P. M., Rinehard, J. S. (1992). School Participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 951-960.
Smit, T. C. (2012). Is English-centric bilingualism suffocating Namibian national and indigenous languages? Nawa Journal of Language and Culture, 6(2), 82-95.
Thomas, K. W. & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An interpretive model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,
75(4), 666-681.
Tseng, V., & Fuligni, A. J. (2000). Parent-adolescent language use and relationships among immigrant families with East Asian, Filipino, and Latin American backgrounds. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 465-476.
Tuafuti, P. & McCaffery, J. (2005). Family and community empowerment through bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8(5), 480-503.
Valdes, G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource (pp. 37-77). McHenry, IL: Delta Systems Company Inc.
Winsler, A., Diaz, R. M., Espinosa, L., & Rodriguez, J. L. (1999). When learning a second language does not mean losing the first: Bilingual language development in low-income, Spanish-speaking children attending bilingual preschool. Child Development, 70, 349-362.
Wong Filmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 39(4), 203-210.


50
APPENDIX A:
University of Colorado Denver Colorado Multi Institutional Review Board (COMIRB)
Approval
University Aeseartfri
MWOUn OTGdOAAH] UOtKH I AMKUIZ:iKWMiL tAMf-il
lT-cIsi aiiy Ml l =lv InitCubcnri Boaitl, Cfl
HflO
_ -lv* ily ct C-=4c.tm1u. AnsrtiLf: Mlead LaiiiL.i 13001 E l7lh Pita, Bulling 5iXI. ffcum N3214 Auiuia. OoteTado Stlj-AS
3C3.72i.1ES Fha-e] 3C3.72ii!990 I=30C] ~-==M F.B Ha-ns =>;e r^et; icnrbgiccgT^'-.'Kt. IE-MalQ -AAC0QQSJ7E FA'Al
University of Colorado Hospital Denver Health Medical Center Veteran's Administration Medical Center Children's Hospital Colorado University of Colorado Denver Colorado Prevention Center
Certificate of Exemption
01-Feb-2017
I n ves t i g a to r: Shauna De Long
Subject: COMIRB Protocol 16-1590 Initial Application
Review Date: 17-Jan-2017
Effective Date: 17-Jan-2017
Anticipated Completion Date: 16-Jan-2323 Sponsor(s): No Sponsor-
Title: Empowering Bilingual Experiences of Heritage Language Learners
Exempt Category: 2
Submission ID:AF=C01-'
SUBMISSION DESCRIPTION:
Exempt application
Your COMIRB Initial submission APPD01-1 has been APPROVED FOR EXEMPTION. Periodic continuing review is not required. For the duration of your protocol, any change in the experimental design/content''perscnnel of this study must be approved by COMIRB before implementation Df the changes.
The anticipated completion date of this protocol is 16-Jan-2C2C. COMIRB will administratively close this project on this date unless otherwise instructed by e-mail Id COMIRB@ucdenver.edu. If the project is completed prior to this dale, please notify the COMIRB office in writing or by e-mail once the project has been closed.
Study personnel are approved to conduct the research as described in the documents approved by COMIRB. which are


51
listed below the REVIEW DETAILS section. Please carefully review the REVIEW DETAILS section because COMIRB may have made red-line changes (i.e. revisions) to the submitted documents prior to approving them. The investigator can submit an amendment to revise the documents if the investigator does not agree with the red-line changes. The REVIEW DETAILS section may aiso include important information from the reviewer(s) and COMIRB staff.
Click here for instructions on how to retrieve stamped documents.
Information on how to submit changes (amendments) to your study and reports of unanticipated problems to COMIRB can be found an the COMIRB website http:www.uodenver.edu/COMIRB.
Contact COMIRB with questions at 303-724-1D55 orCOMIRBft3ucdenver.edu-
REV1EW DETAILS:
This activity meets the criteria for exemption category 2
Surveys which record data that do not put subjects at risk
The following documents were reviewed as part of the exempt determination:
1. Application form, 01/17/2017
2. Recruitment scripts for questionnaire (no date)
3. Postcard consent form, 01/17/2017
4. Questionnaires (no date)
5. Personnel form, 07/25/2D16
6. Mentor/mentee agreement, 05/21/2016
Please note that study documents for exempt protocols are no longer stamped APPROVED for EXEMPTION" or 'NOTED."
Sincerely, UCD Panel S
Please provide Feedback on Vcu' experience w'f the LC-MIRB F't-tes;


52
APPENDIX B: Survey Questionnaire
Please put a checkmark in the boxes (I I) and fill in the blanks with your responses.
1. Your Gender: I I Male I I Female I I Other
2. Your Age:_______years old
3. What is yours and your parents ethnic background? Check off the best description below:
Asian, Asian American American Indian Native American Black, African American Latino/a, Mexican, Mexican American White, Euro-American Mixed or Other (write in below):
(1) You
(2) Father
(3) Mother
4. Did you immigrate or move to the U.S. from elsewhere? Q Yes (Then, how old were you?___________years old) Q No
5. Where were you and your parents bom (State or Country)? Please answer as specifically as you know.
(1) Your Birthplace:________________________________________
(2) Your fathers Birthplace:________________________________________(or check here if you dont know Q)
(3) Your mothers Birthplace:________________________________________(or check here if you dont know Q)
6. Generation Check off the best description below:
Q 1st generation (I and my mother were bom in another country.)
I I 2* generation (I was bom in the US, and my mother was bom m another country.)
I I 3rd generation (I and my mother were bom in the US, and my grandparents were bom in another country.)
I I 4th generation (I and my mother were bom in the US. And, as far as I know, my grandparents were bom in the US.)
7. Please list all the languages you know in order of proficiency:
1 2 3 4 5
8. Please fist all the languages you know in order of acquisition (your native language first):
(If you have two or more native languages, cross out the number 2 and write 1. Do the same for all native languages you speak.)
1 2 3 4 5
9. Please fist what percentage of time you currently and on average use each language.
(Your percentages should add up to 100%):
List language here:
List percentage here:
10. When choosing a language to speak with a person who is equally fluent in all your languages, what percentage of time would you choose to speak each language? Please report percent of total time.
(Your percentages should add up to 100%):
List language here:
List percentage here:


53
Language: Language X
Please select a non-English language that you speak or understand the most. Use this language to represent Language X in the following questions.
If you do not speak any non-English languages, please skip this section and continue to the next page.
Language X is my______(please check the appropriate box)_________language.
First
Second
Third
Other (specify):___________________
All questions below refer to your knowledge of Language X
(1) On a scale from zero to ten with zero equalling no proficiency and ten being fully proficient, please select your level of proficiency in speaking, understanding, and reading Language X:
Rate 0 10 Understanding Rate 0 10 Rate 0 10
Speaking spoken language Reading
(2) What percentage of time do you use Language X in the following contexts:
0% 100% 0% 100%
Interacting with friends Reading
Interacting with family Watching TV
(3) Have you ever studied in a bilingual program or school? If yes, please fill out the table below regarding instruction in a language other than English. If no, please move on to the next page.
Place a check mark (V) next to all the grade levels where you received formal bilingual education in either an afterschool program, a weekend program, or your regular (Monday Friday) school.
AfterschooL'W eekend Regular (Monday-Friday) School
Kindergarten / Pre-K
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
University/Vocational School


54
The following questions (1 25) discuss your experiences in the context of the classroom.
Each statement has a scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Very Often). Please circle the number that best describes how you feel. There are no right or wrong responses to these items, so please answer honestly. Your responses will be kept private.
Never Sometimes Very Often
Example. I enjoy school. 1 2 3 5
Generally, when Im at school... Never Sometimes Very Often
1. I feel confident that I can adequately perform my duties. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I have the power to make a difference in how things are done in my class. 1 2 3 4 5
3. What happens in my class is consistent with my own values. 1 2 3 4 5
4. My participation is important to the success of the class. 1 2 3 4 5
5. My instructors make me feel inadequate. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I actively participate in all the tasks required of my class. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I typically do more work than is required by the syllabus. 1 2 3 4 5
S. I am overwhelmed by all the work my class requires. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I work hard for class because I want to. not because I have to. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I have a choice in the methods I can use to perform my u7ork. 1 2 3 4 5
11. The tasks required in my class are personally meaningful. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I like to talk about what I'm doing in my class with friends or classmates. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I feel intimidated by what is required of me in my class. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I can make an impact on the way things are run in my class. 1 2 3 4 5
15. My instructors allow7 flexibility7 in the way I perform my tasks. 1 2 3 4 5
16. I look fonvard to going to my class. 1 2 3 4 5
17. My instructors believe that they must control how71 do my wrork. 1 2 3 4 5
IS. Expressing my own attitudes and ideas is rew7arded in my class. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I agree with the standards I must meet in my class. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I possess the necessary7 skills to perform successfully in class. 1 2 3 4 5
21. My instructors think they are always right 1 2 3 4 5
22. I find my class to be exciting and energizing. 1 2 3 4 5
23. I can be creative in the wray I perform the tasks required in my class. 1 2 3 4 5
24. The tasks required by7 my class are valuable to me. 1 2 3 4 5
25. I agree with the meaning my instructors have for what good performance on class work is. 1 2 3 4 5
How does your choice of language play into how7 you interact at school?


55
The following questions (1 25) discuss your experiences in the context of your family.
Each statement has a scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Very Often). Please circle the number that best describes how you feel. There are no right or wrong responses to these items, so please answer honestly. Your responses will be kept private.
Never Sometimes Very Often
Example. I enjoy spending time with my family. 1 2 3 5
Generally, when Im at home... Never Sometimes Very7 Often
1. I feel confident that I can adequately perform my duties. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I have the power to make a difference in how things are done in my family. 1 2 3 4 5
3. What happens with my family is consistent with my own values. 1 2 3 4 5
4. My participation is important to the success of the family. 1 2 3 4 5
5. My parents make me feel inadequate. 1 2 3 4 5
6. I actively participate in all the tasks required of my family. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I typically do more work than is required by my family 1 2 3 4 5
S. I am overwhelmed by all the work my family requires. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I work hard for family because I want to, not because I have to. 1 2 3 4 5
10. I have a choice in the methods I can use to perform my work. 1 2 3 4 5
11. The tasks required in my family are personally meaningful. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I like to talk with my friends about what Im doing with my family. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I feel intimidated by what is required of me in my family. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I can make an impact on the way things are run in my family. 1 2 3 4 5
15. My parents allow flexibility in the way I perform my tasks. 1 2 3 4 5
16. I look forward to going home to my family. 1 2 3 4 5
17. My parents believe that they must control how I do my work. 1 2 3 4 5
18. Expressing my own attitudes and ideas is rewarded in my family 1 2 3 4 5
19. I agree with the standards I must meet in my family. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I possess the necessary7 skills to perform tasks successfully in family7. 1 2 3 4 5
21. My parents think they are always right. 1 2 3 4 5
22. I find my family activities to be exciting and energizing. 1 2 3 4 5
23. I can be creative in the w7ay I perform the tasks required in my family. 1 2 3 4 5
24. The tasks required by7 my7 family are valuable to me. 1 2 3 4 5
25. I agree with the meaning my parents have for what good performance on 1 2 3 4 5
chores and work is.
How does your choice of language play into how you interact at home?


56
The questions in this section (1 12) relate to experiences of ethnic identity.
In this country, people come from a lot of different cultures and there are many different words to describe the different backgrounds or ethnic groups that people come from. These questions are about your ethnicity or your ethnic group and how you feel about it or react to it.
Each statement has a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Please circle the number that best describes how you feel. There are no right or wrong responses to these items, so please answer honestlyr. Your responses will be kept private.
Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree
Example. I am happy. 12 3
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
1.1 have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group, such as its history, traditions, and customs. i 2 3 4
2.1 am active in organizations or social groups that include mostly members of my own ethnic group. i 2 3 4
3.1 have a clear sense of my ethnic background and what it means for me. i 2 3 4
4.1 think a lot about how my life will be affected by my ethnic group membership. i 2 3 4
5.1 am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to. i 2 3 4
6.1 have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group. i 2 3 4
7.1 understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership means to me. i 2 3 4
S. To learn more about my ethnic background, I have often talked to other people about my ethnic group. i 2 3 4
9.1 have a lot of pride in my ethnic group and its accomplishments. i 2 3 4
10.1 participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or customs. i 2 3 4
11.1 feel a strong attachment towrards my own ethnic group. i 2 3 4
12.1 feel good about my cultural or ethnic background. i 2 3 4
13. Part of my ethnic identity is the language I speak. i 2 3 4
1. When I was in elementary school, I felt that all my languages were valued by my 1 2 3 4
peers.
2. When I was in middle school, I felt that all my languages were valued by my 1 2 3 4
peers.
3. When I was in high school, I felt that all my languages were valued by my peers. 1 2 3 4
4. In university/college, I feel that all my languages are valued by my peers. 1 2 3 4
How does your ethnic identity play into which language you use at any given time?


57
APPENDIX C:
Questionnaire Consent
Study Title: Empowering Bilingual Experiences of Heritage Language Learners Principal Investigator: Shauna de Long
COMIRB No: 16-1560 Version Date: 01/17/2017
You are being asked to be in this research study because you are an undergraduate or graduate student attending the University' of Colorado Denver.
If you join the study, you will be asked to complete a questionnaire asking about your language use and associated social and emotional experiences. The questionnaire is 5 pages long, and will take approximately 15 minutes to complete.
This study is designed to learn more about language use and experiences.
Possible discomforts or risks associated with participation in this study include the loss of the information collected. However, every effort will be made to protect your privacy and confidentiality' by ensuring that no responses will be connected to you in any way. No identifiable data will be collected in this study. The completed questionnaire will be viewed only for research purposes by the investigator. All records (completed questionnaire) will be stored securely and kept private. There may be risks the researchers have not thought of.
You have a choice about being in this study. You do not have to be in this study' if yrou do not want to be.
If you have questions, you can contact Shauna de Long. You can call or e-mail and ask questions at any time.
You may have questions about your rights as someone in this study. If you have questions, yrou can call the COMIRB (the responsible Institutional Review Board).
By completing this survey, you are agreeing to participate in this research study.


Full Text
3
4. Do individuals who are not heritage language users experience higher levels of empowerment when they speak a second language?
Significance of the Study
This study this will help to expand the existing research on both psychological empowerment and bilingualism by considering whether bilingualism can be an empowering experience, in what contexts bilingualism might be an empowering experience, and how participation in bilingual programs can encourage empowering experiences. By understanding the empowering situations among different populations, this study hopes to help educators create more inclusive, safer environments for diverse populations of students.
Definitions and Terms
Emergent bilinguals: Individuals who are learning a new language. This term was selected for use in this study because, unlike other common terms which only recognize the students' skills in their new language (e.g. ELLs, ESL), "emergent bilinguals" identifies their burgeoning skills in their new languages while still recognizing their abilities in their native languages (Garcia, 2009).
Empowerment: A state in which the three major psychological facets of power are met; these facets of power include a sense of control, competence and goal internalization, (Menon, 1999, p. 162). Empowerment can also be defined in terms of intrinsic motivation, containing the components of meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact (Kraimer, Seibert, & Liden, 1999).
Ethnic Identity: The concept of ethnicity refers to how individuals consider themselves to belong to groups based on shared sociohistorical experiences such as a shared language


relief to communications in my native English with other expatriate students. When I finally gained a sense of proficiency in Japanese, my ability to use both Japanese and English was a profoundly empowering experience for me.
5
My disconnect with my heritage language and my time spent living in Japan have left me with an interest in the role of bilingualism and heritage languages in developing a sense of empowerment.



PAGE 1

EMPOWERING BILINGUAL EXPERIENCES OF HERI TAGE LANGUAGE LEARNE RS by SHAUNA P. A. DE LONG B.A., International Christian University, 2013 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment o f the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Education and Human Development Program 2017

PAGE 2

ii This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Shauna P. A. de Long has been approved for the Education and Human Development P rogram by Jung In Kim, C hai r Nancy Commins, Co chair Alan Davis Date: May 13 2017

PAGE 3

iii de Long, Shauna P. A. (M.A. Education and Human Development Program ) Empowering Bilingual Experiences of Heritage Language Learners Thesis directed by Professor Jung In Kim and Professor Nancy C ommins ABSTRACT Increasing language diversity in the United States has raised new questions regarding the experiences of emergent bilinguals and the maintenance of their heritage language. This study examines how proficiency in a heritage language is con nected to heritage language contexts. This study also considers how time spent in a formal bilingual school might be of empowerment, as well as whether or not bilingualism in a non heritage language has any connection to empowerment. In order to investigate these questions, this study employed a questionnaire to collect data on the experiences of 160 undergraduate and gr aduate students enrolled in classes at the University of Colorado Denver. This questionnaire utilized items from multiple instruments, including the L anguage Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (L EAP Q ) the learner empowerment scale, and the M ulti E thnic Identity Measure (M EIM). Results show that while proficiency in a HL was connected to a sense of ethnic identity, it was not connected to time spent in bili however, was connected to their sense of empowerment in the family context. More research is needed to understand why this might be the case. This form and content of this abstr act are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Jung In Kim and Nancy Commins

PAGE 4

iv I dedicate this thesis to everyone who speaks, understands, or has studied a second language.

PAGE 5

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Dr. Kim thank you so much for all your supp ort and guidance over the long course of my thesis work and studies at UC Denver. Your kindness and advice is what made this research drafts and having meetings with me, som inspiration. Dr. Commins and Dr. Davis, it was so kind of you to join my committee even though I never had the chance to take any of your classes. Dr. Commins, thank you for picking over my lit revi ew word by word, and providing me with additional readings and articles to support my theoretical basis, which I was struggling to build. Dr. Davis, thank you for helping me to ther without the support from both of you. Dr. Ruben, thank you for always looking out for my interests, providing me with opportunities, and leaving your door open for questions and concerns on any topic, even Mari an d Larissa, having a cohort during this process made all the difference. Working on deadlines made this whole project seem less impossible. Thank you! To my family a nd friends thank you for supporting me mentally and emotionally through the process of writing my thesis. You were always able to keep my spirits up and encourage me to keep on going.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS C HAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ............................ 1 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1 Purpose of the Study ................................ ................................ .................... 2 Guiding Research Questions: ................................ ................................ ....... 2 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ............. 3 Definitions and Terms ................................ ................................ ................. 3 Personal Identification of the Topic ................................ ............................. 4 II LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................. 6 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 Heritage Languages: Definitions and Common Experiences ...................... 6 Language as a Tool of Power ................................ ................................ ...... 9 Empowerment ................................ ................................ ............................ 11 The Current Study ................................ ................................ ...................... 15 III. METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19 Research Design ................................ ................................ ........................ 19 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ 19 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ .......................... 20 Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ 23 IV. RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 30 Validity and Reliability Tests ................................ ................................ .... 30

PAGE 7

vii Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................. 34 V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH ........................... 41 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 41 Interpretation of Results ................................ ................................ ............. 41 Limitations of this Study ................................ ................................ ............ 44 Strengths of this Study ................................ ................................ ............... 44 Future Research ................................ ................................ ......................... 45 Implications and Conclusion ................................ ................................ ..... 46 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 47 APPENDIX A: University of Colorado Denver Colorado Multi Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) Approval ................................ ................................ ........................ 50 B: Survey Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ........................... 52 C: Questionnaire Consent ................................ ................................ .......................... 57

PAGE 8

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Overview Across the United States, the immigrant population is growing, and with it, language diversity is also on the rise (Capps et al., 2005). This increased diversity has raised the question of how best to handle the instruction of emergent bilinguals. Some states have responded by enforcing English only policies (e.g. Proposition 203 in Arizona) in an effort to encourage English proficiency (Crawford, 2001). However, another approach has been an attempt to promote bilingualism (e.g. NABE, the National Assoc iation for Bilingual beneficial toward learning a second language (e.g. Hickey, 2014). The choice of whether to promote complete immersion (i.e. English only) or enco urage the continued study of a first language is important outside of the issue of which is the most efficient method of acquiring proficiency in English. Research has shown that the loss of a heritage language may have negative effects within the family and cultural community ( Oh & Fuligni, 20 10 ; Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005) ; on the other hand, proficiency in a first language or heritage language can be a way to experience and maintain cultural identity ( Oh & Fuligni, 2010 ; Rydenvald, 2015). More specifica lly, Oh and Fuligni (20 10 ) performed a quantitative study which analyzed the relationship between heritage language use and proficiency, family relationships, and ethnic identity. They found that heritage language proficiency was a predictor of both the q uality of family relations (i.e., relationships between adolescents and their parents) and ethnic identity (Oh & Fuligni, 2010).

PAGE 9

2 Purpose of the Study new construct: empowerme nt. As p rior research has also suggested a connection between the maintenance of a heritage language and power (e.g. Tuafut i & McCaffery, 2005; Gao, 2009), t he current study seeks to demonstrate that proficiency in a heritage language can have an empoweri ng effect on heritage language users and their ethnic identity Whereas Oh and Fuligni (2010) reported that feelings of closeness could be affected by proficiency heritage languages th e current research seeks to study how the experiences of empowerment m ay be a ssociated with proficiency in a heritage language in the family context, and whether these experiences of empowerment extend to the school context. This study defines empowerment in alignment with the field of psychology, wherein empowerment is a c onstruct based on intrinsic motivation and can be considered in terms of meaningfulness, competence, impact, and choice (Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996) Guiding Research Questions: This thesis proposes the following research questions: 1. What is the rela tionship between proficiency in a heritage language and ethnic identity? 2. Is proficiency in a heritage language correlated to experiences of empowerment among family members? Is the same true for experiences of empowerment at school or among friends? 3. Does time spent in a formal bilingual education program correlate with later experiences of empowerment ? How does it affect later experiences of empowerment ?

PAGE 10

3 4. Do individuals who are not heritage language users experience higher levels of empowerment whe n they speak a second language? Significance of the Study This study this will help to expand the existing research on both psychological empowerment and bilingualism by considering whether bilingualism can be a n empowering experience, in what contexts bilingualism might be an empowering experience, and how participation in bilingual programs can encourage empowering experiences By understanding the empowering situations among different populations, this study hope s to help educators create more inclusive, safer environments for diverse populations of students. Definitions and Terms Emergent bilinguals: Individuals who are learning a new language. This term was selected for use in this study because, unlike oth er common terms which only recognize the students' skills in their new language (e.g. ELLs, ESL), "emergent bilinguals" identifies their burgeoning skills in their new languages while still recognizing their abilities in their native languages ( Garc a 200 9 ) Empowerment: A state in which the three major psychological facets of power are met; these facets of power include a sense of control, competence (Menon, 1999 p. 162 ). Empowerment can also be defined in terms of intrinsic motivation, containing the components of meaning, competence, self determination, and impact (Kraimer, Seibert, & Liden, 1999). Ethnic Identity : The concept of ethnicity refer s to how individuals consider themselves to belong to groups based on shared soci ohistorical experiences such as a shared language

PAGE 11

4 and a shared cultural heritage (Holcomb McCoy, 2005). Ethnic identity refers to how strongly an individual identities with their ethnic group (Oh & Fuligni, 2010). Heritage language: Also referred to as "H L," this is a language through which an individual feels a sense of cultural connection. The term h eritage language is frequently u se d to refer to the languages of immigrant families before they moved to their new country ; these languages may or may not h ave been maintained ( Valds 2001) Personal Identification of the Topic My identification with this topic is two fold: firstly, my experience as a person unable to speak my heritage language as a child, and secondly, as a person who was immersed in anoth er language as an adult. My heritage language is a distant relative of German, which is spoken by one branch of my family as their first language. I never learned to communicate in this language beyond a few simple words and phrases, and as a consequenc e, I found myself largely isolated during large family gatherings, unable to communicate with my younger cousins, who had not yet learned English, and denied access to many conversations between my adult aunts and uncles, who slipped seamlessly between the ir first language and English as a matter of course. I find not identify as a member of their cultural group. I consider my experience to be an example of how lac k of proficiency in a heritage language can contribute to a sense of disconnect with As an adult, I lived in Japan for four and a half years, during which I studied at a Japanese university and later taught English. Although I hav e a great love for the Japanese language, I found my initial immersion in Japanese to be a great struggle, and I turned with

PAGE 12

5 relief to communications in my native English with other expatriate students. When I finally gained a sense of proficiency in Japa nese, my ability to use both Japanese and English was a profoundly empowering experience for me. My disconnect with my heritage language and my time spent living in Japan have left me with an interest in the role of bilingualism and heritage languages in d eveloping a sense of empowerment.

PAGE 13

6 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction The current research intends to study the relationship between proficiency in a heritage language and experiences of empowerment in the family and school context. For the purpo se of examining this relationship, this chapter will firstly define heritage language and discuss some common experiences among heritage language users secondly demonstrate the connection between language and power relations thirdly extend the discuss ion of power by considering the concept of empowerment as it is defined across disciplines before lastly discussing the current study and how it contributes to the body of existing research Heritage Language s: Definitions and Common Experiences Heritage la nguage is a broad term which encompasses many definitions and circumstances across academic disciplines (e.g. Valds 2001 ). At its most basic, it is a Valds 2001 pp. 37 38). It is the con nection individuals feel toward a language, not their proficiency in the language, which is what defines it as a heritage language ( Valds 2001 ). In the United States, t he term heritage language is frequently used to refer to non English langu ages spoken ; more specifically, a heritage language user is often identified as a student who comes from a home in which a non English language is spoken (e.g. Valds 2001 ; Oh & Fuligni, 20 10 ), and Valds 2001, p. 38). Patowski (2014 ) broadens that definitio n to include individuals who 405). Patowski (2014) notes that

PAGE 14

7 some authors distinguish the latter group from the former by using the term heritage learner as opposed to heritage speaker Patowski (2014) further distinguishes heritage language users from native speakers and second language learners; an individual who immigrated to a country where they were immersed in a new dominant language after the age of 12 would be considered a native speaker due to their adult level of proficiency (e.g. a Spanish speaker moving to the United S tates who is immersed in an English speaking environment) Likewise, as a heritage language learner (or speaker) would have been exposed to their heritage language in the home from birth, a second language learner is someone who was not exposed to the tar get language in the home environment (Patowski, 2014). In the United States, the population of individuals identified as heritage language users is rising (e.g. Capps et al., 2005), making the circumstances of heritage language users increasingly prevalen t. However, although the overall instances of heritage language users are 10 p. 203). Shannon (1995) went so far as to c 181 ), akin to the loss of indigenous languages in America due to its implication of total assimilation and cultural loss. Lily Wong Fi l lmore (2000) describe d how social pressures at school can discourage children from being willing to continue learning their first abilities to exert authority or know exactly what their chil dren spend their time doing outside of the home of wellbeing, including disturbances in family relations (Tseng & Fuligni, 2000) and isolation from a cultural community (Imben s Bailey, 1996). There has been social pressure pushing

PAGE 15

8 informal or formal in their heritage language to forward their skills in English (Oh & Fuligni, 2010) as opponents of bilingual educatio n push for maximum exposure to English in order to raise achievement in English (Cummins, 1986). P arents then feel forced to choose between their heritage languages and the language of power (i.e. English in the American context) Despite this, researc (Oh & Fuligni, 20 10 p. 203). Studies show that children do not experience language loss of their f irst language when they participate in bilingual programs that are truly equal in their presentation of both languages (Winsler, Daz, Espinosa, & Rodrguez, 1999). Indeed, the maintenance of a HL can lead to closer relations in both the family dimension (Oh & Fuligni, 20 10 ) and the wider cultural community (Cummins, 1986; Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005; Oh & Fuligni, 20 10). Oh and Fuligni (2010 ) found that the maintenance of a heritage language helped families to be more cohesive with fewer arguments resultin g from linguistic or cultural miscommunication. Likewise, Tuafuti and McCaffery (2005) found that maintaining a heritage language allowed immigrant families to continue to have access to their cultural communities and take part in cultural events. Oh and Fuligni (2010) also identify language as being important in the development of ethnic identity; their study found that language use and especially language proficiency in a heritage language were strong predictors of how strongly their participants identi fied with their ethnicity. This demonstrates the cultural and personal The above section discusses how heritage languages are defined, as well as how skill in a heritage language is related to how heritag e language users experience and interact in

PAGE 16

9 different contexts. However, the way different individuals experience and use their heritage languages is also connected to the experience of power, as is discussed below. Language as a Tool of Power In addition to its connection to personal and cultural well being, family relations, and a sense of ethnic identity, l anguage is also well established as a means to wield power. Gao (2009) wrote about the power dynamics between the language of hegemony and non hegem onic languages: The decision of which language(s) to act as the official or dominant language is dependent upon the power of dominant group(s), more or less at the expense of the rights of the dominated groups. The devaluing of other languages reflects th e real power of language which clearly lies in the dominant or official languages. (p. 525) This describes the inextricable relationship between language and power in a bilingual context. A language that holds hegemony, usually a dominant language, is a m eans of establishing and maintaining the power of the dominant group by and reward systems within society ( Cummins, 1986 p. 22 ). Studies in Namibia (Smit, 2012) and Canada (Mady, 2012) demonstrated different ways in which m astery over a hegemonic language is viewed as a means of capital. Smit status symbol in Namibia, one which facilitates a rise in s ocioeconomic class (Smit, 2012); skill in the dominant language can therefore be considered a kind of social capital in Namibia. Knowledge of particular languages is also often viewed as a kind of econo mic capital (Heller, 2001); however, studies in Canada have shown that the ability to speak other

PAGE 17

10 dy, 2012, p. 83). This stresses that while skill in the hegemonic language can be considered a form of capital, fluency in non official languages may not be viewed as an asset in some countries and may even be treated as a deficit. Both in Namibia and Canada, the drive to learn the dominant languages shows both how powerful languages can be in society and how skill in the dominant languages are viewed as a means to obtain power. Power and heritage languages. There has been some evidence in previous research that skill in attain and maintain power and status in society. Gao (2009) studied how bilingualism in their heritage language of Korean and the dominant language of Chinese affected the pow er dynamics among a Korean community in China. As globalization and market economy grow in China, Korean is increasingly viewed as a language which wields economic power in China (Gao, 2009). Likewise, for young Korean age has become a language of political power, and therefore a language that one is motivated to Korean as well as Chinese the language of hegemony gave them great er opportunities in terms of future institutions of study and work, as their bilingualism would allow them to apply in either country, or even occupy a liaison position between the two (Gao, 2009). Students also generally viewed their identity of half Chi nese and half Korean as a potential strong skills in both the Chinese and Korean languages (Gao, 2009).

PAGE 18

11 However, Gao (2009) also found that using a non hegemonic lang uage (e.g. a heritage referring to the switch from a first language to the dominant language in formal education, which occurs due to a number of disadvantages of atte nding Korean schools, including a lack of funding and a lack of qualified teachers who can instruct in Korean. This switch can delay of personal empowerment (Gao 2009). Despite these difficulties, Tuafuti and McCaffery (2005) argue that research has shown a clear connection between quality bilingual education and experiences of empowerment for both students and their cultural communities. Therefore, in order to prevent the maintenance of a heritage language from being disempowering, it is important for bilingual schools to have the resources necessary to facilitate strong education in both languages. The studies discussed in the section above make the link betw een power and language clear. Languages can be used both as a means of suppressing social power in dominated cultures as well as a means for dominated cultures to experience impressions of personal power and status by increasing their feelings of belongin gness in both the dominant culture and their heritage culture. Next, the current study will move the discussion f rom the concept of power to the concept of empowerment. Empowerment While the above studies largely discussed the nature of power as it relat es to language, the current study is interested more specifically in the concept of empowerment which is introduced below Power is something that can be wielded by an individual; empowerment, on the other hand, is a state of being experienced by an indi vidual. The current study will use

PAGE 19

12 First, this section will discuss the meaning of empowerment. Empower ment is a broadly used term with many definitions. Conger and Kanungo (1988) cite the Oxford Short and Rinehart (1992) later pe rformed a factor analysis using a wide range of definition s and found among them six empowerment subscales: decision making, professional growth, status, self efficacy, autonomy, and impact. Beyond th es e general definitions, specific disciplines also have their own definitions of empowerment which vary greatly. This section will discuss how the concept of empowerment has been defined, investigated, and understood across three disciplines that host empowerment studies: bilingual education, structural and organizational studies, and psychology. Empowerment in Bil ingual Education. Definitions of empowerment in the field of bilingual education are fairly he means by which or the exten t decisions felt that empowerment, thusly defined, was an inextricable part of language without the ability to communicate effectively, an individual does not have the power to act. In their studies of Pasifika students in New Zealand Tuafuti and McCaffery (2005) define d define d life chances as the ability to succeed academically in the dominant culture and life choices

PAGE 20

13 to maintain intergenerational connections (Tuafuti & McCaffery, 200 5) A ccording to Tuafuti and McCaffery (2005), a n individual is therefore empowered (i.e. successful in and [are] the dominant culture and language Cummins (1986) define d empowerment in terms of the dominant and dominated systems within society, status positions within the struggle in academic settings tend to be dominated groups (Cummins, 1986). Given this, student empowerment is to Cummins something which increases student success and is also an outcome of success (Cummins, 1986). Cummins also defines power in terms of coercive and collaborative relations (2000). Coercive relations involve power dynamics between the dominant group and the dominated groups, with the assumption being that the more power one group has the less there is available for another (Cummins, 2000). However, collaborative relations of power assume that power is not a fixed quantity but instead can be created through collaboration; Tuafuti and McCaffery further supp As can be seen in the definitions above empowerment in the field of bilingual education is defined largely around broad so cial structures and group dynamics This is a

PAGE 21

14 very different perspective on empowerment than that which is presented in the field of struct ural and organizational studies wherein the focus is on how the individual navigates specific social interactions Structural and Organizational Empowerment. S tructural or organizational empowerment is another commonly used definition of empowerment Th e discipline of structural and o rganizational studies views power in terms of the dependence or interdependence of i ndividuals; in this definition, power is related to the control an individual has over others (Conger & Kanungo, 1988). Empowerment from this perspective can be subord Conger and Kanungo (1988) therefore define empowerment as: A process of enhancing feelings of self efficacy among organizational members through the identification of conditions that foster powerlessness and thr ough their removal by both form and organizational practices and informal techniques of providing efficacy information. (p. 474) This definition is focused largely on the condition of the leader or manager and what practices and environment they create to interact with their employees to increase their experiences of empowerment. This focus is in strong contrast to psychological empowerment. Psychological empowerment. I n the field of psychology, empowerment is defined state is a cognitive state characterized by a sense of Menon, 1999, pp. 161 16 2 ). Psyc hological empowerment is based on a construct of intrinsic motivation ( Spreitzer, 1995;

PAGE 22

15 Conger & Kanungo, 1988 ) In this definition, the concept of power is strongly connected to self determination and self efficacy (Conger & Kanungo, 1988 ). Thomas and Velthouse (1990) later developed a cognitive interpretation of empowerment which was based around four component s: impact, competency, meaningfulness, and choice. Spreitzer (1995) further refin ed this model and suggested those four components mu st be present in individuals for empowerment interventions by man a g e ment to be effective Frymier, Shulman, and Houser (1 996) used these four components as the basis for the scale which they developed to quantitatively measure empowerment among learners. Psychological empowerment is distinct from the definitions found in the other two disciplines discussed above. B oth struc tural and organizational empowerment as well as empowerment in bilingual education focus on surrounding power structures both broad (as between social groups in bilingual education) and narrow (as in the interaction between an employer and employee in stru ctural and organizational empowerment). Psychological empowerment, on the other hand, focuses on they are empowered (Matthews, Diaz, & Cole, 2002) The Current Study The above sections review the concept of heritage language and how its maintenance can change the experiences of its users, particularly in terms of their ability to gain power and status. The discussion was then extended to explore interdisciplinary definitions of empowerment and how empower ment could be measured for heritage language users As is discussed above, p rior research has demonstrated the connections between language and power (e.g. Cummins, 1986), heritage language s in particular and power (e.g. Tuafuti &

PAGE 23

16 McCaffery, 2005; Gao, 20 09), and heritage language proficiency and the strength of ethnic identity (e.g. Oh & Fuligni, 2010) The current study seeks to add to the body of research by which examined the e ffect of proficiency in a herit age language on the strength of HL ethnic identity, a s well as its effect on the quality of HL family relations The current study will consider instead how proficiency in a heritage language and ethnic identity connect to a new construct: e mpowerment. Empowerment in the current study. The literature above demonstrated the strong relationship between languages and power in particular among heritage languages (e.g. Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005; Gao, 2009) It follows, then, that language must also have a ant to understand in detail how languages, especially heritage languages, are connected to empowerment in order to be successful in producing empowering environments for individuals to learn and interact. Howe ver, this still leaves the question open of which definition of empowerment would be the most appropriate as a means of investigating Having reviewed the above interdiscipli nary literature on differing definitions of empowerment, psychological empowerment was found to be the most suitable for this study. Unlike the definitions of empowerment found in structural and organizational studies of empowerment, psychological empower position of power can share the power with those that person oversees, psychological

PAGE 24

17 empowerment is more appropriate for this study. Scales measuring structural and organizational empowerment also tend to be very situation specific, having been crafted for workplace environments Scales measuring psychological empowerment, however, have already been introduced and applied in the field of education (e.g. Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996). Therefore, the current study will employ the construct of psychological empowerment to examine proficiency. Likewise, psychological empowerment was chosen over constructs from bilingual education as a means of measuring empowerment. As is the case in the structural and organizational measures of empowerment, empowerment in bilingual education tends to focus on structures and group practices rather than individual experiences. Definitions of empowerment found in the field of bilingual education also tend to relate to the broader dimens ions of power dynamics (e.g. Cummins, 1986; 2000 and his studies on the constructs of dominant vs. dominated and coercive vs. collaborative) of a group. Psychological empowerment, on the other hand, was developed using the motivational constructs of self determination, which contain specific, quantifiable elements that are already frequently applied in the field of education. In this study, the research will not ignore the broader dimensions of empowerment as they are discussed in the field of bilingual e ducation, but it will focus on the constructs present in the psychological definition of empowerment. relations; in alignment with their research, the current study considered the concept of empowerment in the family context as well as in the school context. In order to achieve this, participants in this study were asked to respond to two sets of empowerment questions, each contextualized

PAGE 25

18 for either the home (family) setting or the school (classroom) setting. In doing so, the current study hopes to provide a clear theoretical bridge between past and current research. Goals of the current study By considering how proficiency in a HL and the strength of ethnic identity play into individual in different contexts the cu rrent study seeks to expand existing research on how bilingualism, in particular among heritage language users, can be an empowering experience for students.

PAGE 26

19 CHAPTER III METHODS Research Design This study used a quantitative questionnaire method which included open ended qualitative questions to provide supporting data as well as an opportunity for students to respond to inquiries without the boundaries of the Likert scale items. The questionnai res were distributed in paper format during undergraduate and graduate level classes; students were made aware that participation was wholly voluntary Participants The current research surveyed undergraduate and graduate level students enrolled in classes at the University of Colorado Denver. Although there were 160 total participants, 8 participants were removed from the analyses due to significant amounts of missing data. Of the 1 52 remaining participants, 2 3 29 identified as Participants ranged in age from 18 years old to 64 years old ( M = 24.90, SD = 7.96) 7 1 participants self 41 participants self identified as 12 participants self ide 5 participants self 1 participant self 2 participants self identified as to the LEAP Q and the demographics questions, the researcher identified 67 participants as having a heritage language 51 participants as being bilingual in a non HL, and 33 participants as being monolingual 17 p articipants identified as being first gene ration, 44 as being second generation, 20 as being third generation, and 73 as

PAGE 27

20 being fourth generation. Generations were defined for participants in alignment with Fuligni (1997), with the specifications of I and my mother were born in another country for first generation, I was born in the US, and my mother was born in another country for second generation, I and my mother were born in the US, and my grandparents were born in another country for third generation, and I and my mother were born in the US. And, as far as I know, my grandparents were born in the US for fourth generation Instrumentation The current research was conducted as a survey and was distributed as a paper questionnaire during class. The questionnaire contained a modified Language Exp erience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP Q) the Multi Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) and the learner empowerment scale, as well as a detailed demographics section. Questions were ols and the level to which they felt their peers valued their languages. The learner empowerment scale was modified for use in the family context as well as the school context by changing some of the item's keywords (e.g. "teacher" to "family"; "classroom to "home"). Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP Q) This questionnaire was developed by Marian, Blumenfeld, and Kaushanskaya (2 007). I tems 1 ( Please list all the languages you know in order of dominance ) 2 ( Please list all the lan guages you know in order of acquisition ) 3 ( Please list what percentage of the time you are currently and on average exposed to each language ) and 5 ( When choose a language to speak with a person who is equally fluent in all your languages, what percenta ge of time would you choose to speak each language? ) from the first page The second page of the

PAGE 28

21 tems 3 ( On a s cale of zero to te n, please select your level of proficiency in speaking, understanding, and reading Language X from the scroll down menus ) and 5 ( Please rate to what extent you are currently exposed to Language X in the following contexts ) were judged to be relevant to the purpose of th e current study and were selected from the LEAP Q and reformatted to allow for paper distribution (e.g. checkboxes and tables replaced drop down menus). F urthermore, the wording on certain items were adjusted for both clari ty and to alig n with the context of the study (e.g. the term tapes / self introduction 5). The abo ve items were incorporated into the demographics section of the questionnaire used in the current study as items 7 10 on the first page and items 1 3 on the second page. Formal bilingual educa tion. experiences of formal bilingual education, a self report measure was placed after the LEAP Q. This measure consisted of a simple table in which participants were asked to indicate with a check mark i n which grade levels, if any, they received formal education during Afterschool/Weekend lessons or in Regular (Monday Friday) school. The grade level options consisted of Kindergarten/Pre K, Elementary School, Middle School, High School, or University/Voc ational School. Learner empowerment scale. Frym ier, Shulman, and Houser (1996) developed a learner empowerment instrument using a frequency 5 point Likert scale ( from Never to Very Often ) This scale contains four subscales based on major components of p sychological empowerment: meaningfulness, competence, impact, and choice.

PAGE 29

2 2 School context. Certain items were removed from the Learner empowerment scale as they were judged to not be relevant to the purpose of this study; some items were removed because th ey were not directly translatable into the family context. T he wording on certain items was also adjusted to aid in reading clarity The items that were removed were: Item 30: I am able to perform the necessary activities to succeed in my class (from the Competence subscale), Item 21: My success in this class is under my control (from the Impact subscale), Item 28: The tasks required by my class are valued by potential employers (from the Impact subscale), Item 25: I find my class to be interesting (from the Meaningfulness subscale), and Item 24: I have a high level of autonomy in accomplishing my work (from the Choice subscale). Following the removal of these items, the total number of items in each context of the learner empowerment scale was reduced fr om 30 to 25. Family context. In order to better align with the current literature, this study considered empowering experiences from the family context as well; in order to determine whether or not empowering experiences in the family context align with t he state of family relations discussed in other studies (e.g. Oh & Fuligni, 2010), this study also collected data empowerment scale (Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996) into the family context; terms such Multi Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) I n order to understand how language use may be tied to feelings of ethnic identity, t he Mult i Ethnic Identity Measure ( Roberts, et al., 1999) was incorporated into this study The MEIM consists of twelve items measured on a four point Likert scale ranging from

PAGE 30

23 Strongly Disagree to Strong ly Agree. An additional item was appended to this measure to further connect it to language experiences: 13. Part of my ethnic i dentity is the language I speak. Perceived Value of Heritage Language scale. A simple self report value scale was incorporat ed into this questionnaire. This sc ale was intended to discern the level participants felt their languages were valued by their peers Th e scale was four items, with each item asking about the level of value for a different period ucation (elementary school, middle school, high school, and university/college). The items read: When I was in [elementary/middle/high/university] school, I felt that all my languages were valued by my peers. Like the MEIM, this was measured on a four po int Likert scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Hypotheses family and school contexts by exploring how language proficiency in an HL might be connected to Research Question 1. What is the relationship between proficiency in a heritage language and ethnic identity? Hypothesis 1. It was hypothesized that proficiency in a heritage language would be a signif icant predictor of the Rationale edicted by proficiency in an HL (Oh & Fuligni, 2010).

PAGE 31

24 Method of analysis. In order to examine the varying influences on ethnic identity, Oh and Fuligni (2010) used a hierarchical regression analysis. Likewise, the current stu dy used a hierarchical linear regression analysis ex ami ning the correlation between the predictor variable s of language proficiency (in a HL), and the dependent variable ethnic identity ; the current study also controlled for gender generation, language use and perceived value of HL P y in an HL was determined using the a combination of the demographics section and the modified LEAP Q, the former of which was used to determine whether the participant was a heritage language user, and the latter of which was used to determine the partici of ethnic identity were determined using the MEIM. Research Question 2. Is proficiency in a heritage language correlated to experiences of empowerment among family members? Is the same true for experiences of empowerment at school or among friends? Hypothesis 2 (a) It was hypothesized that proficiency in a heritage language was positively corr elated to experiences of empowerment among family members, but may not be correlated to experiences of empowerment at school or among friends. Rationale. Oh and Fuligni (2010) found that proficiency in a heritage language affects the quality of familial relations not empowerment within the family; however, the definition of empowerment used by the current research is based on the concept of self ba sic psychologi cal needs ( Deci & Ryan 200 8 ). Although relatedness is not one of the four components explicitly included in the learner empowerment scale (Frymier, Shulman, &

PAGE 32

25 Houser, 1996) used in this study, it is nevertheless conceptually connected to the scale overal l sense of impact to be possible. Therefore, on the basis that proficiency in a heritage language predicts the closeness of family relations, and that close fam ily relationships are necessary to experience empowerment among family members, the current research proposes that proficiency in a heritage language will likewise act as a predictor for experiences of Method of analysis. This study used a hierarchical l inear regression analysis to analyze the relationship between the predictor variable of proficiency in a heritage language and the dependent variable family empowerment. Family empowerment w as measured using the learner emp owerment scale adjusted for the family context Hypothesis 2(b). It was hypothesized that proficiency in a heritage language will be positively correlated to experiences of empowerment at school or among friends if the participants perceive their HL to be valued by their peers, and negatively or not significantly correlated to experiences of empowerment at school or among friends if the participants perceive their HL to not be valued by their peers. Rationale. Although not a topic frequently studied in q uantitative research, t he current research also explored the question of whether or not the potential for proficiency in a heritage language to predict empowerment among family members extended into the school environment as well There is some evidence t hat quality bilingual programs that demonstrate value for both languages (not only for the dominant language in that society) can become empowering experiences for students who are HL users (Cummins, 1986; Tuafuti & McCaffery, 200 5; Gao, 2009). This sugge sts that how much their peers value the

PAGE 33

26 at school Wong Fillmore (2000) also demonstrated that when a HL is devalued by their peers, students may view proficiency in a HL as a deficit; in this case, proficiency in their HL classroom. Method of analysis. This study used a linear regression analysis to analyze the relationship betwee n the predictor variable of proficiency in a heritage language and the dependent variable school empowerment with perceived value of HL as the moderating variable School empowerment was measured using a modified version of the learner empowerment scale. Research Question 3 Does time spent in a formal bilingual education program correlate with later experiences of empowerment ? How does it affect later experiences of empowerment ? Hypothesis 3 ( a ). It was hypothesized that time spent in a formal bilingual education family. Rationale. to great er levels of proficiency in the HL (Smit, 2012; Gao, 2009). Likewise, proficiency in an HL has been linked to closer familial relations (Oh & Fuligni, 2010) and experiences of empowerment in their cultural community (Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005). Therefore the current study proposes that there is also a connection between education in a bilingual

PAGE 34

27 Method of analysis. This study used a hierarchical linear regression analyses to analyze the relatio nship between the predictor variable of time spent in a bilingual school and the dependent variable of family empowerment. Family empowerment was measured using the learner empowerment scale adjusted for the family context. Hypothesis 3(b ). It was hypoth esized that time spent in a formal bilingual education program would be positively correlated with later experiences of empowerment at school or Rationale. through the minority language (for example, Spanish) for all or part of the school day perform as well in English academic skills as comparable to students instructed totally th at quality bilingual programs can be empowering experiences for students who are HL users. Method of analysis. This study used a hierarchical linear regression analyses to analyze the relationship between the predictor variable of time spent in a bilingu al school and the dependent variable of school empowerment. School empowerment was measured using a modified version of the learner empowerment scale. Research Question 4 Do individuals who are not heritage language users experience higher levels of emp owerment when they speak a second language? Hypothesis 4(a ). It was hypothesized that there is no significant difference between individuals who speak a second, non heritage language and individuals who only speak the dominant language (in this case, Engl ish) with regard to their experiences of empowerment among their family members.

PAGE 35

28 Rationale. The hypothesized connection between proficiency in an HL and the closeness of familial relations and strength of shared ethnic identity (Oh & Fuligni, 2010; Tuafuti & McCaffery, 2005). For individuals who learn a second language which is not a HL, the binding aspect of a shared home language is absent; the current study therefor e proposes that language proficiency in a non heritage language does not affect empowerment Method of analysis. In order to measure the differences between monolingual participants and bilingual (in a non HL) participants an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with Language Type (monolingual participants or bilingual participants) being the independent variable and Empowerment in the Family Context being the dependent variable Bilingu al ability in a second, non HL was identified using a combination of the LEAP Q and the demographics section of the questionnaire, as was monolingualism. Family empowerment was measured using the learner empowerment scale adjusted for the family context. Hypothesis 4 ( b ). It was hypothesized that individuals who speak a second, non heritage language experience statistically significantly higher levels of empowerment in the school environment than individuals who only speak the dominant language (in this c ase, English). Rationale. Existing research into experiences of empowerment among native speakers of the dominant language (in this case, English) as they connect to proficiency in a second, non HL are limited at best. The current study therefore explor ed this relatively new question by expanding its primary question of the relationship between empowerment and

PAGE 36

29 language proficiency among HL users to include all bilingual individuals. As language can be considered a form of cultural capital (Bourdieu, 198 6; Lan, 2011), its successful employment may also contribute to experiences of empowerment in the social (e.g. school) context. Lan (2011) noted in her study that individuals with a privileged social status (referring in her study specifically to Western privileged individuals can employ their native English language ability as social capital in countries where E nglish is not the dominant language, perhaps the ability to speak a non English language in English dominant America would likewise be experienced as a form of cultural capital and empowerment for these individuals. It was therefore tentatively hypothesiz ed that proficiency in a second, non heritage language may contribute to higher levels of empowerment in the school context than might be experienced by monolingual individuals. Method of analysis. In order to measure the differences between monolingual participants and bilingual (in a non HL) participants on empowerment an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with Language Type (monolingual participants or bilingual participants) being the independent variable and Empowerment in the Fa mily Context being the dependent variable Bilingual ability in a second, non HL was identified using a combination of the LEAP Q and the demographics section of the questionnaire, as was monolingualism. School empowerment was measured usi ng the learner empowerment scale

PAGE 37

30 CHAPTER IV RESULTS Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected in the questionnaire. However, the open ended qualitative questions were not frequently responded to by participants, and the responses that were received did n ot shed any additional understanding on the quantitative findings. Therefore, this study focused instead on the results of the quan t it ative measure s, which are reported below. All tests and analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24 software. Validity and Reliability Tests Empowerment measures As a test of the validity of the empo werment measure s the author first performed an e xploratory f actor a nalysis using a principal components analysis with a varimax rotation ; the software was set to extract a fixed number of 4 factors Although this test showed support for the overall sub sc ale groupings in both measures some items loaded higher on a different sub scale. Item s 7 and 17 loaded with a low value in all factors in the school empowerment scale. The results exploratory factor analyses can be seen below in Tables 1.1 ( family conte xt) and 1.2 ( school context).

PAGE 38

31 As can be seen in Table 1. 1 many factors loaded in multiple subscales, even when factor loadings below 0.4 were suppressed. There was a great deal of overlap between the subscales in the family context, particularly betwe en Meaningfulness and Impact and between Meaningfulness and Choice. The Choice grouping was not strongly supported by this factor analysis.

PAGE 39

32 Below are the results of the exploratory factor analysis of the empowerment scale in the school context. As ca n be seen in Table 1. 2 several factors loaded across subscales, even when small factor loadings (i.e. those less than 0.4) are not displayed. There also appears to be some overlap between the Choice subscale and the Impact subscale; neither the Choice su bscale nor the Impact subscale groupings were supported by this factor analysis. However, the

PAGE 40

33 Meaningfulness subscale was strongly supported, with six out of the seven Meaningfulness items loading within that subscale. Items 7 and 17 loaded with values t oo low to be displayed in this table. Following the exploratory factor analyses, the author performed reliability tests on the sub presented in Table 1 .3 As can be seen in Ta ble 1 .3 all four subscales show acceptable levels of reliability in both the family and the school contexts In the school context, the lowest reliability was for 0.795). With the exception of within the Choice subscale, all items within the subscales were supported by the reliability tests. The Choice subscale for both the school and the family contexts showed that the removal of item 7 would raise the overall reliability of the The reli ability tests therefore supported the subscale groupings.

PAGE 41

34 Other measures. The author also ran reliability tests on the Multi Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) and the Perceived Value of HL scale. The resul ts are displayed below in Table 1.4. As can be seen in Table 1.4, b oth the MEIM ( = 0.918) and the Perceived Value of HL scale ( = 0.822) show high levels of internal consistency ; however, the MEIM is above 0.90, which suggest s there may be s ome redund ancy among the items. Data Analysis In order to test the various hypothesis, multiple regression analyses were performed (Hypotheses 1 3), as well an ANOVA (Hypothesis 4). The results of these analyses are reported in the following sections. Table 2.1 sho ws the intercorrelations among the discussed variables. As can be seen in Table 2.1, there were a number of statistically significant correlations between the variables Gender was found to be statistically significantly correlated with Generation ( r = 0.321, p < 0.01 ), but not with Language Use, Language

PAGE 42

35 Proficiency, Bilingual Schooling, Empowerment in the School Context, Empowerment in the Family Context, Ethnic Identity, or Perceived Value of HL. Language Use was found to be significantly correlated with Language Proficiency ( r = 0.546, p < 0.01 ) and Generation ( r = 0.380, p < 0.01 ). Language Proficiency was also found to be significantly correlated with Bilingual Schooling ( r = 0.352, p < 0.01 ), Ethnic Identity ( r = 0.346, p < 0.01 ), and Generation ( r = 0.606, p < 0.001 ). Empowerment in the School Context was found to be significantly correlated with Empowerment in the Family Context ( r = 0.265, p < 0.05) while Empowerment in the Family Context was also found to be significantly correlated with Per ceived Value of HL ( r = 0.262, p < 0.05 ). Finally, Perceived Value of HL was found to be significantly correlated with Generation ( r = 0.239, p < 0.05 ). However, there was no significant correlation between Language Proficiency and empowerment in either t he school or family context. Hypothesis 1 : Heritage l anguage and e thnic i dentity In order to test the connection between heritage language proficiency and ethnic identity, the author performed a hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The results are displayed below in Table 3.1.

PAGE 43

36 As can be seen in Table 3.1, w hen considered alone, Language Proficiency among HL users was a statistically significant predictor of Ethnic Identity ( = 0.317, p < 0.001). However, Language Proficiency ceased to be a significant predictor of Ethnic Identity when considered together with Language Use, and no other variables were significant predictors of Ethnic Identity. Hypothesis 2 (a) : Heritage la ngu age and e mpowerment in the f amily c ontext In order to test the connection between Language Proficiency among HL users and Empowerment in the Family Context, a hierarchical multiple regression was performed. The results of this analysis can be seen in Ta ble 4.1.

PAGE 44

37 As can be seen in Table 4.1, t he multiple regression analysis showed Perceived Value of HL to be a statistically significant predictor of Empowerment in the Family Context ( = 0.266, p < 0.05) ; however, Language Proficiency was not a significant predictor of Empowerment in the Family Context Hypothesis 2 ( b ) : Heritage la nguage and e mpowerment in the school c ontext In order to test how Language Proficiency was connected to Empowerment in the School context when considering Perceived Value of HL, the author performed a multiple regression analysis with Perceived Value of HL as the moderating variable. The results of this analysis are displayed in Table 4.2.

PAGE 45

38 As can be seen in Table 4.2, t he moderated multiple regression analysis showed Language Proficiency to have no significant effect on Empowerment in the School Context when mod erated by Perceived Value of HL, nor was the interaction effect between Language Proficiency and Perceived Value of HL found to be a significant predictor of Empowerment in the School Context. Hypothesis 3 ( a ) : Bilingual schooling and e mpowerment in the family context In order to test the connection between Bilingual Schooling and Empowerment in the Family Context, a hierarchical multiple regression was performed. The results can be seen in Table 5.1. As can be seen in Table 5.1, the hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that Bilingual School ing, Gender, and Generation were not signific ant predictors of Empowerment in the Family Context. Hypothesis 3 ( b ) : Bilingual schooling and e mpowerment in the school context. In order to test the connection between Bilingual Schooling and Empowerment in the School Context, a hierarchical multiple reg ression was performed. The results can be seen in Table 5.2.

PAGE 46

39 As can be seen in Table 5.2, the hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed that Bilingual Schooling, Gender, and Generation were not significant predictors of Empowerment in the School Context. Hypothesis 4: Non h eritage l anguage b ilingualism and e mpowerment in the family and school context s This study was also interested in how Language Proficiency was connected to empowerment among individuals who were bilingual in a non HL. The int ercorrelations between variables among non HL bilingual individuals and monolingual individuals are displayed in Table 6.1. As can be seen in Table 6.1, there were a number of statistically significant correlations between variables. However, the corre lations of particular interest in this question were between the empowerment variables and Language Type, between which there was no statistically significant correlation.

PAGE 47

40 The author also performed an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the difference be tween Bilingual participants (in a non HL) and Monolingual participants in their experiences of empowerment in the family and school contexts. The results of this analysis is displayed in Table 6.2. As can be seen in Table 6.2, Bilingual participants sh owed slightly lower levels of Empowerment in the Family context ( M = 4.067, SD = 0.579) than did Monolingual participants ( M = 4.112, SD = 0.639). In the school context, Bilingual participants showed slightly higher levels of empowerment ( M = 3.790, SD = 0.476) than did Monolingual participants ( M = 3.780, SD = 0.488). However, these differences were not statistically significant in either the family context ( F (1, 82) = 0.110, n.s. ) or the school context ( F (1,82) = 0.009, n.s. )

PAGE 48

41 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION A ND IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH Discussion The current study was a quantitative survey method which employed a questionnaire The purpose was t o assess how proficiency in a heritage language was connected to ross family and school contexts. Proficiency in a heritage language was not found to be a significant predictor of empowerment in either the family or the school context. However, there were significant correlations between other variables, most notably between how strongly participants perceived their peers to value their heritage language and their experiences of empowerment in the family context. Interpretation of Results Research Question 1: Heritage language and ethnic identity. As was hypothesized, Language P roficiency in a HL was found to be a predictor of Ethnic Identity when Language Proficiency was entered as the sole predictor in the regression model This is in alignment with the findings of prior research (e.g. Oh & Fuligni, 2010), and adds support ritage language is related to a stronger feeling of Immigration generation was also found to be but it was not shown to be a significant predictor of ethnic identity in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. This may be due to the small sample size. Research Question 2: Heritage language and empowerment in the family and school contexts. Although Language Proficiency was hypothesized to be a predictor of

PAGE 49

42 Empowerment in the Family Context, it did not show any statistically significant predictive value nor did it have a significant correlation with Empowerment in the Family Context Howeve r, Perceived Value of HL was found to be a predictor of Empowerment in the Family Context. As proficiency in a HL was a significant predictor of family relations in prior studies (e.g. Oh & Fuligni, 2010), this suggests that empowerment in the family cont ext is a different enough construct from family relations to hav e a completely different set of predictors ; it is also possible that the age range between participants caused some participants to consider family in terms of different contexts (e.g. their c hildren as opposed to their parents) Wh ile prior research found that proficiency in a HL may strengthen feelings of conn ectedness within a family, the results of the current research suggest that it is the value a HL user perceives their HL to hold in so ciety not their proficiency in their HL, which predicts their experiences of empowerment. The importance of valuing HLs has been demonstrated in studies on bilingual education, which have found that for bilingual programs to be successful, instructors mu st demonstrate equal value for both languages (e.g. Shannon, 1995); likewise, Tuafuti and McCaffery (2005) made the point that quality bilingual programs can be empowering experiences for students. Considering the combined perspectives of these studies, i t is not surprising that the current research found a connection between Perceived Value of HL and empowerment. However, neither Language Proficiency nor Perceived Value of HL were found to be statistically significant predictors of E mpowerment in the Sch ool Context; the interaction effect between Language Proficiency and Perceived Value of HL was likewise found to have no predictive value on Empowerment in the School Context This may be due to the rarity of opportunities in the school context where Engl ish is often the dominant language in terms

PAGE 50

43 of not only instruction but also peer relations considered relevant. Research Question 3: Bilingual school and empowerment in the family and school contexts. P ast experienc e in bilingual schools was not a significant predictor of empowerment in either the school or the family contexts, nor were there any significant correlations between time spent in bilingual school and empowerment in either context. However, Bilingual Schooli ng was significantly positively correlated with Language Proficiency, suggesting that time spent in bilingual school may be a contributing factor in HL users abilities to develop strong proficiency in their HL. Bilingual Schooling was also significantly positively corre lated to Perceived Value of HL. T his may be due to bilingual which embeds a sense of value into the HL which may not be as achievable when the HL is a ssociated only with domestic, non academic and non occupational activities. Research Question 4: Non heritage language bilingualism and empowerment in the family and school contexts. There was no statistically significant difference between how individual s who were bilingual in a non HL and individuals who were monolingual experienced empowerment in either the family context or the school context. This lack of group difference in the family context is aligned with the hypothesis, as skill in a second, non heritage language would not have the same implications regarding family relations as have been seen in past studies on heritage languages and relation relations (e.g. Oh & Fuligni, 2010). The lack of difference in experiences of empowerment in the school context between non HL bilinguals and monolinguals may be due to the few opportunities for bilingual abilities to be demonstrated in the school setting, which is a largely English only

PAGE 51

44 environment; without the opportunities to use the second language in a school setting, the second language may not be able to take on the role of a form of social capital. Limitations of this Study There were a number of limitations to this study. Firstly, there were several limitations in the sample. The sample collected had a relatively small number of participants belonging to the target population (HL users), and the group sizes in the between participants ANOVA (between non HL bilingual participants and monolingual participants) were likewise fairly small. These smal l sample sizes make it difficult to see significant results in sample was also limited to primarily university students at the University of Colorado Denver; it is possible the results would have changed significantly if the sample had been pulled from a broader representative of the overall population in terms of age and personal experiences. The research design was also a limiting factor in this study. The survey method allows for limited versatility and control over environmental factors The format of the questionnaire (primarily consisting of Likert scale items) also constrained abilities to respond to items with complete accuracy to their person experiences and interpretations of the items Therefore, it is possible that a different method of data collection (e.g. experimental, interview) may have been able to produce more comprehensive results. Strengths of this Study A major strength of this st udy is its i nterdisciplinary nature. By considering theoretical lenses from the field of bilingualism as well as from the field of psychology, this study embraces and combines multiple perspectives on empowerment and language use. This

PAGE 52

45 study also extend e d the focus of the current body of bilingual research past the scope of heritage language users to briefly explore whether proficiency in a second, non heritage language has similar implications to proficiency in a heritage language. Future Research This s tudy raises a number of unanswered questions which could be addressed in future research. There were a number of statistically significant correlations between correlati Future studies are needed to consider the relationship between these variables in more detail. questions was between partic i ng and whether or not they perceived their peers as valuing their HL. As time spent in bilin gual schooling was connected to their experiences of empowerment in the family context, it is interesting that directly c orrelated to their experiences of empowerment in the family context. More research is needed to understand why this might be the case. Future research can also work to consider these questions with a larger overall sample size in order to allow for larger group s of language types (i.e. HL users, non HL bilinguals, and monolinguals), and to also include populations with broader range of age s and personal backgrounds.

PAGE 53

46 Implications and Conclusion T his study has wide implications across the field of bilingual education, where the question of how to empower students of varying language backgrounds remains prevalent and only partially answered. While the main questions of whether or not language proficiency predicts empowerment were not supported by this study, there were some other sta rtling results. Firstly, while proficiency in a HL was not found to predict empowerment in predictor for empowerment in the family context. This supports the findings of past research on value and non dominant languages, which suggests that the societal value ascribed to dominat ed languages is connected to the levels of empowerment experienced by the speakers of tho se domina t ed languages ( e.g Cummins, 1986 ). bilingual schools was found to be connected to how participants perceived their peers valued their HL the academic language and t Both of these findings have implications on the way languages are taught and addressed in schools. It is em powerment in some contexts; therefore, it might be important that educators make direct and intentional efforts to ascribe equal value to all languages spoken and discussed in their classrooms. Likewise, the connection between bilingual schooling and how individuals perceive the societal value of languages supports the practice of bilingual education as a means of encouraging positive feelings toward heritage langu a ges.

PAGE 54

47 REFERENCES Bourdieu, P. (1986) The f orms of c apital I n J. Richardson ( E d ) Handbo ok of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (241 258) New York: Green Wood Press. Capps, R., Fix, M., Murray, J., Ost, J., Passel, J. S., & Herwantoro, S. (2005). The new ind Act Washington, D. C.: The Urban Institute. Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13 (3), 471 482. Crawford, J. (2001). Proposition 203: Anti bilingual initiativ e in Arizona. Language Policy Web Site & Emporium Retrieved from http://www.languagepolicy.net/archives/az unz.htm Cummins, J. (2000). Biliteracy, empowerment, and transformative pedagogy. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241492125 _Biliteracy_Empowerment_and_Tr ansformative_Pedagogy Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56 (1), 18 35. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psycholog ical well Canadian Psychology, 49 (1), 14 23. ESL class. TeSOL Quarterly, 33(3), 501 513. Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., Houser, M. (19 96). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45 181 200. Fuligni, A. J. (1997). The academic achievement of adolescents from immigrant families: The roles of family background, attitudes, and behavior. Child Development 68 261 273. Gao, F. (2009). Language and power: Korean practice. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 30 (6), 526 534. Garc a TESOL Q uarterly, 43 322 326. Heller, M. (2001). Globalization and the commodification of bilingualism in Canada. In D. Block & D. Cameron (Eds.), Globalization and language teaching (pp. 47 67). London: Routledge.

PAGE 55

48 Holcomb McCoy, C. (2005). Ethnic identity deve lopment in early adolescence: Implications and recommendations for middle school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 9 (2), 120 127. Imbens Bailey, A. L. (1996). Ancestral language acquisition: Implications for aspects of ethnic identity among Arme nian American children and adolescents. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 422 443. Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Liden, R. C. (1999). Psychological empowerment as a multidimensional construct: A test of construct validity. Educational and P sychological Measurement, 59 (1), 127 142. Lan, P. C. (2011). White privilege, language capital, and cultural ghettolization: Western high skilled migrants in Taiwan. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37 (10), 1669 1693 Oh, J. S. & Fuligni, A. J. (2010). The role of heritage language development in the ethnic identity and family relations of adolescents from immigrant backgrounds. Social Development, 19 (1), 202 220. Mady, C. (2012). Official language bilingualism to the exclusion of multi linguali sm: Immigrant student perspectives on French as a second official language in "English dominant" Canada. Language and Intercultural Communication, 12 (1), 74 89. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The language experience and proficienc y questionnaire (LEAP Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50 940 967. Matthews, R. A., Diaz, W. M., & Steve G. Cole. (2002). The organizational empowerment scale. Personnel R eview, 32 (3), 297 318. Menon, S. T. (1999). Psychological empowerment: Definition, measurement, and validation. Canadian Journal of Behaviour Science, 31 (3), 161 164. Potowski, K. (2013). Heritage learners of Spanish. In K. Geeslin (Ed.), Handbook of Sec ond language Spanish (404 422). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Roberts, R. E., Phinney, J. S., Masse, L. C., Chen, Y. R., Roberts, C. R., Romero, A. (1999). The structure of ethnic identity of young adolescents from diverse ethnocultural groups. Journal o f Early Adolescence, 19 (3), 301 322. Rydenvald, M. Elite bilingualism? Language use among multilingual teenagers of Swedish background in European Schools and international schools in Europe. Journal of Research in International Education, 14 (3), 213 227.

PAGE 56

49 Shannon, S. M. (1995). The hegemony of English: A case study of one bilingual classroom as a site of resistance. Linguistics and Education, 7 175 200. Short, P. M., Rinehard, J. S. (1992). School Participant empowerment scale: Assessment of level of empowerment within the school environment. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52 951 960. indigenous languages? Nawa Journal of Language and Cultu re, 6 (2), 82 95. Thomas, K. W. & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An Academy of Management Review, 15 (4), 666 681. Tseng, V., & Fuligni, A. J. (2000). Parent adolescent languag e use and relationships among immigrant families with East Asian, Filipino, and Latin American backgrounds. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62 465 476. Tuafuti, P. & McCaffery, J. (2005). Family and community empowerment through bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8 (5), 480 503. Valds G. (2001). Heritage language students: Profiles and possibilities. In J. K. Peyton, D. A. Ranard & S. McGinnis (Eds.), Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a Nation al Resource (pp. 37 77). McHenry, IL: Delta Systems Company Inc. Winsler, A ., Daz, R. M., Espinosa, L., & Rodrguez, J. L. (1999). When learning a second language does not mean losing the first: Bilingual language development in low income, Spanish speak ing children attending bilingual preschool. Child Development, 70, 349 362. Wong Filmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should educators be concerned? Theory into Practice, 39 (4), 203 210.

PAGE 57

50 APPENDIX A: University of Colorado Denver Colorado Multi Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) Approval

PAGE 58

51

PAGE 59

52 APPENDIX B: Survey Questionnaire

PAGE 60

53

PAGE 61

54

PAGE 62

55

PAGE 63

56

PAGE 64

57 APPENDIX C: Questionnaire Consent